Jeep thing or sheep thing?

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:17:06 GMT, 'nuther Bob
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>The pastor of my church recently went out of his way to explain to the
>>congregation what we should do if a gay attended our church. He spoke
>>for almost an hour, but his message was simple.
>>
>>We should welcome them with open arms.
>
>That's a good policy for the Catholic church, since most of their
>priests are gay.

A pastor and a priest are not the same thing.

>That's right, "the liberals" are out to destroy religion. If those
>liberal jerks who wrote the Constitution had just left out that part

Liberals did not write the constitution. Today's liberals are so far
off what the constitution stands for, there is no way to equate those
views with the people who wrote the constitution.

Liberals, or at least some of them, are definitely out to destroy
religion in this country unless that religion is Islam. Why else
would liberal groups like the ACLU fight for muslims to be able to
wear hoods on their heads for license photos, but refuse to fight to
allow a Christian to wear a cross.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:15:11 -0700, "Hillary Clinton"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Children by law can not engage in
>: sex until they are at least 16 in this country,
>
>Where the hell are you, anyway?

Sorry hillary, but no you can not use your strap-on with 10 year old
girls.

Hillary Clinton wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : Nathan Nagel wrote:
> : >
> : > The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
> : >
> : > nate
> :
> : Where in the Bill of Rights does it mention separation of church and
> : state? Hint, you won't find it. The only think prohibited was a state
> : church as existed in England at the time. Separation of church and
> : state was a concept that came many years later in a court decision as
> : best I recall. Been a long time since I studied this in detail though
> : so I can't quote the court case, but I believe it was as recent as the
> : 1900s.
> :
>
> Wrong
> http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
>
>

Yes, you are wrong as I said earlier. What part of "Thomas Jefferson
wrote a letter", don't you understand? Here is the exact text cut from
the link you provided above:

---------------
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified
12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
----------------

Please highlight the phrase that says "separation of church and state"
as I can't find it here. As I said earlier, the Constitution only
prohibits the establishment of religion. Separation may have been
Jefferson's intent, but Jefferson wasn't the only person with input to
the Constitution. What matters is what it said in the end after the
lengthy negotiations and editing, not what any one person may have
wanted it to say ... including you.


Matt

Hillary Clinton wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> : Hillary Clinton wrote:
> : > "DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : > news:[email protected]...
> : > Yes it IS a fact. Most child molesters ARE straight!
> : > http://danenet.wicip.org/dcccrsa/saissues/childinf.html
> : >
> : >
> :
> : If it is, you can't tell it from this "data." Sure most molesters are
> : heterosexual ... most people are! The telling data would be the percent
> : of the total population who are molesters, and that is not in this data
> : set near as I can tell. If homosexuals constitute 5% of the population,
> : but 10% of the people who molest children, then they are twice as likely
> : to be child molesters as compared to heterosexuals, even though they are
> : only 10% of the total number of the molester population.
> :
>
>
> Well, Matt, do you have any data from a non christian, reliable source to
> verify your outgassings?
>
>

The above was never stated to be data, it is purely a "for instance" to
show the fallacy of the "data" that you presented as claiming that most
molesters are heterosexuals. Did you miss the "if?"

In absolute numbers, I have no doubt this is true, but since
heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a large ratio, it is completely
meaningless as far as determining propensity to molest. That would
require knowing what fraction of molesters are homosexual as related to
the fraction of the total population. I've never seen any reliable data
on this and thus I haven't a clue if there is any difference in
propensity to molest.


Matt

David Allen wrote:
> "Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:RmIRa.9111$Bp2.9039@fed1read07...
>
>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>: Nathan Nagel wrote:
>>: :
>>: That is why most sinners aren't Christians. Christianity forces you to
>>: accept that you are a sinner and must be saved by grace. That is true
>>: whether the sin is gambling or homosexuality.
>>:
>>
>>Too bad stupidity isn't a "sin"
>>
>>
>
>
> Harrrumph!!! We'll accept you anyway... good people that we are
>
>

I second that.

Matt

Hillary Clinton wrote:
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> :
> : "Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : news:RmIRa.9111$Bp2.9039@fed1read07...
> : >
> : > "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> : > news:[email protected]...
> : > : Nathan Nagel wrote:
> : > : :
> : > : That is why most sinners aren't Christians. Christianity forces you
> to
> : > : accept that you are a sinner and must be saved by grace. That is
> true
> : > : whether the sin is gambling or homosexuality.
> : > :
> : >
> : > Too bad stupidity isn't a "sin"
> : >
> : >
> :
> : Harrrumph!!! We'll accept you anyway... good people that we are
> :
> :
>
> Sorry. Everytime I feel a knife in my back, it has come from another
> ignorant holey moaner
>
>

Funny, I have the same experience with non-Christians...

