Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK

"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Father Haskell wrote:
>> > On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> >>> BillinDetroit wrote:
>> >>> > Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
>> >>> rebut
>> >>> > this clown?
>> >>> It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
>> >>> Lew
>> >> You are entitled to your opinion.
>>
>> > It's also divisive.
>>
>> Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
>
> The author of the religious bullshit, for making more than
> one flavor.

I blame Richard Catto. <eg>
--

"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
balls to get old!"

In article <[email protected]>, Barry Lennox
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:25:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK
> >
>
> Oh, Yawn !!
>
> The same bible says my neighbour must die as I saw him picking up
> sticks on a Sunday, So that's that, we know that cannot be negotiated.
> However , I have one question I hope you can help me with, It talks of
> stoning, Now stones are heavy and I have a bad back, they are costly
> and just so awkward and passe. Can't I just run him over with the
> tractor instead ?

I think if you're towing a rock picker it's okay. Just to be safe,
though, make it a stone boat.

Pork ribs with dry rub on them in the fridge right now... Mmmm.

On Jul 8, 7:25 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK
>
> Both the Bible and Qur'an prohibit the eating of pork. Muslims are
> aware of this prohibition and observe it strictly. However, most
> readers of the Bible say they do not know where they can find this in
> the Bible. In the book of Leviticus, Chapter 11, v. 7, it is recorded
> that God declares the pig to be unclean for believers. Then, in verse
> 8, God says: 'You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses;
> they are unclean for you'. This command is repeated in Deuteronomy
> 14;7-8. Then, in Isaiah 65:2-4, and 66:17, God issues a stern warning
> against those who eat pork.

(snip overlabored and boring rest of message)

God, Satan, Paradise, and Hell all vanished one day in my fifteenth
year, when I quite abruptly lost my faith. [...]and afterwards, to
prove
my new-found atheism, I bought myself a rather tasteless ham
sandwich,
and so partook for the first time of the forbidden flesh of the swine.
No
thunderbolt arrived to strike me down. [...] From that day to this I
have
thought of myself as a wholly secular person.

-- Salman Rushdie, In God We Trust, 1985

On Jul 8, 11:57 am, Russ <[email protected]> wrote:
> MMmmmm.... Pork chops...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK

MMMmmmmmmm..baconnnnnn...and schnaugages..mmmmm

I ate a Begging Strip of bacon once (on a bet)....dammit...I'm still
begging for more...

On Jul 8, 9:26 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:

SNIP

> (Matthew 15:10-11) . . .With that he called the crowd >near and said to them: "Listen and get the sense of it: >11 Not what enters into [his] mouth defiles a man; but it >is what proceeds out of [his] mouth that defiles a man."
>
> Do not let a Muslim teach you the Bible.
>

Nicely done, Bill. I like the quote and the comment.

And on a less serious note, we in Texas have always been a little
suspicious of pork, where beef is king.

Then we found out how to make everyone happy many years ago by
following this strict religion in preparing pork:

- Don't buy pork chops in the store unless you know the butcher and he
can cut them 3/4" or thicker for you. It is best to cut your own
chops from a loin

- Good chops (see above) should be cooked over a wood fire

- If you are stuck with "skinnys", then bread them in seasoned flour
and fry them like chicken. A bunch of them

- Ham is good an can be eaten any time. Smoking your own ham is...
dare I say it... divine?

- Shoulder is great. Pulled and seasoned, it makes great tacos,
sandwiches, gorditas, etc. I have a friend who likes it chunky and
sauced like a chopped brisket sandwich

- Pork ribs are also good for eating, and I have noticed no ill
effects from their ingestion, nor any random smitings or lightening
bolts.

All social, health and religious requirements for ribs can be met
easily by the method of preparation. A good, spicy dry rub applied a
couple of hours before smoking is good. (It is good here to give
proper thanks for finding meaty racks.) Baby backs need about 4 hours
or so in the smoker, and spares need about 7 or so, depending on the
thickness and the exact cut. With help from above (no rain, storming,
or excess wind) you can turn out a meat dish that should be found
acceptable. I've never had anyone turn away from a plate of my ribs,
actually.

My friend the Baptist deacon could eat more ribs than I could smoke.
His deeply religous mother (didn't even dance!) was known to down a
few herself.

I think as long as a few proper guidelines are observed and the proper
nod given to the powers that be, pork is OK and can be eaten without
fear of lightening strikes. It IS important to watch the smoke times
on the ribs though, as rushing them will end in some kind of disaster,
I have no doubt. Hopefully not a plague, eh?

Robert

On Jul 8, 6:25 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK

Everyone should note that these pinheads filling the net with this
noise are
fulfilling (in their own bizzare minds) a religious imperative - to
offer the "infidels"
a chance to redemption (i.e., Subjugation to their malignant form of
Islam)
before making jihad upon them. The Qur'an requires that they give the
rest of
us a chance before fulfilling holy obligations like weaponizing their
children as
suicide bombers, killing innocent non-combatants, blowing up public
places,
keeping slaves, abusing women, and violating little boys - you know,
all the
things that Moses, Abraham, Jesus and the other great religious minds
of
history taught ...

It would be nice if the decent but silent majority of Muslims would
take a more
public stand on this and condemn the pinheads for what they are:
Genocidal
Maniacs...

On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > BillinDetroit wrote:
>
> > > Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually rebut
> > > this clown?
>
> > It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
>
> > Lew
>
> You are entitled to your opinion.

It's also divisive.

On Jul 9, 1:16 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Jul 8, 9:26 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > (Matthew 15:10-11) . . .With that he called the crowd >near and said to them: "Listen and get the sense of it: >11 Not what enters into [his] mouth defiles a man; but it >is what proceeds out of [his] mouth that defiles a man."
>
> > Do not let a Muslim teach you the Bible.
>
> Nicely done, Bill. I like the quote and the comment.
>
> And on a less serious note, we in Texas have always been a little
> suspicious of pork, where beef is king.
>
> Then we found out how to make everyone happy many years ago by
> following this strict religion in preparing pork:
>
> - Don't buy pork chops in the store unless you know the butcher and he
> can cut them 3/4" or thicker for you. It is best to cut your own
> chops from a loin
>
> - Good chops (see above) should be cooked over a wood fire
>
> - If you are stuck with "skinnys", then bread them in seasoned flour
> and fry them like chicken. A bunch of them
>
> - Ham is good an can be eaten any time. Smoking your own ham is...
> dare I say it... divine?
>
> - Shoulder is great. Pulled and seasoned, it makes great tacos,
> sandwiches, gorditas, etc. I have a friend who likes it chunky and
> sauced like a chopped brisket sandwich
>
> - Pork ribs are also good for eating, and I have noticed no ill
> effects from their ingestion, nor any random smitings or lightening
> bolts.
>
> All social, health and religious requirements for ribs can be met
> easily by the method of preparation. A good, spicy dry rub applied a
> couple of hours before smoking is good. (It is good here to give
> proper thanks for finding meaty racks.) Baby backs need about 4 hours
> or so in the smoker, and spares need about 7 or so, depending on the
> thickness and the exact cut. With help from above (no rain, storming,
> or excess wind) you can turn out a meat dish that should be found
> acceptable. I've never had anyone turn away from a plate of my ribs,
> actually.
>
> My friend the Baptist deacon could eat more ribs than I could smoke.
> His deeply religous mother (didn't even dance!) was known to down a
> few herself.
>
> I think as long as a few proper guidelines are observed and the proper
> nod given to the powers that be, pork is OK and can be eaten without
> fear of lightening strikes. It IS important to watch the smoke times
> on the ribs though, as rushing them will end in some kind of disaster,
> I have no doubt. Hopefully not a plague, eh?

Yup, cut 'em thick, a little 4-way rub, a handful of your favorite
smokewood (which puts back on topic -- any favorites?),
nothing more needed.

On Jul 8, 6:22 pm, "TH" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I find it amazing that some one believes that god is a food critic. I
> applaud people who refrain from some activities as a personal means of
> professing their faith or as a form of self sacrifice - much as I applaud
> Kirsty Alley for loosing weight.. However I am revolted by "crazies" that
> want god (or themselves) to smite you if you don't toe their lines. This
> thinking went out in the 1500's in the civilized world.

Irony and absurdity quite escape some of these wingnuts- especially
their own absurdity.

Now when you see how tolerant the Muslims were who occupied parts
of Spain in the 15th century, well! Especially in contrast to the
Catholic
church of that time, and the islamist extremists of today.

Not to mention that only the current wingnuts allege that one becomes
a martyr by blowing him/her-self up. Perverted? Is this a phase
they're
going through?

J

A simple google search would tell you that Deuteronomy was a popular
steak house in the olden days.....they made a killing off that ad
campain....not even Jesus could get a reservation there.....(the
rumors that he tried to tip the maitre'd a $20 are blaphemous)

On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> Father Haskell wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >>> BillinDetroit wrote:
> >>> > Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually rebut
> >>> > this clown?
> >>> It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
> >>> Lew
> >> You are entitled to your opinion.
>
> > It's also divisive.
>
> Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?

The author of the religious bullshit, for making more than
one flavor.

On Jul 9, 2:00 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:

Snipperage

> I'm a vegetabletarian now, but I've got a recipe for skinny's that you
> can cut with a spoon.
>

Bill... I am always ready to up my ecumenical knowledge. How are you
fixing them so that you can cut them with a spoon?

BTW... Impervo is a great product and I think you will find it easy to
use.

Robert

On Jul 8, 5:48 pm, Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:25:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT WOOD
>
> I havn't found anywhere in the bible where it says you can't eat wood.
> But, since most of us are not termites, our digestive tracts are not
> designed for digesting wood. Do not eat wood.

Don't distill it and drink it, either, although you _can_
cut it into chunks and use it for smoking hams.

On Jul 12, 12:20 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> Father Haskell wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 5:48 pm, Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:25:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT WOOD
> >> I havn't found anywhere in the bible where it says you can't eat wood.
> >> But, since most of us are not termites, our digestive tracts are not
> >> designed for digesting wood. Do not eat wood.
>
> > Don't distill it and drink it, either, although you _can_
> > cut it into chunks and use it for smoking hams.
>
> Wood is a good source of fiber ... if you use a wooden spoon to stir the
> food in the blender.

Laugh, but it's sometimes used as an additive in cereals and breads
for just that reason.

On Jul 9, 3:26?am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK
>
> Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually rebut
> this clown?
>


The best way is to demonstrate the absurdity of "literal"
interpretation of the Bible.

Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice and
usually scoldings to people who call in to her radio show. Recently,
she said that to an Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination
according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any
circumstance.


The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident
and also posted on the internet:


Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the
specific laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours.
They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is,
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A
friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Can I still eat at
Red Lobster as long as I only order the Salisbury steak?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with
their in-laws? (Lev.
> 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.


