"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

What he said is his view, it is different than the establishment
of religion by govenrment.

Are you channeling Gibberella?

This is something that atheist liberals have a hard time understanding.

Indeed, some of us do. The ability to decipher gibberish is not
restricted to pinheaded conservatives and Hamas-loving Catholic
hypocrites.



Where does it say that the President must be an atheist.
Where does it say that he cannot express his religious views?

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

Jesus as an insurance policy?

I've heard that "what if you're wrong" routine too many times.


It is known that insurance companes often refuse to
pay valid claims. I have as much faith in Jesus as I have in GEICO.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...


Robert Morein said:

Correct. It is "Natural Selection" that is unproven, not "Evolution."
Conceivably, the selection process could be the result of "Intelligent
Design."

Does that mean you want us to pray, or something like that?

No. I have my own biases, which stem from Occam's Razor, which means I
tend to dislike religious explanations as causes of things. But if we put
Occam's razor back in the shaving kit, then Intelligent Design comes back
to haunt us.

I suspect that like me, you fear that Intelligent Design is actually a
Trojan Horse of the Religious Right. That's essentially what the
Pennsylvania judge stated in his decision.



Its such gibberish that it even pollutes the strict Creationsit dogma.

Clyde Slick said:

Where does it say that the President must be an atheist.
Where does it say that he cannot express his religious views?

Do you really think the issue is that simple.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

Where does it say that the President must be an atheist.
Where does it say that he cannot express his religious views?

Do you really think the issue is that simple.



As far as the subject at hand being the Pres saying "May God bless America",
yes

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
news

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...


Robert Morein said:

Correct. It is "Natural Selection" that is unproven, not "Evolution."
Conceivably, the selection process could be the result of "Intelligent
Design."

Does that mean you want us to pray, or something like that?

No. I have my own biases, which stem from Occam's Razor, which means I
tend to dislike religious explanations as causes of things. But if we
put Occam's razor back in the shaving kit, then Intelligent Design comes
back to haunt us.

I suspect that like me, you fear that Intelligent Design is actually a
Trojan Horse of the Religious Right. That's essentially what the
Pennsylvania judge stated in his decision.



Its such gibberish that it even pollutes the strict Creationsit dogma.
How could anything be worse than Creationism?

Clyde Slick said:

Where does it say that he cannot express his religious views?

Do you really think the issue is that simple.

As far as the subject at hand being the Pres saying "May God bless America",
yes

Are you being disingenuous or just plain dumb?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
news

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...


Robert Morein said:

Correct. It is "Natural Selection" that is unproven, not "Evolution."
Conceivably, the selection process could be the result of "Intelligent
Design."

Does that mean you want us to pray, or something like that?

No. I have my own biases, which stem from Occam's Razor, which means I
tend to dislike religious explanations as causes of things. But if we
put Occam's razor back in the shaving kit, then Intelligent Design comes
back to haunt us.

I suspect that like me, you fear that Intelligent Design is actually a
Trojan Horse of the Religious Right. That's essentially what the
Pennsylvania judge stated in his decision.



Its such gibberish that it even pollutes the strict Creationsit dogma.
How could anything be worse than Creationism?


Not worse, it just pollutes it.
Intelligent design actually refutes strict creationism

Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

I don't want the government to promote any religous view.

I thought the US constitution forbade that in fact.

Graham

It does indeed. But the Religous Right has argued that the words are to be
understood in the context of the time in which they were written, a context
they claim they know

I see. The 'we know better' argument . Typical..


. I prefer the literal meaning.

Indeed.


But in fact, it is my understanding that the late 18th and early 19th
century, in America, were times of greater religious diversity, at least in
terms of tolerance of aetheism, than now.

Really ? Yet again American society puzzles. Given the scepticism apparent in
the US for large organisations e.g. the 'gubmint' etc I'm perplexed how ppl are
so easily hoaxed by religion.