Matt

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:31:01 GMT, Nathan Nagel <[email protected]>
wrote:

>> > about "separation of church and state" we could have a nice cosy
>> > Christian country.
>>
>> You are showing your ignorance, Bob. Separation of church and state is
>> not in the Constitution.
>>
>> Matt
>
>The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.

And it says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Which has nothing to do with separating anything.

David Allen wrote:
> "Hillary Clinton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:OpIRa.9113$Bp2.5649@fed1read07...
>
>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>: Nathan Nagel wrote:
>>: >
>>: > The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
>>: >
>>: > nate
>>:
>>: Where in the Bill of Rights does it mention separation of church and
>>: state? Hint, you won't find it. The only think prohibited was a state
>>: church as existed in England at the time. Separation of church and
>>: state was a concept that came many years later in a court decision as
>>: best I recall. Been a long time since I studied this in detail though
>>: so I can't quote the court case, but I believe it was as recent as the
>>: 1900s.
>>:
>>
>>Wrong
>>http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
>>
>>
>
> The case was in 1947 and was pivotal. It's where the establishment clause
> became the separation clause. The Court ruled it unconstitutional for
> government "to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever
> they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice
> religion".
>
> The Jefferson letter doesn't argue or support the same thing as the 1947
> case. Even though he used the actual phrase "wall of separation", it was in
> reference to his duties as chief executive that the establishment clause
> forbade him from proclaiming a national day of fasting and thanksgiving. It
> never stopped him nor members of congress from tolerating or engaging in
> religious expression while engaged in official duties or while on public
> property. No such activities were ever considered an act of establishment,
> merely expression.
>
> There's a line somewhere separating two important rights. The right to
> religious expression and the right not to have religion imposed by the
> government. To champion one while dismissing the other is wrong, IMHO of
> course.
>
>

That is the case I was thinking of, just couldn't remember the details.
Thanks. However, it is obvious that he/she (whichever name is being
used today) will never admit his/her error in this regard same as most
other Christian-haters refuse to accept the Christian heritage behind
our Constitution.


Matt

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:36:30 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>If it is, you can't tell it from this "data." Sure most molesters are
>heterosexual ... most people are! The telling data would be the percent
>of the total population who are molesters, and that is not in this data
>set near as I can tell. If homosexuals constitute 5% of the population,
>but 10% of the people who molest children, then they are twice as likely
>to be child molesters as compared to heterosexuals, even though they are
>only 10% of the total number of the molester population.

hillaryclinton is aunt millie is pride of america

Why argue with her? You would get a better debate from the wall.

No Mr. Whiting ... what matters in the end is how the courts have, for
more than 200 years, interpreted the phrase. Nobody gives a tinker's
dam about what your individual (or my individual) opinion is on the
matter. So let's cut the crap and stop wasting bandwith intended for
the discussion of automobiles. TAKE IT SOME WHERE ELSE! Please.

Best wishes,

Phil Sharkey

Marc wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Hillary Clinton wrote:
>
>
>>>Yes it IS a fact. Most child molesters ARE straight!
>>>http://danenet.wicip.org/dcccrsa/saissues/childinf.html
>>
>>If it is, you can't tell it from this "data."
>
>
> So most molesters are gay?

I haven't a clue.


>
>
>>... [homosexuals] are only 10% of the total number of the molester population.
>
>
> Oh, so you admit that you agree that most molesters are straight, but you
> apparently just don't like the implications. Perhaps you should try to not
> state it in a way that results in you directly contradicting yourself. It
> makes you just appear to be a myopic bigot.

I don't admit or know any such thing. I was simply providing a
hypothetical example to show the fallacy of the data in the link posted.
I have no idea of any real data exists in this regard.

Speaking of myopia, perhaps you should try to read for understanding
before posting. And nice try dropping the part of my post that had the
"if" which clearly indicated that this was a hypothetical example, not a
claim of fact. I'd have started my statement with "Since" had this been
a claim.


Matt

'nuther Bob wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:43:50 +0100, "Dori Schmetterling"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>BTW, in anwer to 'nuther Bob's post, I think that child molesters deserve to
>>have the book flung at them whoever they are; sure it make it worse if they
>>are in positions of authority and respect, but maybe that's another issue.
>
>
> Me too, but obviously another Church's power in government has
> prevented any criminal charges against the criminals that knowingly
> concealed criminals and crimes.
>
> Bob

True, and that is terribly wrong and I don't know a single Christian who
feels otherwise. I know some who claim to be Christians who feel
otherwise, but "by their fruit you will know them." Protecting child
molesters is simply not behavior a Christian would engage in.