FoggyTown

On Jul 9, 7:48 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> Maxwell Lol wrote:
> > Barry Lennox <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> The same bible says my neighbour must die as I saw him picking up
> >> sticks on a Sunday, So that's that, we know that cannot be negotiated.
>
> > And don't forget Leviticus 19:19 - NIV --
> > " 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
>
> > There are more, like women talking in church,
>
> The 'talking' was a calling out to their husbands (seated on opposite
> sides of the room) making it difficult, if not impossible, for any to
> learn what was being taught. They were instructed, if you will read that
> passage all the way through, to speak with their husbands privately. So,
> let me ask you this ... why were they at the meeting to start with? To
> learn or to yak?
>
> marrying a woman who is> divorced,
>
> The only place I recall that prohibition is in forbidding a man to
> remarry his previous wife after she had married another man. There was a
> scheme afoot where the woman would become 'the (temporary) wife' of
> another man and the second man would pay money to the first man. Later,
> the original husband would remarry her. Lather, rinse, repeat. In
> effect, he was pimping her out. If the prohibition is mentioned
> somewhere else, please provide a citation. In ALL circumstances,
> remarriage is prohibited if the divorce was for any reason other than
> adultery. But that limitation should not be understood as applying to
> the woman only. The man is a gigged frog if he dumps his missus for
> trivial reason, too.
>
> eating shellfish,
>
> I covered that yesterday. Read the 10th chapter of Acts. Slowly.
>
> wearing gold jewelry,
>
> Nope ... not forbidden. Ever. Peter warned against relying upon it as
> adornment:
> (1 Peter 3:1-6) 3 In like manner, YOU wives, be in subjection to YOUR
> own husbands, in order that, if any are not obedient to the word, they
> may be won without a word through the conduct of [their] wives,
> 2 because of having been eyewitnesses of YOUR chaste conduct together
> with deep respect. 3 And do not let YOUR adornment be that of the
> external braiding of the hair and of the putting on of gold ornaments or
> the wearing of outer garments, 4 but let it be the secret person of the
> heart in the incorruptible [apparel] of the quiet and mild spirit, which
> is of great value in the eyes of God. 5 For so, too, formerly the holy
> women who were hoping in God used to adorn themselves, subjecting
> themselves to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah used to obey Abraham,
> calling him "lord." And YOU have become her children, provided YOU keep
> on doing good and not fearing any cause for terror.
>
> This is a portion of a counsel regarding attitude and conduct. To quote
> it out of context is to automatically twist it. The qualities to be
> valued were spiritual in nature, not the ability to secure a wealthy
> husband who could procure the external trappings of prosperity.
>
> exercise,
> Nope, Paul warned against concentrating on physical strength to the
> exclusion of spiritual strength. Here, with supporting scriptures, is a
> fuller explanation of the Bible's view of such exertion:
>
> Proper Use of One's Body. The Christian should appreciate the body God
> has given him and should love himself to the extent of caring properly
> for his body so that he may be able to present it in acceptable, sacred
> service to God. (Ro 12:1) This requires the use of reason and the
> maintaining of the body with food and other necessities, as well as
> physical cleanliness, but other types of care are even more important.
> These involve spirituality, seeking God's Kingdom and his righteousness,
> and practicing moral uprightness. (Mt 6:25, 31-33; Col 2:20-23; 3:5) The
> apostle counsels: "Bodily training is beneficial for a little; but godly
> devotion is beneficial for all things, as it holds promise of the life
> now and that which is to come."-1Ti 4:8.
>
> charging interest,
> Nope. Interest was restricted in the case of a fellow Jew who needed
> money for the necessities of life. Beyond that, interest less than usury
> was permitted. This reply is getting long in the tooth already. If you
> want scripture citations, just say so.
>
> cross-breeding,
>
> As shown below, the prohibition was against interbreeding "of two
> sorts". That is, no matching up a camel with a bull, a chicken with a
> goose and so on. To the best of my knowledge, only horses and asses can
> breed like that and produce offspring, but even then, the offspring (a
> mule) is sterile.
> etc.
>
>
>
> Makes sense to me. Here's another translation and a full quote (not the
> cherry picking sort):
>
> (Leviticus 19:19) 19 "'YOU people should keep my statutes: You must not
> interbreed your domestic animals of two sorts. You must not sow your
> field with seeds of two sorts, and you must not put upon yourself a
> garment of two sorts of thread, mixed together."
>
> Let's see now, what sorts of thread did the Israelites have available?
> Linen, wool .. cotton? (guessing here).
>
> These all have different care requirements. Mixing them would have
> resulted in a garment that couldn't have been kept clean and the hygiene
> laws in Leviticus are a major part of the reason why the Israelites
> prospered and became populous. Moreover such a garment, shrinking
> unevenly, would be a poor design. Additionally, this can be seen as a
> comparison to intermingling religions. Modern day 'interfaith' has a
> LONG history of failure. It wasn't approved way back then and nothing in
> the Bible has changed to show approval for it now.
>
> The covenant of Moses was fulfilled in Jesus and, like a paid off
> mortgage, set aside.
>
> (Matthew 5:17-18) 17 "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the
> Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; 18 for truly I say to
> YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest
> letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any
> means and not all things take place.
>
> The Quran is not the problem. The Bible is not the problem. Ignorance is
> the problem.
>
> --
> I'm not not at the above address.http://nmwoodworks.com
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 000755-0, 07/09/2007
> Tested on: 7/9/2007 2:48:40 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.http://www.avast.com

Bill, your biblical erudition is very impressive but I'd say that the
main consideration here is that the Bible makes MANY representations
which, although practical in BC and early AD, are totally unnecessary
or inappropriate in the 21st century. There is no longer any
significant health hazard in eating pork or shellfish. My Maytag and
Oxydol will handle ANY combination of fabrics. Most religions no
longer separate men and women, etc., etc. (Not to mention the fact
that I would actually find offendensive any religion that suggested
that God would be pissed off if he saw me wearing my woolen overcoat
with the fake fur collar.) With all the millenia of tinkering by man,
it is difficult to know what is truly the Word of God and what is a
commercial fillip for medieval fishmongers.

FoggyTown

Mike M wrote:
> "Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Father Haskell wrote:
> >> > On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >> >>> BillinDetroit wrote:
> >> >>> > Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
> >> >>> rebut
> >> >>> > this clown?
> >> >>> It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
> >> >>> Lew
> >> >> You are entitled to your opinion.
> >> > It's also divisive.
> >> Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
> > The author of the religious bullshit, for making more than
> > one flavor.
> I blame Richard Catto. <eg>
> --
> "Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
> balls to get old!"

Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!

Goodbye, Mr. Bond!

LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a fucking faggot you are!

peachy ashie passion wrote:
> Richard Catto wrote:
> > Mike M wrote:
> >>"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>Father Haskell wrote:
> >>>>>On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >>>>>>>BillinDetroit wrote:
> >>>>>>> > Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
> >>>>>>> > rebut this clown?
> >>>>>>>It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
> >>>>>>>Lew
> >>>>>>You are entitled to your opinion.
> >>>>>It's also divisive.
> >>>>Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
> >>>The author of the religious bullshit, for making more than
> >>>one flavor.
> >>I blame Richard Catto. <eg>
> >>--
> >>"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
> >>balls to get old!"
> > Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
> > Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
> > LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a fucking faggot you are!
> rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.

This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
to rec.humor, I will.

You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in rec.humor.

This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.

That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.

Parsons wrote:
> "Richard Catto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > peachy ashie passion wrote:
> >> Richard Catto wrote:
> >> > Mike M wrote:
> >> >>"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >>>On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>>>Father Haskell wrote:
> >> >>>>>On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>BillinDetroit wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> > Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
> >> >>>>>>> > rebut this clown?
> >> >>>>>>>It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
> >> >>>>>>>Lew
> >> >>>>>>You are entitled to your opinion.
> >> >>>>>It's also divisive.
> >> >>>>Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
> >> >>>The author of the religious bullshit, for making more than
> >> >>>one flavor.
> >> >>I blame Richard Catto. <eg>
> >> >>--
> >> >>"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
> >> >>balls to get old!"
> >> > Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
> >> > Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
> >> > LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a fucking faggot you are!
> >> rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.
> > This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
> > to rec.humor, I will.
> > You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in rec.humor.
> > This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.
> > That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.
> Just like normal, you're trashing all the groups you can.

Prove it, Quasimodo.

Parsons wrote:
> "Richard Catto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Parsons wrote:
> >> "Richard Catto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > peachy ashie passion wrote:
> >> >> Richard Catto wrote:
> >> >> > Mike M wrote:
> >> >> >>"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >>>On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>Father Haskell wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>BillinDetroit wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>> > Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to
> >> >> >>>>>>> > actually
> >> >> >>>>>>> > rebut this clown?
> >> >> >>>>>>>It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
> >> >> >>>>>>>Lew
> >> >> >>>>>>You are entitled to your opinion.
> >> >> >>>>>It's also divisive.
> >> >> >>>>Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that
> >> >> >>>>divisiveness?
> >> >> >>>The author of the religious bullshit, for making more than
> >> >> >>>one flavor.
> >> >> >>I blame Richard Catto. <eg>
> >> >> >>--
> >> >> >>"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
> >> >> >>balls to get old!"
> >> >> > Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
> >> >> > Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
> >> >> > LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a fucking faggot you are!
> >> >> rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.
> >> > This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
> >> > to rec.humor, I will.
> >> > You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in rec.humor.
> >> > This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.
> >> > That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.
> >> Just like normal, you're trashing all the groups you can.
> > Prove it, Quasimodo.
> I already did turd breath.

So far you've proven that you have a shit fetish.

What else you got, Amerikaner?

peachy ashie passion wrote:
> Richard Catto wrote:
> > peachy ashie passion wrote:
> >>Richard Catto wrote:
> >>>Mike M wrote:
> >>>>"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>Father Haskell wrote:
> >>>>>>>On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>BillinDetroit wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
> >>>>>>>>>>rebut this clown?
> >>>>>>>>>It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
> >>>>>>>>>Lew
> >>>>>>>>You are entitled to your opinion.
> >>>>>>>It's also divisive.
> >>>>>>Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
> >>>>>The author of the religious bullshit, for making more than
> >>>>>one flavor.
> >>>>I blame Richard Catto. <eg>
> >>>>--
> >>>>"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
> >>>>balls to get old!"
> >>>Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
> >>>Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
> >>>LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a fucking faggot you are!
> >> rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.
> > This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
> > to rec.humor, I will.
> > You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in rec.humor.
> > This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.
> > That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.
> No, I see no reason why I should read the same threads in multiple
> groups.

This is not my problem, traci.

> I go to rh for a certain thing, I go to alt.flame for another.

<yawn>

> I'd prefer to keep things separate, like I don't drop a country
> music song in the middle of a R&B CD when I make it.

I don't give a shit what you prefer. Has the penny dropped yet?

> I don't pretend I don't like your crap sometimes, but I like it
> outside rh.