Graham

From: Pooh Bear
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 03:48:32 +0000

Really ? Yet again American society puzzles. Given the scepticism apparent in
the US for large organisations e.g. the 'gubmint' etc I'm perplexed how ppl are
so easily hoaxed by religion.

I personally blame Europe for the religious crazies in the US, and lack
of personal thought or introspection or study for their perpetuation.

In the 1600 and 1700s, where did Europe send the religious whackos (or,
perhaps, where did they 'allow them to colonize')?

If your parents are, say, Baptist (or Lutheran or Catholic or
whatever), the odds are you will be too. If your parents are a
particular flavor (Wisconsin vs. Missouri Synod for Lutherans, for
example), the odds are you will be too.

Removing conversions of convenience (for marriage or location,
primarily) the nuts usually don't fall too far from the tree. Mom and
Dad just couldn't be wrong! So you take the nutjobs from the 1600s,
have them procreate and pass their fundamentalism from generation to
generation, have none of them seriously consider it, and there you have
it. They aren't being hoaxed; they're right, dammit! When will YOU
learn?

This is just personal observation and a study of history. To head off
the science crowd, I have no scientific data to back this up. You
should just have faith that I'm correct.

By the way, Merry Christmas.:-)

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

From: Pooh Bear
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 03:48:32 +0000

Really ? Yet again American society puzzles. Given the scepticism apparent in
the US for large organisations e.g. the 'gubmint' etc I'm perplexed how ppl are
so easily hoaxed by religion.

I personally blame Europe for the religious crazies in the US, and lack
of personal thought or introspection or study for their perpetuation.

In the 1600 and 1700s, where did Europe send the religious whackos (or,
perhaps, where did they 'allow them to colonize')?

'Europe' didn't *send* them anywhere of course.

Those who travelled to the 'new continent' did so of their own free will.


If your parents are, say, Baptist (or Lutheran or Catholic or
whatever), the odds are you will be too. If your parents are a
particular flavor (Wisconsin vs. Missouri Synod for Lutherans, for
example), the odds are you will be too.

Removing conversions of convenience (for marriage or location,
primarily) the nuts usually don't fall too far from the tree. Mom and
Dad just couldn't be wrong! So you take the nutjobs from the 1600s,
have them procreate and pass their fundamentalism from generation to
generation, have none of them seriously consider it, and there you have
it. They aren't being hoaxed; they're right, dammit! When will YOU
learn?

LOL !

This is just personal observation and a study of history. To head off
the science crowd, I have no scientific data to back this up. You
should just have faith that I'm correct.

By the way, Merry Christmas.:-)

Merry Christmas back at you ! ;-)

Have a great Feast of Mammon too.

Graham

Robert Morein wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

How could anything be worse than Creationism?

What about Creationists?

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


'Europe' didn't *send* them anywhere of course.

Those who travelled to the 'new continent' did so of their own free will.


Some prisoners were sent to South Carolina, I think.
And Europeans sent more than a few 'unwilling' Africans over here.

wrote:
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
wrote:

I don't want the government to promote any religous view.

Then should Dubya stop urging God to "bless the United States of America"?

Not when 96% of America identifies itself as Christian, and not since most
of the rest shoule be intelligent enought ounderstand that he means that the
country is worth protecting.

My own staunch disbelief in God as an institution notwithstanding, I
take exception to what you just wrote.

When he gets on television and addresses the nation, he is given a
public forum to discuss American policy, not his own fervent religious
beliefs.

So whether he's ordering God to bless America, or urging people to stop
using cellphones and jump on his alcohol-free Menonite bandwagon, I
strongly the resent the injection of religious (be it Christian,
Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist) rhetoric into his speeches.

Here's another stat, Mickey: 69% of Americans believe in angels. And in
a recent survey in Miami, more people thought that Tony Blair was the
director of the Blair Witch Project than the PM of the UK.

Go figure.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

Where does it say that he cannot express his religious views?

Do you really think the issue is that simple.

As far as the subject at hand being the Pres saying "May God bless
America",
yes

Are you being disingenuous or just plain dumb?