Matt

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Nathan Nagel wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>DTJ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Laura's Rancid Bush wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I never knew this NG was so bigoted and ignorant. If this said
>>>>>>
> ignorance is very
>
>>>>>>>widespread, readers would be wise to consider the value of automotive
>>>>>>
> opinions rendered
>
>>>>>>>here. This NG does seem to be a good recruiting place for the christian
>>>>>>
> reich
>
>>>>>>And of course, everyone knows that if you hate Christians, that's not
>>>>>>bigoted. I'll have to remember that one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The pastor of my church recently went out of his way to explain to the
>>>>>congregation what we should do if a gay attended our church. He spoke
>>>>>for almost an hour, but his message was simple.
>>>>>
>>>>>We should welcome them with open arms.
>>>>
>>>>That is a wise pastor. A church should welcome all sinners, regardless
>>>>of the sin.
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>This attitude is why many gays are decidedly not christians.
>>>
>>>nate
>>
>>That is why most sinners aren't Christians. Christianity forces you to
>>accept that you are a sinner and must be saved by grace. That is true
>>whether the sin is gambling or homosexuality.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> How about bigotry?

I don't recall that being listed in the Bible. However, I obviously
know where you are headed with this as it is the standard mantra of the
homosexual with respect to anyone, Christian or otherwise, who disagrees
with them. Fortunately, most reputable definitions of bigotry have to
do with intolerance, not disagreement. I disagree with the homosexual
lifestyle, but that isn't nearly the same as being intolerance of it.
I've never persecuted a homosexual nor will I.


Matt

Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>'nuther Bob wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:02:06 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Laura's Rancid Bush wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I never knew this NG was so bigoted and ignorant. If this said ignorance
>>>>>
> is very
>
>>>>>>widespread, readers would be wise to consider the value of automotive
>>>>>
> opinions rendered
>
>>>>>>here. This NG does seem to be a good recruiting place for the christian
>>>>>
> reich
>
>>>>>And of course, everyone knows that if you hate Christians, that's not
>>>>>bigoted. I'll have to remember that one.
>>>>
>>>>The pastor of my church recently went out of his way to explain to the
>>>>congregation what we should do if a gay attended our church. He spoke
>>>>for almost an hour, but his message was simple.
>>>>
>>>>We should welcome them with open arms.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's a good policy for the Catholic church, since most of their
>>>priests are gay.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You know - if the ratio of God-haters to God-lovers were 99 to 1, I'd be
>>>>>honored to be included in the 1 per cent, and I'd galdly die for the
>>>>>privilege.
>>>>
>>>>So would I, and we might one day get close to that percentage if the
>>>>liberals in this country get their way.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's right, "the liberals" are out to destroy religion. If those
>>>liberal jerks who wrote the Constitution had just left out that part
>>>about "separation of church and state" we could have a nice cosy
>>>Christian country.
>>
>>You are showing your ignorance, Bob. Separation of church and state is
>>not in the Constitution.
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> Jefferson said it (and he helped write the constitution). And "no law
> establishing religion" pretty much is the same thing.

This is quite a retreat from the claim that it was in the Constitution.
You are now approaching accuracy. Keep trying, you'll get it right.


Matt

'nuther Bob wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 06:34:22 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >...By your inuendo, Jesus Christ (i.e., willing to die for God) would be
> >equated to an Islamist terrorist .
>
> Jesus... nice fellow as I remember. Seemed to have a bit of an
> "I am God" complex though...

No - he never said that. That is a corruption that didn't start until
the 2nd or 3rd century AD, and, unfortunately, that corruption has
pretty well stayed with much of the Christian church.

He is referred to as the son of God *many* times in scripture, and
that's what he himself said of himself - he referred to God as his
father. To call oneself a son of someone does not make you equal to
that someone.

The closest that he *appears* (in the English translations) to say that
he is God is when he said "I and my Father are one". But when you
research the text from which that was translated, you find that the
particular word used for "one" there is not the word that would have
been used for the word meaning "one and the same" or "one in identity".
That word that is translated "one" there is always used in the context
of "one in purpose". There is in fact a word that would also be
translated into the English word "one" that *does* mean "one in
identity", but that is not the word used in that verse.

He also said "...Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me:
nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done". If he believed that they
were one and the same, they could not have two (different) wills. He
clearly believed that he and his Ftaher were separate entities.

Interestingly, Christian believers are referred to in the Bible as sons
of God. Since Jesus was a son of God, and a believer is a son of God,
then that would make them - you got it - brothers.

The rest of your post is moot since your statements (about JC and myself
claiming to be God) are built on the false statement that Jesus Christ
claimed to be God and that it therefore followed that I must also be
claiming to be God.