Why are you still on Usenet, Amerikaner?

peachy ashie passion wrote:
> Richard Catto wrote:
> > peachy ashie passion wrote:
> >>Richard Catto wrote:
> >>>peachy ashie passion wrote:
> >>>>Richard Catto wrote:
> >>>>>Mike M wrote:
> >>>>>>"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>Father Haskell wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>BillinDetroit wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
> >>>>>>>>>>>>rebut this clown?
> >>>>>>>>>>>It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>Lew
> >>>>>>>>>>You are entitled to your opinion.
> >>>>>>>>>It's also divisive.
> >>>>>>>>Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
> >>>>>>>The author of the religious bullshit, for making more than
> >>>>>>>one flavor.
> >>>>>>I blame Richard Catto. <eg>
> >>>>>>--
> >>>>>>"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
> >>>>>>balls to get old!"
> >>>>>Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
> >>>>>Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
> >>>>>LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a fucking faggot you are!
> >>>> rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.
> >>>This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
> >>>to rec.humor, I will.
> >>>You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in rec.humor.
> >>>This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.
> >>>That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.
> >> No, I see no reason why I should read the same threads in multiple
> >>groups.
> > This is not my problem, traci.
> >> I go to rh for a certain thing, I go to alt.flame for another.
> > <yawn>
> >> I'd prefer to keep things separate, like I don't drop a country
> >>music song in the middle of a R&B CD when I make it.
> > I don't give a shit what you prefer. Has the penny dropped yet?
> OH Waaaa.
> Ask me a fucken question and then say you don't give a shit about the
> answer?

The only question I see is "Has the penny dropped yet?"

What other question do you see?

> Then don't fucking ask already. In case you haven't noticed, I
> didn't jump up and down and give you my explanations unrequested.
> You asked a question, I gave an answer. Don't whine about it.

I don't think the drugs that you are currently using agree with you.

[email protected] wrote:
> Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK
>

Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually rebut
this clown?

(Acts 10:9-16) 9 The next day as they were pursuing their journey and
were approaching the city, Peter went up to the housetop about the sixth
hour to pray. 10 But he became very hungry and wanted to eat. While they
were preparing, he fell into a trance 11 and beheld heaven opened and
some sort of vessel descending like a great linen sheet being let down
by its four extremities upon the earth; 12 and in it there were all
sorts of four-footed creatures and creeping things of the earth and
birds of heaven. 13 And a voice came to him: “Rise, Peter, slaughter and
eat!” 14 But Peter said: “Not at all, Lord, because never have I eaten
anything defiled and unclean.” 15 And the voice [spoke] again to him,
the second time: “You stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed.”
16 This occurred a third time, and immediately the vessel was taken up
into heaven.


(Matthew 15:10-11) . . .With that he called the crowd near and said to
them: “Listen and get the sense of it: 11 Not what enters into [his]
mouth defiles a man; but it is what proceeds out of [his] mouth that
defiles a man.”

Do not let a Muslim teach you the Bible.

Bill



--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000754-5, 07/08/2007
Tested on: 7/8/2007 10:26:53 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Lew Hodgett wrote:
> BillinDetroit wrote:
>
> >
> > Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually rebut
> > this clown?
>
> It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
>
> Lew
>
>

You are entitled to your opinion.

Bill


--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000754-5, 07/08/2007
Tested on: 7/9/2007 1:02:51 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Maxwell Lol wrote:
> Barry Lennox <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> The same bible says my neighbour must die as I saw him picking up
>> sticks on a Sunday, So that's that, we know that cannot be
>> negotiated.
>
> And don't forget Leviticus 19:19 - NIV --
> " 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
>
> There are more, like women talking in church, marrying a woman who is
> divorced, eating shellfish, wearing gold jewelry, exercise, charging
> interest, cross-breeding, etc.

The difference is that the Biblical commandments are only binding upon the
Jews (and even then mostly subordinate to secular laws). Whereas Islam holds
that Koranic laws are binding upon everyone.

Maxwell Lol wrote:
> Barry Lennox <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> The same bible says my neighbour must die as I saw him picking up
>> sticks on a Sunday, So that's that, we know that cannot be negotiated.
>
> And don't forget Leviticus 19:19 - NIV --
> " 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
>
> There are more, like women talking in church,

The 'talking' was a calling out to their husbands (seated on opposite
sides of the room) making it difficult, if not impossible, for any to
learn what was being taught. They were instructed, if you will read that
passage all the way through, to speak with their husbands privately. So,
let me ask you this ... why were they at the meeting to start with? To
learn or to yak?

marrying a woman who is
> divorced,
The only place I recall that prohibition is in forbidding a man to
remarry his previous wife after she had married another man. There was a
scheme afoot where the woman would become 'the (temporary) wife' of
another man and the second man would pay money to the first man. Later,
the original husband would remarry her. Lather, rinse, repeat. In
effect, he was pimping her out. If the prohibition is mentioned
somewhere else, please provide a citation. In ALL circumstances,
remarriage is prohibited if the divorce was for any reason other than
adultery. But that limitation should not be understood as applying to
the woman only. The man is a gigged frog if he dumps his missus for
trivial reason, too.


eating shellfish,

I covered that yesterday. Read the 10th chapter of Acts. Slowly.

wearing gold jewelry,

Nope ... not forbidden. Ever. Peter warned against relying upon it as
adornment:
(1 Peter 3:1-6) 3 In like manner, YOU wives, be in subjection to YOUR
own husbands, in order that, if any are not obedient to the word, they
may be won without a word through the conduct of [their] wives,
2 because of having been eyewitnesses of YOUR chaste conduct together
with deep respect. 3 And do not let YOUR adornment be that of the
external braiding of the hair and of the putting on of gold ornaments or
the wearing of outer garments, 4 but let it be the secret person of the
heart in the incorruptible [apparel] of the quiet and mild spirit, which
is of great value in the eyes of God. 5 For so, too, formerly the holy
women who were hoping in God used to adorn themselves, subjecting
themselves to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah used to obey Abraham,
calling him “lord.” And YOU have become her children, provided YOU keep
on doing good and not fearing any cause for terror.

This is a portion of a counsel regarding attitude and conduct. To quote
it out of context is to automatically twist it. The qualities to be
valued were spiritual in nature, not the ability to secure a wealthy
husband who could procure the external trappings of prosperity.

exercise,
Nope, Paul warned against concentrating on physical strength to the
exclusion of spiritual strength. Here, with supporting scriptures, is a
fuller explanation of the Bible's view of such exertion:

Proper Use of One’s Body. The Christian should appreciate the body God
has given him and should love himself to the extent of caring properly
for his body so that he may be able to present it in acceptable, sacred
service to God. (Ro 12:1) This requires the use of reason and the
maintaining of the body with food and other necessities, as well as
physical cleanliness, but other types of care are even more important.
These involve spirituality, seeking God’s Kingdom and his righteousness,
and practicing moral uprightness. (Mt 6:25, 31-33; Col 2:20-23; 3:5) The
apostle counsels: “Bodily training is beneficial for a little; but godly
devotion is beneficial for all things, as it holds promise of the life
now and that which is to come.”—1Ti 4:8.

charging interest,
Nope. Interest was restricted in the case of a fellow Jew who needed
money for the necessities of life. Beyond that, interest less than usury
was permitted. This reply is getting long in the tooth already. If you
want scripture citations, just say so.

cross-breeding,

As shown below, the prohibition was against interbreeding "of two
sorts". That is, no matching up a camel with a bull, a chicken with a
goose and so on. To the best of my knowledge, only horses and asses can
breed like that and produce offspring, but even then, the offspring (a
mule) is sterile.
etc.
>

Makes sense to me. Here's another translation and a full quote (not the
cherry picking sort):

(Leviticus 19:19) 19 “‘YOU people should keep my statutes: You must not
interbreed your domestic animals of two sorts. You must not sow your
field with seeds of two sorts, and you must not put upon yourself a
garment of two sorts of thread, mixed together."

Let's see now, what sorts of thread did the Israelites have available?
Linen, wool .. cotton? (guessing here).

These all have different care requirements. Mixing them would have
resulted in a garment that couldn't have been kept clean and the hygiene
laws in Leviticus are a major part of the reason why the Israelites
prospered and became populous. Moreover such a garment, shrinking
unevenly, would be a poor design. Additionally, this can be seen as a
comparison to intermingling religions. Modern day 'interfaith' has a
LONG history of failure. It wasn't approved way back then and nothing in
the Bible has changed to show approval for it now.

The covenant of Moses was fulfilled in Jesus and, like a paid off
mortgage, set aside.

(Matthew 5:17-18) 17 “Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the
Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; 18 for truly I say to
YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest
letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any
means and not all things take place.

The Quran is not the problem. The Bible is not the problem. Ignorance is
the problem.


--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000755-0, 07/09/2007
Tested on: 7/9/2007 2:48:40 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Father Haskell wrote:
> On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> BillinDetroit wrote:
>>> > Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually rebut
>>> > this clown?
>>> It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
>>> Lew
>> You are entitled to your opinion.
>
> It's also divisive.
>
>

Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000755-0, 07/09/2007
Tested on: 7/9/2007 2:51:46 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 8, 9:26 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
>> (Matthew 15:10-11) . . .With that he called the crowd >near and said to them: "Listen and get the sense of it: >11 Not what enters into [his] mouth defiles a man; but it >is what proceeds out of [his] mouth that defiles a man."
>>
>> Do not let a Muslim teach you the Bible.
>>
>
> Nicely done, Bill. I like the quote and the comment.
>

Thank you. I don't ask Presbyterians about Catholic beliefs. I don't ask
Catholics about Shinto. And I don't ask -anybody- for a good lottery
number. ;-)

> - If you are stuck with "skinnys", then bread them in seasoned flour
> and fry them like chicken. A bunch of them
>
> - Ham is good an can be eaten any time. Smoking your own ham is...
> dare I say it... divine?

My grandfather (Ghent, WV) did the slaughtering of local pork as he had
a vat big enough to dip the whole hog in to get rid of the hairs. And a
smoke house big enough for 5-6 whole pigs.

I'm a vegetabletarian now, but I've got a recipe for skinny's that you
can cut with a spoon.

Bill



--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000755-0, 07/09/2007
Tested on: 7/9/2007 3:00:47 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[email protected] wrote:

> It would be nice if the decent but silent majority of Muslims would
> take a more
> public stand on this and condemn the pinheads for what they are:
> Genocidal
> Maniacs...
>

The Jerry Falwells and his ilk, of any religion, will always find a way
to make their voice felt. Those who actually live their religion seldom
have time to beat anyone down with it.

I preach door-to-door. That is a vital part of my religion. But I can
only preach a few hours a week because I am busy living out the other
parts of it too.

I wouldn't know how much to charge for a prayer pillow anyways.