Is God Damn It any different from God Bless America?
Are both of those statements equivalent to the government extablishing
religion?

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
wrote:
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
wrote:

I don't want the government to promote any religous view.

Then should Dubya stop urging God to "bless the United States of
America"?

Not when 96% of America identifies itself as Christian, and not since
most of the rest shoule be intelligent enought ounderstand that he means
that the country is worth protecting.

My own staunch disbelief in God as an institution notwithstanding, I take
exception to what you just wrote.

When he gets on television and addresses the nation, he is given a public
forum to discuss American policy, not his own fervent religious beliefs.

So whether he's ordering God to bless America, or urging people to stop
using cellphones and jump on his alcohol-free Menonite bandwagon, I
strongly the resent the injection of religious (be it Christian, Islamic,
Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist) rhetoric into his speeches.

Here's another stat, Mickey: 69% of Americans believe in angels. And in a
recent survey in Miami, more people thought that Tony Blair was the
director of the Blair Witch Project than the PM of the UK.

Go figure.


I just can't belive how anybody can be
offended by the President saying "May God Bless America".
Unless you not only disavow a belief in God,
but actually 'hate' God. Oh, then he must exist!

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

How could anything be worse than Creationism?

What about Creationists?

I think that Creationists that have morphed into
Intelligent Designists are worse. In a hateful
frenzy against Darwinism, they have forsaken
their own supposedly deeply held beliefs in the literal
interpretation of the Bible.

"Clyde Slick" said:

I think that Creationists that have morphed into
Intelligent Designists are worse. In a hateful
frenzy against Darwinism, they have forsaken
their own supposedly deeply held beliefs in the literal
interpretation of the Bible.


Sort of a perverse form of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"?

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

From: Schizoid Man
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:11:27 +0000

Here's another stat, Mickey: 69% of Americans believe in angels.

So what's the matter with the other 31%? There's the problem right
there.

And in a recent survey in Miami, more people thought that Tony Blair was the
director of the Blair Witch Project than the PM of the UK.

You'd think that more people in Miami would know that Tony Blair is
that salsa-dancing guy on the Sopranos, particularly since he's Latino.

Clyde Slick said:

As far as the subject at hand being the Pres saying "May God bless
America", yes

Are you being disingenuous or just plain dumb?

Is God Damn It any different from God Bless America?

In our times, they are different. Is your frame of reference the 17th
century?

Are both of those statements equivalent to the government extablishing
religion?

No, not both, silly person.

Clyde Slick said:

I just can't belive how anybody can be
offended by the President saying "May God Bless America".

As a member of a religious minority, and moreover one that has arguably
suffered the greatest persecution in the history of mankind, you might
be more sensitive to exclusionary tactics of race-baiters.

Unless you not only disavow a belief in God,
but actually 'hate' God. Oh, then he must exist!

You *are* this obtuse. I had no idea.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" said:

I think that Creationists that have morphed into
Intelligent Designists are worse. In a hateful
frenzy against Darwinism, they have forsaken
their own supposedly deeply held beliefs in the literal
interpretation of the Bible.

I think there are probably very few actual believers in "intelligent
design". I think it's a Trojan Horse, to sneak Creationism into the public
school curricula.

I find "Intelligent Design" an idea that cannot be summarily dismissed. My
problem is not with the bare idea, but the people who push it.

Personally, I believe in "Unintelligent Design." For that, we have a living
example, Mikey McKelviphibian.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

I just can't belive how anybody can be
offended by the President saying "May God Bless America".

As a member of a religious minority, and moreover one that has arguably
suffered the greatest persecution in the history of mankind, you might
be more sensitive to exclusionary tactics of race-baiters.


being blessed by God, whether it exists
or not, is relatively benign! I don't consider
it a persecution. Even though you don't believe,
he is aking that you be blessed also.


Unless you not only disavow a belief in God,
but actually 'hate' God. Oh, then he must exist!

You *are* this obtuse. I had no idea.