Perhaps that's why God took him so
> early (suggesting violation of that part about "thou shall have
> no God before me" to the masses)
>
> It's interesting that you put yourself in the same category. I think
> that's an issue in the Christian religion(s) unless you have some
> evidence that you are the return.
>
> Bob

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> 'nuther Bob wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:43:50 +0100, "Dori Schmetterling"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>BTW, in anwer to 'nuther Bob's post, I think that child molesters deserve to
> >>have the book flung at them whoever they are; sure it make it worse if they
> >>are in positions of authority and respect, but maybe that's another issue.
> >
> >
> > Me too, but obviously another Church's power in government has
> > prevented any criminal charges against the criminals that knowingly
> > concealed criminals and crimes.
> >
> > Bob
>
> True, and that is terribly wrong and I don't know a single Christian who
> feels otherwise. I know some who claim to be Christians who feel
> otherwise, but "by their fruit you will know them." Protecting child
> molesters is simply not behavior a Christian would engage in.
>
> Matt

Matt - You say that as if you think that being a child molester is a
choice that they make. 8^) (ducking)
--
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

This thread is cross posted all over the place and now has become a
nuisance thread...

One of the groups cross posted to actually has a Charter!

Most ISP's frown on people intentionally breaking a news group's Charter
with off topic or inflammatory posts.

Please cut rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys out of your cross posts.

Not being a net cop, just informing folks that not 'all' newsgroups are
a 'free for all'.

Not even telling anyone to complain to the antagonists' ISP's...

The RAMJ+W charter is posted here:

ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/rec/rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys

Here is the Charter text quoted:

RATIONALE: rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys

The discussion of Jeep 4 wheel drive vehicles began on the offroad
mailing list as well as on the Usenet group rec.autos.4x4. As the
offroad mailing list grew in size, the Jeep-L listserver was set up to
discuss topics specifically to Jeep and Willys vehicles.

At this time there are more that 50 articles sent to the Jeep
listserver, as well as > 50 articles being sent on the offroad server
daily. The volume on the usenet group rec.autos.4x4 exceeds 125
articles daily.

It has been suggested that a new Usenet group be created to take the
load off of the listservers as well as limit the articles in the
rec.autos.4x4 newsgroup.

CHARTER: rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys

The unmoderated newsgroup rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys is to be used
for discussions, announcements, expression of opinions, and questions
about Jeep (Trade Mark) and Willys vehicles. It also serves as a
medium for those interested in sharing and exchanging their
experience. It is also meant to be a forum for buying and selling
parts by non-commercial vendors.

Some things that could be discussed....

-Jeep/Willys history
-repairs and modifications
-parts exchange
-technical information
-4x4 driving experiences
-vehicle restoration
-new vehicle evaluations

Some things that shouldn't be discussed....

-4 wheel drive vehicles made by
other manufacturers
-commercial posts

The articles sent to the Jeep listserver will be cross-posted to Usenet
but not vise versa.

END CHARTER.

End quote.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Bill Putney wrote:

> 'nuther Bob wrote:

> > Jesus... nice fellow as I remember. Seemed to have a bit of an
> > "I am God" complex though...
>
> No - he never said that. That is a corruption that didn't start until
> the 2nd or 3rd century AD, and, unfortunately, that corruption has
> pretty well stayed with much of the Christian church.

Wait, wait! You mean some of the doctrine ladled-out by Christian
churches...might be...wrong? Say it ain't so!

DS

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > 'nuther Bob wrote:
>
> > > Jesus... nice fellow as I remember. Seemed to have a bit of an
> > > "I am God" complex though...
> >
> > No - he never said that. That is a corruption that didn't start until
> > the 2nd or 3rd century AD, and, unfortunately, that corruption has
> > pretty well stayed with much of the Christian church.
>
> Wait, wait! You mean some of the doctrine ladled-out by Christian
> churches...might be...wrong? Say it ain't so!
>
> DS

Oh but 'tis so.

That's why II Timothy 2:15 says "Study to show thyself approved unto
God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
["rightly cutting" as in delicate surgery] the word of truth". That
way, you know what's what and aren't dependent on any man to tell you
*his* interpretation. You check it out first-hand.

Or as The Who sang: "We won't get fooled again!...". 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 23:45:03 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>This is quite a retreat from the claim that it was in the Constitution.
> You are now approaching accuracy. Keep trying, you'll get it right.

I'm not retreating. The phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion" is blatantly clear. The Congress may not
make *any* law establishing *any* religion. Get it ? The government
cannot mingle in religion. No how, no way, "*no law*".

Therefore the Congress cannot legalize prayer in the schools when
by virtue of the nature of religions, it would require selecting
one or more as the source of that prayer.

Bob