Bill
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000755-0, 07/09/2007
Tested on: 7/9/2007 3:05:08 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

NoOne N Particular wrote:
(considerably more snippage going on)

>
> Wayne
>
> P.S. I also think we need to stop calling these bombers "suicide
> bombers". They are not going out there to commit suicide. If that was
> the case someone could start a business out in the desert selling bomb
> belts and renting booths. "No waiting for booth #12." "Would that be
> grenades or C4?" No, these people are going out to commit MURDER. They
> should be called murder bombers.
>

Give 'em a break ... lacking F-15's, they're doing the best they can.

Ahem ... this is war. The object is to murder 'the enemy' (whoever the
people in power point at) and to demoralize them. They almost always
make at least a one for one exchange ... sometimes bumping the ratio to
40:1 or so. On 9/11, they were able to bump that to about 500:1 -and-
suck the US economy down. Oh ... and they used US jets to do it with,
too.* That's a pretty good battlefield return. If (when) they repeat
that performance on US soil, DHS is gonna have a whole lot of egg on its
face.


Bill

*Yes, I am totally ignoring the whole conspiracy thing. That has filled
enough thread space already.

--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000755-0, 07/09/2007
Tested on: 7/9/2007 3:39:01 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

NoOne N Particular wrote:
>
> Today, it seems like we have two factions fighting for control. On
> one side we have the Christian religion, and on the other we have
> Islam.

You're not even close. In the past (say few decades), Muslims have killed
many more of their fellow religionists than any inter-religion feuding.

Lybia vs Egypt
Lebanon vs Syria
Iraq vs Iran
Iraq vs Kuwait
Turkey vs Iraq
Sudan vs everybody
Somalia vs everybody
Iraq vs Iraq
Palestinians vs Palestinians

I'm not exaggerating: millions dead.

About the only Muslim country that hasn't been a war with somebody is
Minnesota.

Of the 50-odd countries that are predominately Muslim only TWO are nominal
democracies (Turky and Malaysia). The rest are Theocracies (Iran),
Monarchies (Jordan, Morocco), Oligarchies (Egypt), or out-and-out anarchies
(Somalia, Sudan).

BillinDetroit wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>> Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK
>>
>
> Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually rebut
> this clown?
>
> (Acts 10:9-16) 9 The next day as they were pursuing their journey and
> were approaching the city, Peter went up to the housetop about the sixth
> hour to pray. 10 But he became very hungry and wanted to eat. While they
> were preparing, he fell into a trance 11 and beheld heaven opened and
> some sort of vessel descending like a great linen sheet being let down
> by its four extremities upon the earth; 12 and in it there were all
> sorts of four-footed creatures and creeping things of the earth and
> birds of heaven. 13 And a voice came to him: “Rise, Peter, slaughter and
> eat!” 14 But Peter said: “Not at all, Lord, because never have I eaten
> anything defiled and unclean.” 15 And the voice [spoke] again to him,
> the second time: “You stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed.”
> 16 This occurred a third time, and immediately the vessel was taken up
> into heaven.
>
>
> (Matthew 15:10-11) . . .With that he called the crowd near and said to
> them: “Listen and get the sense of it: 11 Not what enters into [his]
> mouth defiles a man; but it is what proceeds out of [his] mouth that
> defiles a man.”
>
> Do not let a Muslim teach you the Bible.
>
> Bill
>
>
>

Very good response Bill. Succinct, to the point, and clearly exposes the
error of the OP.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Maxwell Lol wrote:
> BillinDetroit <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> cross-breeding,
>>
>> As shown below, the prohibition was against interbreeding "of two
>> sorts". That is, no matching up a camel with a bull, a chicken with a
>> goose and so on. To the best of my knowledge, only horses and asses
>> can breed like that and produce offspring, but even then, the
>> offspring (a mule) is sterile.
>> etc.
>
> Wolves and dogs crossbreed.
> liger - lion and tiger
>

"Male tigons are sterile while the females are generally fertile.
Because only female ligers and tigons are fertile, ligers and tigons
cannot reproduce with each other." (wikipedia article on tigons, see
similar in article about ligers)

Wikipedia has this to say about the relationship between wolves and
domestic breeds of dogs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid

I don't want to make a major thread out of this. The original assertion
was that the Christian scriptures put cross-breeding of any sort off
limits, when the truth of the matter is that interbreeding of closely
related species was actually permitted. You CAN try to improve your
dairy herd.

These rules were delivered to people who lived a lot closer to the land
than most of us do and, without any need of DNA tests, knew not to
crossbreed sheep with dogs to to make certain that their best rams got
close to their best ewes.

Even if you COULD cross-breed oh, say, Bacillus Thuringensis with corn
... you weren't to do it.

(ducking for cover!)

Bill
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/12/2007 12:18:30 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Father Haskell wrote:
> On Jul 8, 5:48 pm, Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:25:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT WOOD
>> I havn't found anywhere in the bible where it says you can't eat wood.
>> But, since most of us are not termites, our digestive tracts are not
>> designed for digesting wood. Do not eat wood.
>
> Don't distill it and drink it, either, although you _can_
> cut it into chunks and use it for smoking hams.
>
>

Wood is a good source of fiber ... if you use a wooden spoon to stir the
food in the blender.


--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/12/2007 12:20:19 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Father Haskell wrote:

>>> It's also divisive.
>> Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
>
> The author of the religious bullshit, for making more than
> one flavor.
>

This is where things get truly interesting - because the founders of
each of the major religions contend that there is actually only one flavor.

And I agree.


--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/12/2007 12:23:32 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[email protected] wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2:00 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Snipperage
>
>> I'm a vegetabletarian now, but I've got a recipe for skinny's that you
>> can cut with a spoon.
>>
>
> Bill... I am always ready to up my ecumenical knowledge. How are you
> fixing them so that you can cut them with a spoon?
>
> BTW... Impervo is a great product and I think you will find it easy to
> use.
>
> Robert
>
Liking the Impervo ... got a good first coat on today. That little
Wagner HVLP is actually working pretty nice. PROPERLY THINNED, I can
keep a wet edge just about as fast as I can move my arm. (no mercy for
those who hesitate!) My guess is that I am saving about 4 hrs. per coat
simply by spraying instead of brushing. And I am probably getting a LOT
better finish skin!

<------------happy camper, will buy a 'real' HVLP when I get a few more
nickles together.

Oh, BTW, I got an order for two more before I could get the color on
these! ;-)

--------------------------

Skinny chops

trim fat from six
render fat in skillet
brown chops in fat over high heat
---
boil medium egg noodles (al dente)
layer in glass baking dish
put chops over noodles, overlapping chops slightly
cover with canned tomato halves, including liquid
zip with favorite spices (I use 'cheat' Italian mix and add extra thyme)
seal baking dish with foil
--------
Bake (memory don't fail me now!) @ 375 for about 60-75 mins.

The precise time & temp are lost to musty memory, but I do recall that
the liquid will be boiled nearly (but not completely) away when they are
done. The bottom of the baking disk will have liquid, but not much.
Better a little extra liquid than to scorch the noodles, I would think.

place dish on wooden trivet (just to get back on topic!)

serve with choice of green things and a decent lager, if so inclined.

Bon apetit!

Bill
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/12/2007 12:45:13 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Mark & Juanita wrote:

>> Do not let a Muslim teach you the Bible.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>
> Very good response Bill. Succinct, to the point, and clearly exposes the
> error of the OP.
>
>
Thank you, Mark.

That final point was the more important one. I am more concerned about
those who claim to be Christian but do not know what the Bible DOES
teach than I am about a dozen radical Muslims running around waving a
Koran in one hand and an AK-47 in another. You can shoot the radical,
but there doesn't seem to be any end to ignorance.

The particular Muslim above was not even well versed on the Koran
(others here have refuted him from the Sura) -- and knows less about the
Bible. Like many... he's been 'told' what the Bible says and is gullible
enough to believe the lie without checking it. He is zealous, but
without accurate knowledge.

Yeah ... that's mentioned in the scriptures:
(Romans 10:2) . . .For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for
God; but not according to accurate knowledge;

The full thought is found at Romans 10:1-4.

SO, what DOES the Bible have to say about taking things on faith where
there is the means of easily checking them?

(Acts 17:10-12) 10 Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and
Silas out to Be·roe′a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue
of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in
Thes·sa·lo·ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness
of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these
things were so. (n.b. they did NOT take Paul at his word!) 12 Therefore
many of them became believers, and so did not a few of the reputable
Greek women and of the men.

About an hour a day for a single year is enough to read it completely.

Bill
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/12/2007 1:37:17 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

sweet sawdust wrote:
> Sounds like instead of sending troups over there we should cut out the
> middle man and just ship small arms.

The US does a little of both.

ISTR that the US is a very large player in the small arms field.

Bill
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/12/2007 2:04:50 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

BillinDetroit wrote:

... snip
> (Acts 17:10-12) 10 Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and
> Silas out to Be·roe′a, and these, upon arriving, went into the synagogue
> of the Jews. 11 Now the latter were more noble-minded than those in
> Thes·sa·lo·ni′ca, for they received the word with the greatest eagerness
> of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these

Just as an interesting point of information regarding this verse. In the
original Greek (No, I don't read Greek, however, it is one of the
requirements for ministers in our denomination (WELS Lutheran)), those
words in the context of the time literally meant to "ransack" or "tear
apart". I.e, the Bereans did more than just a casual read, they were very
thorough in their readings and evaluations.

> things were so. (n.b. they did NOT take Paul at his word!) 12 Therefore
> many of them became believers, and so did not a few of the reputable
> Greek women and of the men.
>
> About an hour a day for a single year is enough to read it completely.
>
> Bill

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Father Haskell wrote:
> On Jul 12, 12:20 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Father Haskell wrote:
>>> On Jul 8, 5:48 pm, Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:25:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT WOOD
>>>> I havn't found anywhere in the bible where it says you can't eat wood.
>>>> But, since most of us are not termites, our digestive tracts are not
>>>> designed for digesting wood. Do not eat wood.
>>> Don't distill it and drink it, either, although you _can_
>>> cut it into chunks and use it for smoking hams.
>> Wood is a good source of fiber ... if you use a wooden spoon to stir the
>> food in the blender.
>
> Laugh, but it's sometimes used as an additive in cereals and breads
> for just that reason.
>

I've never seen that. Got a specific product in mind?

Bill
--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/12/2007 11:42:52 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

charlieb wrote:
> Odd that an omnipotent god would choose to communicate
> with only one or two humans and instruct them to "pass it
> along" when said god could easily communicate with each
> living being on this planet as well as all the others (I'm
> assuming that there are other life forms somewhere out
> in the Huge Out There), clearly and concisely and avoid data
> loss through retransmission - and the occassional human
> additions and interpretations.
>
>

You're right Charlie. Or, you would be if that is how things happened.
There are roughly a million copies of the Bible distributed -each week-
and it is available in roughly 2,300 languages. "Oral histories" came to
an end with Moses.