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:57:19 -0500

being blessed by God, whether it exists
or not, is relatively benign! I don't consider
it a persecution. Even though you don't believe,
he is aking that you be blessed also.

Let's just change it up a bit and see if you still feel the same way.
At the conclusion of a sppech, Bushie says:

"May Beezlebub, in His Most Glorious Darkness, Bless America."

"May America be Touched by the Noodly Appendage of His Holiness, the
Flying Spaghetti Monster."

"Allah Akbar."

"May the Force be With America."

"Heil Hitler."

"**** off and die. I'm above the law."

Would any of these alternative presidential statements offend you,
given that none of them are directly aimed at you? If so, which ones?

"Trevor Wilson" wrote

* In case you didn't figure it out, I was suggesting that it was a
particularly un-Christian statement.

bull****. to say that someone has an ugliness that seems to come
from inside, is hardly cruel or hostile. It's an observation. That's
in case you didn't figure out I wasn't actually saying they were
physically ugly. Take Mikey. Please........

Don't you think the disrespect I'm getting here is ugly? I think
it suggests something in and of itself. Using terms like "deluded"
and "Jeezus" is disrespectful and condescending. Mind you, I'm
not surprised by it or sensitive to it - just pointing it out. If you or
anyone else has a fundamental belief, you can no more prove it than
I can, which is what you demand of every assertion. Every belief
requires a leap of faith. And if you don't have a belief, then aren't
you probably seeking one?

Your belief, apparently, is that the universe as we know it, sprang
from an explosion of unknown cause. Before the explosion, there
existed a different explosive reality with different or unknown physical
laws. Universes probably exploded into existence a (billion x billion)
times. Several of them supported expansion. Several of them
supported carbon-based life. One time, one possessed the
physical laws that allowed it to expand AND the properties which
supported carbon-based life. What are the chances of that?
While this universe was expanding, matter and energy traded
particles and forms, and at some point, life happened. Life probably
happened a (billion x billion) times. Several times the organisms
possessed the ability to reproduce. Thank God for sex. Several
times they possessed the ability or attribute of mutation. One time,
they possessed both attributes. These made the wisest spousal
"selections" - usually choosing the mutated form if he or she was
stronger or more handsome. Of course, only the strongest survived.
Pretty soon we had fishes and alligators and monkeys. You know,
if you put a billion monkeys and just one typewriter in a large room
for a billion years, one of them will eventually write the Bible.
It's inevitable.

I choose to believe the New Testament is a first hand
perspective of the life of Christ. When I decided to believe
that, it came with a peace. And every week, attending service
reinforces that peace. "Opiate of the masses" as the goon says?
Fine. I'll take it. It's not an insurance policy. It's a choice.
Deluded? I think you're deluded if you believe you have the
ability to understand EVERYTHING, and that EVERYTHING
can be explained within the physical laws of this universe.

If you (and the rest of you) are fine with your belief, great.
If you don't have a belief, try attending a modern Christian service.
You might at least find it interesting.

with reluctance, I post this response. OK - flame away.

surf said:

Don't you think the disrespect I'm getting here is ugly? I think
it suggests something in and of itself. Using terms like "deluded"
and "Jeezus" is disrespectful and condescending.

Oh good. You're getting the message.

"surf" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote

* In case you didn't figure it out, I was suggesting that it was a
particularly un-Christian statement.

bull****. to say that someone has an ugliness that seems to come
from inside, is hardly cruel or hostile.

**It is a particularly un-Christian statement. Profoundly so. Typical. Many
Christians pay 'lip service' to actually being Christian. You appear to be
one of those. If you still haven't worked that out, then you need to go back
to remdial Bible study.

It's an observation. That's
in case you didn't figure out I wasn't actually saying they were
physically ugly.

**I know EXACTLY what you were saying. You have a particularly un-Christian
attitude.


Take Mikey. Please........

Don't you think the disrespect I'm getting here is ugly?

**So? Study your Bible again. You've forgotten the basic stuff.

I think
it suggests something in and of itself. Using terms like "deluded"
and "Jeezus" is disrespectful and condescending.