This isn't the parlor game of 'pass it on' played by a bunch of giggly
kids ... this is "pass it on" played for keeps by serious-minded adults
with their eye on the ball

It is one thing to declare that the scriptures were adulterated. Knowing
humans, it seems almost certain that they were. It is quite another to
prove it.

Bill

--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-0, 07/12/2007
Tested on: 7/13/2007 12:29:41 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

FoggyTown wrote:
> On Jul 9, 7:48 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Maxwell Lol wrote:
>>> Barry Lennox <[email protected]> writes:
>>>> The same bible says my neighbour must die as I saw him picking up
>>>> sticks on a Sunday, So that's that, we know that cannot be negotiated.
>>> And don't forget Leviticus 19:19 - NIV --
>>> " 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
>>> There are more, like women talking in church,
>> The 'talking' was a calling out to their husbands (seated on opposite
>> sides of the room) making it difficult, if not impossible, for any to
>> learn what was being taught. They were instructed, if you will read that
>> passage all the way through, to speak with their husbands privately. So,
>> let me ask you this ... why were they at the meeting to start with? To
>> learn or to yak?
>>
>> marrying a woman who is> divorced,
>>
>> The only place I recall that prohibition is in forbidding a man to
>> remarry his previous wife after she had married another man. There was a
>> scheme afoot where the woman would become 'the (temporary) wife' of
>> another man and the second man would pay money to the first man. Later,
>> the original husband would remarry her. Lather, rinse, repeat. In
>> effect, he was pimping her out. If the prohibition is mentioned
>> somewhere else, please provide a citation. In ALL circumstances,
>> remarriage is prohibited if the divorce was for any reason other than
>> adultery. But that limitation should not be understood as applying to
>> the woman only. The man is a gigged frog if he dumps his missus for
>> trivial reason, too.
>>
>> eating shellfish,
>>
>> I covered that yesterday. Read the 10th chapter of Acts. Slowly.
>>
>> wearing gold jewelry,
>>
>> Nope ... not forbidden. Ever. Peter warned against relying upon it as
>> adornment:
>> (1 Peter 3:1-6) 3 In like manner, YOU wives, be in subjection to YOUR
>> own husbands, in order that, if any are not obedient to the word, they
>> may be won without a word through the conduct of [their] wives,
>> 2 because of having been eyewitnesses of YOUR chaste conduct together
>> with deep respect. 3 And do not let YOUR adornment be that of the
>> external braiding of the hair and of the putting on of gold ornaments or
>> the wearing of outer garments, 4 but let it be the secret person of the
>> heart in the incorruptible [apparel] of the quiet and mild spirit, which
>> is of great value in the eyes of God. 5 For so, too, formerly the holy
>> women who were hoping in God used to adorn themselves, subjecting
>> themselves to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah used to obey Abraham,
>> calling him "lord." And YOU have become her children, provided YOU keep
>> on doing good and not fearing any cause for terror.
>>
>> This is a portion of a counsel regarding attitude and conduct. To quote
>> it out of context is to automatically twist it. The qualities to be
>> valued were spiritual in nature, not the ability to secure a wealthy
>> husband who could procure the external trappings of prosperity.
>>
>> exercise,
>> Nope, Paul warned against concentrating on physical strength to the
>> exclusion of spiritual strength. Here, with supporting scriptures, is a
>> fuller explanation of the Bible's view of such exertion:
>>
>> Proper Use of One's Body. The Christian should appreciate the body God
>> has given him and should love himself to the extent of caring properly
>> for his body so that he may be able to present it in acceptable, sacred
>> service to God. (Ro 12:1) This requires the use of reason and the
>> maintaining of the body with food and other necessities, as well as
>> physical cleanliness, but other types of care are even more important.
>> These involve spirituality, seeking God's Kingdom and his righteousness,
>> and practicing moral uprightness. (Mt 6:25, 31-33; Col 2:20-23; 3:5) The
>> apostle counsels: "Bodily training is beneficial for a little; but godly
>> devotion is beneficial for all things, as it holds promise of the life
>> now and that which is to come."-1Ti 4:8.
>>
>> charging interest,
>> Nope. Interest was restricted in the case of a fellow Jew who needed
>> money for the necessities of life. Beyond that, interest less than usury
>> was permitted. This reply is getting long in the tooth already. If you
>> want scripture citations, just say so.
>>
>> cross-breeding,
>>
>> As shown below, the prohibition was against interbreeding "of two
>> sorts". That is, no matching up a camel with a bull, a chicken with a
>> goose and so on. To the best of my knowledge, only horses and asses can
>> breed like that and produce offspring, but even then, the offspring (a
>> mule) is sterile.
>> etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Makes sense to me. Here's another translation and a full quote (not the
>> cherry picking sort):
>>
>> (Leviticus 19:19) 19 "'YOU people should keep my statutes: You must not
>> interbreed your domestic animals of two sorts. You must not sow your
>> field with seeds of two sorts, and you must not put upon yourself a
>> garment of two sorts of thread, mixed together."
>>
>> Let's see now, what sorts of thread did the Israelites have available?
>> Linen, wool .. cotton? (guessing here).
>>
>> These all have different care requirements. Mixing them would have
>> resulted in a garment that couldn't have been kept clean and the hygiene
>> laws in Leviticus are a major part of the reason why the Israelites
>> prospered and became populous. Moreover such a garment, shrinking
>> unevenly, would be a poor design. Additionally, this can be seen as a
>> comparison to intermingling religions. Modern day 'interfaith' has a
>> LONG history of failure. It wasn't approved way back then and nothing in
>> the Bible has changed to show approval for it now.
>>
>> The covenant of Moses was fulfilled in Jesus and, like a paid off
>> mortgage, set aside.
>>
>> (Matthew 5:17-18) 17 "Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the
>> Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; 18 for truly I say to
>> YOU that sooner would heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest
>> letter or one particle of a letter to pass away from the Law by any
>> means and not all things take place.
>>
>> The Quran is not the problem. The Bible is not the problem. Ignorance is
>> the problem.
>>
>> --
>> I'm not not at the above address.http://nmwoodworks.com
>>
>> ---
>> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
>> Virus Database (VPS): 000755-0, 07/09/2007
>> Tested on: 7/9/2007 2:48:40 PM
>> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.http://www.avast.com
>
> Bill, your biblical erudition is very impressive but I'd say that the
> main consideration here is that the Bible makes MANY representations
> which, although practical in BC and early AD, are totally unnecessary
> or inappropriate in the 21st century.


There is no longer any
> significant health hazard in eating pork or shellfish.

Actually, the hazard remains. Trichomoniasis from pork still kills and
shellfish still can harbor toxins / invoke severe allergic reactions.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/07/shellfishermen.html

Note the dateline on this article. Thursday, July 12, 2007.

This is the reason that most hams come to you fully cooked. However, if
you read the 10th chapter of Acts, you'll realize that there is no
longer any restriction on their consumption. The laws, after all, were
imposed to shelter natural Israel, as Gods chosen people, from harm. The
book of Acts was written after the murder of Jesus. The relationship
between Jehovah and the Jews had changed. Those laws are still available
to read ... and they will still afford the same level of protection from
a danger that still exists. But we are no longer under compulsion to
obey them. Obedience, and its rewards, are now entirely voluntary.

This from our friends at wikipedia:

"Red tide" is also commonly used on the northern east coast of the
United States, and particularly in the Gulf of Maine. This type of bloom
is caused by a species of dinoflagellate known as Karenia brevis. These
blooms of organisms cause severe disruptions in fisheries of these
waters as the toxins in these organism cause filter-feeding shellfish in
affected waters to become poisonous for human consumption due to saxitoxin.

My Maytag and
> Oxydol will handle ANY combination of fabrics.

Most religions no
> longer separate men and women, etc., etc.

The separation was a holdover from the way things were done in the
synagogues of the day. Issues such as this and circumcision were carried
over and had to be shed. And were. My own religion not only does not
separate the men and women, we also don't shunt the kids off. We expect
them to sit with Mom & Dad and to begin learning. And, surprise,
surprise ... that is exactly what happens when kids sit with their
parents. There is a "mothers room" in the womens restroom for
breastfeeding / diaper changing -- but we don't isolate the kids in some
sound proof nursery under a quasi-professional caretaker. Nope ... the
kids, and their behavior, are the responsibility of the parents.

(Not to mention the fact
> that I would actually find offendensive any religion that suggested
> that God would be pissed off if he saw me wearing my woolen overcoat
> with the fake fur collar.)

As would I ... but the warning not to mix, say cotton and wool in the
same weaving (for instance, to use one in the warp and the other in the
woof) is sound ... they shrink at different rates. Just as we account
for shrinkage differences between woods, so must they be accounted for
in weaving. It's probably also not a good idea for you to toss that wool
coat with the fake fur trim collar in the Maytag, either.

Leviticus included laws for both religious reasons (avoiding idolatry,
intermarriage with unbelievers, provisions for others to convert,
tolerance of those who did not choose to convert) and for practical
purposes ... such as disposal of manure, washing of hands and eating
utensils and so on. Following the laws in Leviticus (expanded upon in
Deuteronomy) enabled the Jews to be healthier and more prosperous than
those nations around them. (Take the manure out of the camp where it
fosters diseases, bury it in the field where it increases fertility.
Win-win.)

Short version? -- the true God was taking care of his people while the
false gods could do no such thing.

With all the millenia of tinkering by man,
> it is difficult to know what is truly the Word of God and what is a
> commercial fillip for medieval fishmongers.

Actually, no, it isn't all that hard. We now have access to far earlier
manuscripts than the earlier translators. That has enabled the tossing
of MANY marginal notations that had worked their way into the body of
the text. (Consider the 8th chapter of John in your own Bible)

We also have access to a lot of secular records (and the ability to read
them) that they did not and we have the findings of relatively modern
science of archeology that all come together to establish which accounts
are / are not reliable.

Moreover ... would any of these so-called objections that I have been
addressing be sufficient cause for turning ones back on God or are they,
instead, good reasons to dig deeper to KNOW what the Bible really
teaches? If I, a decidedly amateur woodworker, am addressing
misconceptions here, on Usenet, how much more insight could be gained by
an orderly study?

Bill

--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-1, 07/13/2007
Tested on: 7/14/2007 1:04:01 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

FoggyTown wrote:
> On Jul 9, 3:26?am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK
>> Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually rebut
>> this clown?
>>
>
>
> The best way is to demonstrate the absurdity of "literal"
> interpretation of the Bible.
>

Good point. Context means a whole lot as does recognizing which
scriptures are literally intended (Mt 22:34-40) and which are figurative
(Re 17:9-11).

A haphazard knowledge of the scriptures will, I think, cause you to
doubt them. But, from my experience, the more you know about them, the
more likely it is you will believe them.

And no, that hooker isn't actually sitting on 7 mountains jolting along
on the back of a wild beast that is about to grow an 8th head.

Bill

--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000756-1, 07/13/2007
Tested on: 7/14/2007 1:15:37 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

"Richard Catto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Parsons wrote:
>> "Richard Catto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > peachy ashie passion wrote:
>> >> Richard Catto wrote:
>> >> > Mike M wrote:
>> >> >>"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >>>On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>>>Father Haskell wrote:
>> >> >>>>>On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>BillinDetroit wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>> > Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to
>> >> >>>>>>> > actually
>> >> >>>>>>> > rebut this clown?
>> >> >>>>>>>It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
>> >> >>>>>>>Lew
>> >> >>>>>>You are entitled to your opinion.
>> >> >>>>>It's also divisive.
>> >> >>>>Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that
>> >> >>>>divisiveness?
>> >> >>>The author of the religious bullshit, for making more than
>> >> >>>one flavor.
>> >> >>I blame Richard Catto. <eg>
>> >> >>--
>> >> >>"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
>> >> >>balls to get old!"
>> >> > Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
>> >> > Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
>> >> > LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a fucking faggot you are!
>> >> rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.
>> > This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
>> > to rec.humor, I will.
>> > You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in rec.humor.
>> > This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.
>> > That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.
>> Just like normal, you're trashing all the groups you can.
>
> Prove it, Quasimodo.

I already did turd breath.
>

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:25:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK
>

Oh, Yawn !!

The same bible says my neighbour must die as I saw him picking up
sticks on a Sunday, So that's that, we know that cannot be negotiated.
However , I have one question I hope you can help me with, It talks of
stoning, Now stones are heavy and I have a bad back, they are costly
and just so awkward and passe. Can't I just run him over with the
tractor instead ?

Yours sincerely
Barry

"There's plenty of room for all god's animals, right next to the
mashed potatoes"

[email protected] wrote:

| Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK

"Enjoin ye righteousness upon mankind while ye yourselves forget (to
practise it)? And ye are readers of the Scripture! Have ye then no
sense?"

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Han wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in
| news:469123af$0$491$815e3792 @news.qwest.net:
|
|| "Enjoin ye righteousness upon mankind while ye yourselves forget
|| (to practise it)? And ye are readers of the Scripture! Have ye
|| then no sense?"
||
| An (ex)-junkie with no education, but eager to please as our
| janitor, spoke the wise words:
|
| "Common sense is a misnomer, it isn't common at all"
|
| (unreligious) AMEN! to that!

The author of my quote from the Qur'an (Surah II:44) was Mohammed.
Even he was frustrated by those who preach one thing but do another.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Religions" can serve a societal function. One of those functions
can be to discourage acts or behaviors which can lead to food
poisoning or intestinal parasites. The "Thou shalt not eat the
meat of cloven hooved animals." was, in the context of the time
in which it was necessary, a means to prevent illiterate goat
herders and the like from getting trichinosis (sp? - an intestinal
parasite). The whole "kosher" thing was to encourage hygenic
food preparation, given the lack of anti-bacterial soaps, etc.
of the time - and the ambient air temperature. So by dictating
- because God Said So - that meat was only to be cut with a straight
cutting edge - in one single and continuous slice, the resulting cut
edge has less surface are for bacteria to work on than a surface
cut by a series of sawing cuts, or with a serated cutting edge.
Remember that at the time there was no refridgeration and the
climate was very conducive to bacterial growth.

Religion and rituals are often used to pass on complex information
orally - in terms the people could follow. Early Japanese
metallurgy required procedures which had to be carefully followed
to consistently reproduce strong, hard and tough steel (hard and
tough being difficult to attain - together). Part of that procedure
involved adding carbon to molten iron to get carbon steel. Myth
has it that throwing a virgin into molten iron resulted in a stronger,
harder steel. The unexpected consequence of that approach
was probably a dramatic increase in teen pregnancy - and a
shortage of virgins. Eventually someone found that throwing
a highly resinous piece of wood - pine or some cedars - into the
molten iron produced the same desired results. Only much later
did they discover that what was needed was just the carbon.

And carbon played another role in the forging of metal. If
you've watched a samuri sword (or a laminated japanese
chisel) being made you'll note that as they fold and hammer
the metal, they continuously brush the hot metal surface
being forged with small brooms/brushes of rice stalks.
When the rice stalks contact the hot steel they burn, creating
carbon - right on the hot surface. Carbon likes oxygen more
that steel does, so the effect is to keep oxygen from getting
to the steel where it can weaken the steel. This underlying
rational reason for wiping the hot steel with rice stalks probably
wasn't understood by the person wielding the hammer
or the one brushing the metal's surface - so which part
of the ritual was "science" and which part was "religion"
couldn't be differentiated. But they knew that if they
followed the ritual - to the letter - they'd get the desired
results.

The problem with rituals are that the person providing the
ritual can add things that have nothing to do with providng
the practictioner of the ritual a useful result -
- Heat the metal until it is the color of autum wheat
adding ground charcoal made from deodor cedar
- send $5 in postal money order to:
I Speak For God
123 Little Bit of Heaven Lane
Tiajuana, Mexico
- place the hot metal on an anvil and strike it four
time with a hammer, wiping the surface between
strokes with a bruch of rice stalks
- buy a dove from one of my dove franchises and
release when the forging is done (so it can fly
back to my franchee in order that he might sell it
to you again next time)
- return the metal to the hot coals where it should
remain until once again autum wheat colored
- repeat ALL of the above until the metal has the
shape and form desired
- when that is done, and before the metal turns
blood red, immerse it quickly in a bucket containing
Holy Oil (tm) ($29.95 per pint, now available "unscented"
- plus tax and S&H, available only from www.HolyOil.com
- a subsidiary of I Speak For God, LLC. Void where
prohibited by law, or where there are folks who have
discovered that used motor oil works just as well)
:
:

Assuming a god, and that he/she/it gave us a pretty
sophisticated brain - is it not reasonable that we use
it more often?

charlie b

Odd that an omnipotent god would choose to communicate
with only one or two humans and instruct them to "pass it
along" when said god could easily communicate with each
living being on this planet as well as all the others (I'm
assuming that there are other life forms somewhere out
in the Huge Out There), clearly and concisely and avoid data
loss through retransmission - and the occassional human
additions and interpretations.

In our judicial system, "hear say" (he told me she told him
that he told her . . .) is not admissable evidence. Yet many
place great credence to "he said he said, he said ( continue
on for 500 to 2000 years)" god quotes.

Even when the message is short and to the point "Thou
Shall Not Kill", somebody either didn't get the message,
or dropped the addendums until needed when it was
convenient to mention, for earthly reasons.

Would be a better world if there was just god - with no
religion in between.

As for popes being inflammable, is that why they're never
cremated?

charlie b

FoggyTown wrote:

snip

> With all the millenia of tinkering by man,
> it is difficult to know what is truly the Word of God and what is a
> commercial fillip for medieval fishmongers.

Not difficult at all - if you think about it -without
all the spin humans add for their own benefit.

Be good to each other.

Lend a helping hand when you can.

Try to leave the place in no worse shape
than when you found it. And maybe try
and leave it a little better than you found?

Oh - and use your brain. When possible,
engage it - before opening your mouth.

charlie b

Sun, Jul 8, 2007, 4:25am (EDT-3) [email protected] burbles:
Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK <snip>

I don't eat pork, I eat ham. Bite me.



JOAT
I do things I don't know how to do, so that I might learn how to do
them.
- Picasso

In article <[email protected]>, NoOne N Particular <[email protected]> wrote:

>P.S. I also think we need to stop calling these bombers "suicide bombers".
>They are not going out there to commit suicide. If that was the case someone
>could start a business out in the desert selling bomb belts and renting booths.
>
> "No waiting for booth #12." "Would that be grenades or C4?" No, these people
>are going out to commit MURDER. They should be called murder bombers.

Fox News *does* refer to them as "homicide bombers".

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 21:48:36 GMT, Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:25:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT WOOD
>
>I havn't found anywhere in the bible where it says you can't eat wood.
>But, since most of us are not termites, our digestive tracts are not
>designed for digesting wood. Do not eat wood.


What about licking wood? <G>

Otherwise, I might know some women who are in big trouble...

---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

Barry Lennox <[email protected]> writes:

> The same bible says my neighbour must die as I saw him picking up
> sticks on a Sunday, So that's that, we know that cannot be negotiated.

And don't forget Leviticus 19:19 - NIV --
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

There are more, like women talking in church, marrying a woman who is
divorced, eating shellfish, wearing gold jewelry, exercise, charging
interest, cross-breeding, etc.

See:

http://www.rdrop.com/~jimka/treties.html

BillinDetroit <[email protected]> writes:

> cross-breeding,
>
> As shown below, the prohibition was against interbreeding "of two
> sorts". That is, no matching up a camel with a bull, a chicken with a
> goose and so on. To the best of my knowledge, only horses and asses
> can breed like that and produce offspring, but even then, the
> offspring (a mule) is sterile.
> etc.

Wolves and dogs crossbreed.
liger - lion and tiger

Doug Miller wrote:
<<< SNIPPAGE >>>>
>
> Fox News *does* refer to them as "homicide bombers".
>
True, but it doesn't seem to have the same impact to me.

Wayne

Dave Balderstone wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Barry Lennox
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:25:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK
>> >
>>
>> Oh, Yawn !!
>>
>> The same bible says my neighbour must die as I saw him picking up
>> sticks on a Sunday, So that's that, we know that cannot be negotiated.
>> However , I have one question I hope you can help me with, It talks of
>> stoning, Now stones are heavy and I have a bad back, they are costly
>> and just so awkward and passe. Can't I just run him over with the
>> tractor instead ?
>
> I think if you're towing a rock picker it's okay. Just to be safe,
> though, make it a stone boat.
>
> Pork ribs with dry rub on them in the fridge right now... Mmmm.

Good, but not as good as salt cured ham :-).