**Deluded is a statement of fact. Nothing more, nothing less.

Mind you, I'm
not surprised by it or sensitive to it - just pointing it out. If you or
anyone else has a fundamental belief, you can no more prove it than
I can, which is what you demand of every assertion. Every belief
requires a leap of faith. And if you don't have a belief, then aren't
you probably seeking one?

**I'm not certain what you're trying to say here. I believe the stuff that I
can see, hear, feel, smell and prove with science. Anything else is
delusional.


Your belief, apparently, is that the universe as we know it, sprang
from an explosion of unknown cause.

**No. I DON'T KNOW how the universe came about. I just don't have any idea.
I am satisfied that the evidence points towards a 'Big Bang', around 15
billion years ago. How or why that occured is a mystery.


Before the explosion, there
existed a different explosive reality with different or unknown physical
laws.

**We don't, nor can we ever know what the precise nature of the universe
was, before the Big Bang. We know it was very small and very hot.

Universes probably exploded into existence a (billion x billion)
times.

**Maybe, maybe not. We can't know.

Several of them supported expansion. Several of them
supported carbon-based life. One time, one possessed the
physical laws that allowed it to expand AND the properties which
supported carbon-based life. What are the chances of that?

**Pretty remote. However, given that there are more stars in the observable
universe, than grains of sand on all the beaches all over the planet, there
seems to be a high probability that life would arise somewhere. Or several
somewheres.


While this universe was expanding, matter and energy traded
particles and forms, and at some point, life happened. Life probably
happened a (billion x billion) times. Several times the organisms
possessed the ability to reproduce. Thank God for sex. Several
times they possessed the ability or attribute of mutation. One time,
they possessed both attributes. These made the wisest spousal
"selections" - usually choosing the mutated form if he or she was
stronger or more handsome. Of course, only the strongest survived.
Pretty soon we had fishes and alligators and monkeys. You know,
if you put a billion monkeys and just one typewriter in a large room
for a billion years, one of them will eventually write the Bible.
It's inevitable.

I choose to believe the New Testament is a first hand
perspective of the life of Christ.

**Fair enough. You do, however, need to realise several VERY IMPORTANT
things about the New Testament:

* Some of it is factual.
* Some of it is parable.
* Some is peotry.
* Some has been politically altered.
* Some has been poorly and inaccurately translated.
* All was written long after the alleged death of Jesus of Nazereth.
* ALL was written by extremely primitive, scientifically illiterate and
highly superstitious people.

When bearing all this in mind, it is possible to use the Bible is a rational
way.

When I decided to believe
that, it came with a peace.

**Sure. I get the same thing with Transcendental Meditation, sex and
chocolate.

And every week, attending service
reinforces that peace. "Opiate of the masses" as the goon says?
Fine. I'll take it. It's not an insurance policy. It's a choice.

**Indeed. One guaranteed you by the US Constitution.

Deluded?

**Oh, most certainly. A harmful delusion? Probably not, but a delusion
nevertheless.

I think you're deluded if you believe you have the
ability to understand EVERYTHING, and that EVERYTHING
can be explained within the physical laws of this universe.

**They've worked pretty well, so far.


If you (and the rest of you) are fine with your belief, great.
If you don't have a belief, try attending a modern Christian service.
You might at least find it interesting.

**I've attended many Christian services. I was a Christian, until I began
thinking. Critical thinking and Christianity (well, any religion, actually)
are not compatible.


with reluctance, I post this response. OK - flame away.

**Suit yourself.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:57:19 -0500

being blessed by God, whether it exists
or not, is relatively benign! I don't consider
it a persecution. Even though you don't believe,
he is aking that you be blessed also.

Let's just change it up a bit and see if you still feel the same way.
At the conclusion of a sppech, Bushie says:

"May Beezlebub, in His Most Glorious Darkness, Bless America."

"May America be Touched by the Noodly Appendage of His Holiness, the
Flying Spaghetti Monster."