--
It's turtles, all the way down

I find it amazing that some one believes that god is a food critic. I
applaud people who refrain from some activities as a personal means of
professing their faith or as a form of self sacrifice - much as I applaud
Kirsty Alley for loosing weight.. However I am revolted by "crazies" that
want god (or themselves) to smite you if you don't toe their lines. This
thinking went out in the 1500's in the civilized world.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK
>
> Both the Bible and Qur'an prohibit the eating of pork. Muslims are
> aware of this prohibition and observe it strictly. However, most
> readers of the Bible say they do not know where they can find this in
> the Bible. In the book of Leviticus, Chapter 11, v. 7, it is recorded
> that God declares the pig to be unclean for believers. Then, in verse
> 8, God says: 'You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses;
> they are unclean for you'. This command is repeated in Deuteronomy
> 14;7-8. Then, in Isaiah 65:2-4, and 66:17, God issues a stern warning
> against those who eat pork.
>
> Some people are aware of this prohibition from God, but they say that
> they can eat pork because St. Paul said that all food is clean in his
> letter to the Romans 14:20. St. Paul said this because he believed (as
> he wrote in his letter to the Ephesians 2:14-15) that Jesus had
> abolished the Law with all its commandments and regulations. He seems,
> however, to have misunderstood what he heard from Jesus. In the Gospel
> According to Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus is reported to have said quite the
> contrary, as follows: 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the
> law...' Jesus then went on in that passage (in verse 19) to denounce
> anyone who would break the smallest commandment and teach others
> likewise. He also praised his true followers who will practice and
> teach even the smallest commandments. One of the commandments, as we
> have seen, is to stay away from pork. This is why the true followers
> of Jesus, holding on to his teachings, did not let unclean food such
> as pork enter their mouths, so that Peter, the chief disciple, can
> say: 'I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.' (Acts of the
> Apostles, ch. 10, v. 14). Five chapters later in the Acts of the
> Apostles, 15:29, we find that the original disciples still
> differentiate between clean and unclean foods, and this time Paul is
> in agreement with them. Six chapters later, in ch, 21, v.25, their
> decision to impose food regulations on believers is mentioned without
> regret, and this time Paul is challenged to prove that he is in
> agreement with them; and he demonstrated his full agreement with them.
> What remains, then, is that Jesus, on whom be peace, upheld the
> prohibition against pork. His disciples also upheld it, and so must
> all his followers. Those who fail to uphold it need to be informed and
> reminded of this rule from God. This is one reason why God sent His
> final messenger, on whom be peace. God says: 'O people of the
> ******ure! Now has Our Messenger come unto you, expounding unto you
> much of that which you used to hide in the ******ure, and passing over
> much (without explanation). Now has come unto you light from Allah and
> a plain ******ure.' (The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an
>

charlieb wrote:
> "Religions" can serve a societal function.
<<<< WHOLE LOTTA SNIPPAGE GOIN ON >>>>>>>>>>

While religion may provide some social functions, it is my opinion that they
came about in the first place for two reasons. One is POWER and the second is
CONTROL. This has been true from the earliest cave man Shamans through todays
Pope. If you can explain the natural events that happen around you in a more
convincing way than another person, then you have the power. The more people
that you can convince, the more power and control you have.

Today, it seems like we have two factions fighting for control. On one side we
have the Christian religion, and on the other we have Islam. One example of
what the battle is about is that one side has the word of God saying simply
"Thou shalt not kill." If I remember correctly, that should actually translate
as "Thou shalt not MURDER." The you have the Muslims and their so-called
"prophet" saying that what God actually meant to say was "Thou shalt not murder
(except those people . . .and those people)." The war today is mainly between
the Judeo-Christian religions, and Islam. If Islam was to win this war, who do
you think would be next? Buddhism? Hindi? The true Infidels (that would be
atheism)?

I obviously have many problems with Islam. More so than other religions. Even
the way Islam came about in the first place. From what I have read and heard,
Mohammad was in his tent out in the desert or where ever. The descriptions that
I have heard and read sound exactly like he had a heart attack, and so he
probably started hallucinating. Probably happened more than once. When he
related his hallucinations to people, they started thinking that he was speaking
the word of God (or as it turns out, the word of the angel Gabriel). So he
takes this and runs with it. He saw that the Arab people were in need and
started thinking that with his new POWER he could start CONTROLling them. He
may have had the best intentions, but it didn't work out that way, did it?

It also seems to me that Muslim hate the Jews because they think the Jews killed
Jesus At least, that is one excuse. But now, they want to murder every single
Jew that breathes because of it. Interesting to me that they want to murder ALL
of Gods chosen people. Which would include Jesus if he has really returned as
some people seem to think.

One of the biggest problems I have with the Qurran itself is that there is no
context. The babbling of Mohammad are listed in order of their length. Not
even in a chronological sequence. Without context, you can make it say just
about anything that you want it to say. These Imam's and assholetollah's use it
to suit what they want.



Wayne

P.S. I also think we need to stop calling these bombers "suicide bombers".
They are not going out there to commit suicide. If that was the case someone
could start a business out in the desert selling bomb belts and renting booths.
"No waiting for booth #12." "Would that be grenades or C4?" No, these people
are going out to commit MURDER. They should be called murder bombers.









>
> charlie b

BillinDetroit wrote:

>
> Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually rebut
> this clown?

It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.

Lew

RIBS!!!!!!! smoked and slightly chewy
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK
>
> Both the Bible and Qur'an prohibit the eating of pork. Muslims are
> aware of this prohibition and observe it strictly. However, most
> readers of the Bible say they do not know where they can find this in
> the Bible. In the book of Leviticus, Chapter 11, v. 7, it is recorded
> that God declares the pig to be unclean for believers. Then, in verse
> 8, God says: 'You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses;
> they are unclean for you'. This command is repeated in Deuteronomy
> 14;7-8. Then, in Isaiah 65:2-4, and 66:17, God issues a stern warning
> against those who eat pork.
>
> Some people are aware of this prohibition from God, but they say that
> they can eat pork because St. Paul said that all food is clean in his
> letter to the Romans 14:20. St. Paul said this because he believed (as
> he wrote in his letter to the Ephesians 2:14-15) that Jesus had
> abolished the Law with all its commandments and regulations. He seems,
> however, to have misunderstood what he heard from Jesus. In the Gospel
> According to Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus is reported to have said quite the
> contrary, as follows: 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the
> law...' Jesus then went on in that passage (in verse 19) to denounce
> anyone who would break the smallest commandment and teach others
> likewise. He also praised his true followers who will practice and
> teach even the smallest commandments. One of the commandments, as we
> have seen, is to stay away from pork. This is why the true followers
> of Jesus, holding on to his teachings, did not let unclean food such
> as pork enter their mouths, so that Peter, the chief disciple, can
> say: 'I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.' (Acts of the
> Apostles, ch. 10, v. 14). Five chapters later in the Acts of the
> Apostles, 15:29, we find that the original disciples still
> differentiate between clean and unclean foods, and this time Paul is
> in agreement with them. Six chapters later, in ch, 21, v.25, their
> decision to impose food regulations on believers is mentioned without
> regret, and this time Paul is challenged to prove that he is in
> agreement with them; and he demonstrated his full agreement with them.
> What remains, then, is that Jesus, on whom be peace, upheld the
> prohibition against pork. His disciples also upheld it, and so must
> all his followers. Those who fail to uphold it need to be informed and
> reminded of this rule from God. This is one reason why God sent His
> final messenger, on whom be peace. God says: 'O people of the
> ******ure! Now has Our Messenger come unto you, expounding unto you
> much of that which you used to hide in the ******ure, and passing over
> much (without explanation). Now has come unto you light from Allah and
> a plain ******ure.' (The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'an
>

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:

>It would be nice if the decent but silent majority of Muslims would take a more
>public stand on this and condemn the pinheads for what they are: Genocidal
>Maniacs...

I agree entirely. The silence of the "moderate Muslim community" is
sufficiently conspicuous to make me wonder if there even is such a thing.

And if the genocidal maniacs want to see Allah.... I think we should help
them.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Sounds like instead of sending troups over there we should cut out the
middle man and just ship small arms.
"Tim Daneliuk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> HeyBub wrote:
>> NoOne N Particular wrote:
>>> Today, it seems like we have two factions fighting for control. On
>>> one side we have the Christian religion, and on the other we have
>>> Islam.
>>
>> You're not even close. In the past (say few decades), Muslims have killed
>> many more of their fellow religionists than any inter-religion feuding.
>>
>> Lybia vs Egypt
>> Lebanon vs Syria
>> Iraq vs Iran
>> Iraq vs Kuwait
>> Turkey vs Iraq
>> Sudan vs everybody
>> Somalia vs everybody
>> Iraq vs Iraq
>> Palestinians vs Palestinians
>>
>> I'm not exaggerating: millions dead.
>>
>> About the only Muslim country that hasn't been a war with somebody is
>> Minnesota.
>>
>> Of the 50-odd countries that are predominately Muslim only TWO are
>> nominal
>> democracies (Turky and Malaysia). The rest are Theocracies (Iran),
>> Monarchies (Jordan, Morocco), Oligarchies (Egypt), or out-and-out
>> anarchies
>> (Somalia, Sudan).
>>
>>
> Oh .. and in all the wars between Israel and their Muslim neighbors a
> grand total of
> about 100,000 dead - vs. the 3 million or so Muslims killing each other in
> that same period of time...

"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> wrote in news:469123af$0$491$815e3792
@news.qwest.net:

> "Enjoin ye righteousness upon mankind while ye yourselves forget (to
> practise it)? And ye are readers of the Scripture! Have ye then no
> sense?"
>
An (ex)-junkie with no education, but eager to please as our janitor, spoke
the wise words:

"Common sense is a misnomer, it isn't common at all"

(unreligious) AMEN! to that!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

RE: Subject

Pork Fat Rules.

Just ask Emeril.

Lew

HeyBub wrote:
> NoOne N Particular wrote:
>> Today, it seems like we have two factions fighting for control. On
>> one side we have the Christian religion, and on the other we have
>> Islam.
>
> You're not even close. In the past (say few decades), Muslims have killed
> many more of their fellow religionists than any inter-religion feuding.
>
> Lybia vs Egypt
> Lebanon vs Syria
> Iraq vs Iran
> Iraq vs Kuwait
> Turkey vs Iraq
> Sudan vs everybody
> Somalia vs everybody
> Iraq vs Iraq
> Palestinians vs Palestinians
>
> I'm not exaggerating: millions dead.
>
> About the only Muslim country that hasn't been a war with somebody is
> Minnesota.
>
> Of the 50-odd countries that are predominately Muslim only TWO are nominal
> democracies (Turky and Malaysia). The rest are Theocracies (Iran),
> Monarchies (Jordan, Morocco), Oligarchies (Egypt), or out-and-out anarchies
> (Somalia, Sudan).
>
>
Oh .. and in all the wars between Israel and their Muslim neighbors a grand total of
about 100,000 dead - vs. the 3 million or so Muslims killing each other in that same period of time...

MMmmmm.... Pork chops...

[email protected] wrote:
> Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK

Richard Catto wrote:

> Mike M wrote:
>
>>"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>>On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Father Haskell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>BillinDetroit wrote:
>>>>>>> > Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
>>>>>>>rebut
>>>>>>> > this clown?
>>>>>>>It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
>>>>>>>Lew
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are entitled to your opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's also divisive.
>>>>
>>>>Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
>>>
>>>The author of the religious bullshit, for making more than
>>>one flavor.
>>
>>I blame Richard Catto. <eg>
>>--
>>"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
>>balls to get old!"
>
>
> Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
>
> Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
>
> LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a fucking faggot you are!
>


rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 04:25:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT WOOD

I havn't found anywhere in the bible where it says you can't eat wood.
But, since most of us are not termites, our digestive tracts are not
designed for digesting wood. Do not eat wood.