"Allah Akbar."

"May the Force be With America."

"Heil Hitler."

"**** off and die. I'm above the law."

Would any of these alternative presidential statements offend you,
given that none of them are directly aimed at you? If so, which ones?


Heil Hitler, "at least" a little bit

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"surf" wrote in message
...

**I know EXACTLY what you were saying. You have a particularly
un-Christian attitude.


he's a saint, compared to Arny.

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 20:47:58 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


How could anything be worse than Creationism?

Well, there's always serial killers, concentration camps, stuff like
that.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:08:40 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Robert Morein said:

Correct. It is "Natural Selection" that is unproven, not "Evolution."
Conceivably, the selection process could be the result of "Intelligent
Design."

Does that mean you want us to pray, or something like that?

We wouldn't want to ask the impossible of you, George.

On 25 Dec 2005 15:01:18 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

From: "Clyde Slick"
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 14:57:19 -0500

being blessed by God, whether it exists
or not, is relatively benign! I don't consider
it a persecution. Even though you don't believe,
he is aking that you be blessed also.

Let's just change it up a bit and see if you still feel the same way.
At the conclusion of a sppech, Bushie says:

"May Beezlebub, in His Most Glorious Darkness, Bless America."

"May America be Touched by the Noodly Appendage of His Holiness, the
Flying Spaghetti Monster."

"Allah Akbar."

"May the Force be With America."

"Heil Hitler."

"**** off and die. I'm above the law."

Mmmm...I thought you were listening to reason, not inner voices.

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 09:52:50 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Clyde Slick said:

As far as the subject at hand being the Pres saying "May God bless
America", yes

Are you being disingenuous or just plain dumb?

Is God Damn It any different from God Bless America?

In our times, they are different. Is your frame of reference the 17th
century?

Are both of those statements equivalent to the government extablishing
religion?

No, not both, silly person.

I see you replying to Art, George, but I don't see you making any
logical points.

paul packer said:

Does that mean you want us to pray, or something like that?

We wouldn't want to ask the impossible of you, George.

That's a relief, but your interjection raises the question of why you
thought Bobo was speaking for you.

paul packer said:

"**** off and die. I'm above the law."

Mmmm...I thought you were listening to reason, not inner voices.

You're reaching and falling flat. Go back to mocking Poopie and Joot.

paul packer said:

Are both of those statements equivalent to the government extablishing
religion?

No, not both, silly person.

I see you replying to Art, George, but I don't see you making any
logical points.

Sorry, I forgot to couch my point as a subtext in a discussion of Aussie
hot rods. I'm sure you'd follow every twist and turn in that context.

George M. Middius wrote:
paul packer said:

"**** off and die. I'm above the law."

Mmmm...I thought you were listening to reason, not inner voices.

You're reaching and falling flat. Go back to mocking Poopie and Joot.

And what gave you the idea I was looking for a mark out of ten, George?
Thanks, but I'll let you know when I need your approval.

Trevor Wilson a écrit :

Critical thinking and Christianity (well, any religion, actually)
are not compatible.

You cannot say that.
Gospels are controversy and subversion only. It is impossible to be a
real Christian without a very *strong* critical thinking.

And I'm sure it's the same for all the religions.

Religion is a personal adventure that you live among human beings. From
a spiritual POV being a member of the herd doesn't oblige you to mimic
the behaviour of the herd.
Just watch the most famous Christian mystics they were eminently subversive.


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

Clyde Slick a écrit :
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"surf" wrote in message
...

**I know EXACTLY what you were saying. You have a particularly
un-Christian attitude.



he's a saint, compared to Arny.


Says the racist and xenophobic little maggot. :-(


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

paul packer said:

Mmmm...I thought you were listening to reason, not inner voices.

You're reaching and falling flat. Go back to mocking Poopie and Joot.

And what gave you the idea I was looking for a mark out of ten, George?
Thanks, but I'll let you know when I need your approval.

You don't have to ask, paulie. It's the name of the game on RAO.