Russ wrote:
> MMmmmm.... Pork chops...
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Bible & Qur'an Say : DO NOT EAT PORK
Or pork rinds. . . .or bacon . . .or sausage . . .or . . .

<<< SNIPPAGE >>>
>
> Ahem ... this is war. The object is to murder 'the enemy' (whoever the
> people in power point at) and to demoralize them. They almost always
> make at least a one for one exchange ... sometimes bumping the ratio to
> 40:1 or so. On 9/11, they were able to bump that to about 500:1 -and-
> suck the US economy down. Oh ... and they used US jets to do it with,
> too.* That's a pretty good battlefield return. If (when) they repeat
> that performance on US soil, DHS is gonna have a whole lot of egg on its
> face.
>
>
> Bill

I agree that this is war. Probably even WW III because their poison will
spread. But the bottom line is that this is an idealogical war and not
necessarily a military war. I'm certainly not saying that our military isn't
needed. It absolutely is. But our military, as good as it is, and as necessary
as it is will never win this war. What we have to do is to convince them that
we are not their enemy, they are. They are their own worst enemy. They seem to
think that we are attacking Islam but all we really want is for them to live
peacefully in this world. If they can't do that, then by all means we should
help them to the next.

And I wonder what the real battlefield return is for them overall. 9/11 was
closer to 150:1, but in the long run we are probably ahead in that respect by
probably 200:1 or 300:1. It's very hard to tell because our side doesn't say
how many of their side is killed. It could be that no one really knows. Our
propaganda machine (that would be our so called press) would never report
anything like that because that might be considered favorable to the US. just
tell us how bad the USA is.

One last thing. I don't think blowing up some poor people going to the market
to buy some food to keep their families from starving should be considered valid
targets. If you are in a war, you should be attacking the ones that you think
are responsible for . . .whatever it is that you are fighting. I don't think
even the muslims think that ordinary people in the US are their enemy. But that
is the people that they are really attacking. That kind of attack isn't
demoralizing. It is uniting. If they keep it up, more and more people will be
united against them. If (and I agree that it is a matter of when) there is
another 9/11 type of attack, even the democrats may have to acknowledge that.

Wayne

You keep hearing them say ". . .if it Allah's will . . ." Well more often than
not Allah is saying "It is NOT my will!"

Richard Catto wrote:
> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>
>>Richard Catto wrote:
>>
>>>peachy ashie passion wrote:
>>>
>>>>Richard Catto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mike M wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Father Haskell wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>BillinDetroit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>rebut this clown?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
>>>>>>>>>>>Lew
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You are entitled to your opinion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's also divisive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The author of the religious bullshit, for making more than
>>>>>>>one flavor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I blame Richard Catto. <eg>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
>>>>>>balls to get old!"
>>>>>
>>>>>Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
>>>>>Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
>>>>>LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a fucking faggot you are!
>>>>
>>>> rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.
>>>
>>>This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
>>>to rec.humor, I will.
>>>You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in rec.humor.
>>>This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.
>>>That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.
>>
>> No, I see no reason why I should read the same threads in multiple
>>groups.
>
>
> This is not my problem, traci.
>
>
>> I go to rh for a certain thing, I go to alt.flame for another.
>
>
> <yawn>
>
>> I'd prefer to keep things separate, like I don't drop a country
>>music song in the middle of a R&B CD when I make it.
>
>
> I don't give a shit what you prefer. Has the penny dropped yet?


OH Waaaa.

Ask me a fucken question and then say you don't give a shit about the
answer?

Then don't fucking ask already. In case you haven't noticed, I
didn't jump up and down and give you my explanations unrequested.

You asked a question, I gave an answer. Don't whine about it.

charlieb wrote:
> FoggyTown wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> With all the millenia of tinkering by man,
>> it is difficult to know what is truly the Word of God and what is a
>> commercial fillip for medieval fishmongers.
>
> Not difficult at all - if you think about it -without
> all the spin humans add for their own benefit.

<Threadjack Alert :) >

>
> Be good to each other.


By and large, I find that most people do try to do this except in
two places: cars and airplanes. Why you get to dispense with good
manners when traveling remains a mystery to me. I travel 4 days
a week on average and I am constantly astounded by the moronic
level of personal behavior otherwise nice people manage to
permit themselves.


> Lend a helping hand when you can.

Again, mostly I think people do this on the whole. What has changed
(and for the better in my view) is that most of us have lost our
patience for lending "a helping hand" when the recipient is someone
who repeatedly induces self-inflicted wounds (by means of their
bad personal choices) and expects everyone else to get them out
of their own messes. There are too many people whose problems
are not their own fault for me to pay much, if any, attention to
those who live in a sewer and then complain they smell bad.

>
> Try to leave the place in no worse shape
> than when you found it. And maybe try
> and leave it a little better than you found?

It's a good idea, but the devil is in the details. In a pluralistic
society, "better" cannot be universally defined to everyone's common
satisfaction. I think the very best you can do is "Do whatever you
do in a manner so as not to cause harm to others, present or future,
unless they inflict harm upon you first." "Harm" is pretty easy to
define - it is always some expression of either fraud, force, or threat.

You can actually implement this model (though we don't - lot's of
activity that is claimed to be for "the common good" is actually
fraud, force, or, more usually, both).


> Oh - and use your brain. When possible,
> engage it - before opening your mouth.
>

Aye, and there's the rub. "Using your brain" is only useful if it's
been trained to think crisply. This is the Achilles Heel of free
societies. The more "free" we become, the more prosperous we become
with relatively less effort - a hard working neurosurgeon today
expends a whole lot fewer hours and labor than a farmer, say, a
hundred years ago. This means that a good part of society can get by,
living reasonably well, without too much effort - *especially* mental
effort. That's how you get successful "musicians" who can't read music,
"teachers" who can't spell or perform basic arithmetic, "art critics"
that don't understand art, political "leaders" entirely ignorant
of the history and principles of our legal system ... When untrained
brains are engaged you get disastrous results, and we see them every
day.

Then there are those cases of highly trained brains that "use" them in
malfeasant ways: corrupt politicians, dishonest business leaders,
oppressive union leaders, and so forth.

The Enlightenment thinkers and their heirs were quick to point out that
their ideas about political theory only worked so long as you had
a well educated and thinking population. In parallel ways, you can't
have "good" results when bad thinking dominates corners of science,
religion, culture, the arts, literature, philosophy, medicine,
and business.

For just one example of how awful things can be, read Roger Kimball's
"Rape Of The Masters" where he takes you through the modern insane
asylum that is the world of art criticism. He doesn't have to actually
write much commentary to make you want to hurl lunch all over the floor.
He just has to quote some of these "distinguished" professors and
the kind of intellectual sewage they are peddling to our young minds
for $20-$60K a year per student, no less). It's just plain horrifying:

http://tinyurl.com/28kywr


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Richard Catto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>> Richard Catto wrote:
>> > Mike M wrote:
>> >>"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >>>On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>Father Haskell wrote:
>> >>>>>On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>>>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> >>>>>>>BillinDetroit wrote:
>> >>>>>>> > Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
>> >>>>>>> > rebut this clown?
>> >>>>>>>It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
>> >>>>>>>Lew
>> >>>>>>You are entitled to your opinion.
>> >>>>>It's also divisive.
>> >>>>Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
>> >>>The author of the religious bullshit, for making more than
>> >>>one flavor.
>> >>I blame Richard Catto. <eg>
>> >>--
>> >>"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
>> >>balls to get old!"
>> > Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
>> > Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
>> > LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a fucking faggot you are!
>> rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.
>
> This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
> to rec.humor, I will.
>
> You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in rec.humor.
>
> This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.
>
> That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.

Just like normal, you're trashing all the groups you can.
>

RE: Subject

OH FUCK!

Lew

"Richard Catto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Parsons wrote:
>> "Richard Catto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > Parsons wrote:
>> >> "Richard Catto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> > peachy ashie passion wrote:
>> >> >> Richard Catto wrote:
>> >> >> > Mike M wrote:
>> >> >> >>"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>>On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]>
>> >> >> >>>wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>Father Haskell wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]>
>> >> >> >>>>>wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>BillinDetroit wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>> > Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to
>> >> >> >>>>>>> > actually
>> >> >> >>>>>>> > rebut this clown?
>> >> >> >>>>>>>It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>Lew
>> >> >> >>>>>>You are entitled to your opinion.
>> >> >> >>>>>It's also divisive.
>> >> >> >>>>Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that
>> >> >> >>>>divisiveness?
>> >> >> >>>The author of the religious bullshit, for making more than
>> >> >> >>>one flavor.
>> >> >> >>I blame Richard Catto. <eg>
>> >> >> >>--
>> >> >> >>"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
>> >> >> >>balls to get old!"
>> >> >> > Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
>> >> >> > Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
>> >> >> > LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a fucking faggot you are!
>> >> >> rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.
>> >> > This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
>> >> > to rec.humor, I will.
>> >> > You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in
>> >> > rec.humor.
>> >> > This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.
>> >> > That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.
>> >> Just like normal, you're trashing all the groups you can.
>> > Prove it, Quasimodo.
>> I already did turd breath.
>
> So far you've proven that you have a shit fetish.
>
> What else you got, Amerikaner?

Worming your way out again Dicky boy? Since you're so smart why don't
you just come on over here. I know you won't because you're a coward
plus you're not allowed in the country because you're a criminal.
>

Richard Catto wrote:

> peachy ashie passion wrote:
>
>>Richard Catto wrote:
>>
>>>Mike M wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Father Haskell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>On Jul 9, 2:51 pm, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Father Haskell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Jul 9, 1:02 am, BillinDetroit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>BillinDetroit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Hmmm ... all those replies and no one knew enough to actually
>>>>>>>>>>rebut this clown?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It's all religious bullshit, the biggest scam on the planet.
>>>>>>>>>Lew
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You are entitled to your opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's also divisive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Really? Interesting. But who would you blame for that divisiveness?
>>>>>
>>>>>The author of the religious bullshit, for making more than
>>>>>one flavor.
>>>>
>>>>I blame Richard Catto. <eg>
>>>>--
>>>>"Anybody can have more birthdays; but it takes
>>>>balls to get old!"
>>>
>>>Your (organ) failure is complete, Skeletor!
>>>Goodbye, Mr. Bond!
>>>LMFAO @ rec.woodworking! What a fucking faggot you are!
>>
>> rh isn't necessary sugar, you've got me with alt.flame.
>
>
> This isn't about you. It's about me and Mike. If I want to x-post it
> to rec.humor, I will.
>
> You seem to have a marked reticence to responding to me in rec.humor.
>
> This is no doubt due to Larry not liking that.
>
> That makes me strongly suspect that you are pwned.
>

No, I see no reason why I should read the same threads in multiple
groups. I go to rh for a certain thing, I go to alt.flame for another.
I'd prefer to keep things separate, like I don't drop a country
music song in the middle of a R&B CD when I make it.

I don't pretend I don't like your crap sometimes, but I like it
outside rh.