Re: Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?

[No One]

Did you tell them that it's not their call? ;-)

They think that God talks to them on a regular basis. When you let
Jesus into your life, you get to hear all the heavenly gossip.

They'd be horrified if they heard a San Francisco troupe of singers/
commedians called _The Kinsey Sicks_.

[One says something about hoping that Jesus would come into
his life, using the Spanish pronunciation for Jesus.]

"You mean Jesus our Lord and Savior?"

(Looking coy) "No, I mean Jesus from Lord and Taylor."

Their Xmas program "Oy Vey in a Manger" is hillarious, but very
offensive in spots if you are seriously religious to the point of not
having any humor about it. The joke about "30 years old, never
married, hangs out with 12 guys, friends with prostitutes but never
has sex with them" has, for its punch line, not "gay", but something a
lot more specific. So as to not offend the Christians too much, the
word starts with 'b' and ends with 'm'. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Don Bowey]

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 1:00 PM:

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 AM:

Cheers
Terry
Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
This "vernon" character seems to think that being "educated" means
accepting his church's dogma and not being able to think for yourself.
What's really funny is the complete denial of reality.
I notice the bashing is limited to imperfect Christian "men" and
Jehovah, what about say-- Dharmakaya Buddha?

"Imperfect Christian 'men'" seem to do a lot of bashing (e.g., Vernon's
"Atheist = uneducated always" garbage). It's that bashing that leads
to web sites like the one I cited that I called a "hit piece" - these
so-called Christians piss everyone else off and some people bash back.

The Buddhists don't tend to bash people, so they don't generate the
same sort of negative reaction.


You misunderstand me. I'm writing of the living field that is our
objective reality.

I'm curious, though. Do you consider CDC data on disease rates broken
down by state to be bashing when all that is stated is the data or a
citation to it?

It's not important when trying to conceptualize the *Big* picture.

I'm sure some Christians don't like it because it
makes their hypocrisy all too clear. When you take a "holier than
thou" attitude, it sort of helps to have all the objective measures
of "sinfulness" in your favor.

I'll stay with the "sinners" in San Francisco any day - its
safer.

It's still safer.

I've thought of making the Bay area my home. I don't tend to reject
"sinners" when they're not "pushy" about it. 0[

Do you mean pushy as in what you twisted religious freaks appear to be?

So, your imagination and self image is running away again.

Well, at least state it with good grammar..... It should be "are running,"
not "is running." And the answer is .......ummmm (giving it lots of
thought) mmmm; nope.

Beyond that, you are a narrow-minded mean spirited person.

 

[Dionisio]

So? And why do you always quote so much out of context?

I presume -- perhaps incorrectly in some cases -- that folks are following the
conversation, can keep it in their heads, and don't need to be bothered re-reading things
over and over and over. So, I snip things to the relevant points I'm replying to. If
someone gets confused or wants to check something out, they can always recall the previous
message.

Call it a character flaw, if you like.


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

"In Germany, the Nazis first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."
-- Martin Niemoeller, Berlin Lutheran pastor arrested by the Gestapo and sent to Dachau
concentration camp in 1938. The Allied forces freed him seven years later.

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[Dionisio]

It's a joke, son! You're too short! They're goin' over your head, boy!

--Foghorn Leghorn, Writers Block Bar and Grill, 1962.


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

My imaginary friend thinks you have serious mental problems.

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[Dionisio]

No, it is just Dionisio acting like he usually does. It's not the first
post from him that I've seen.

Well, that's a bit of an understatement...


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

There has never been enough religion in the world to make everybody love one another.
There has, however, always been just enough to make people hate one another.

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[john w]

x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 1:00 PM:

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 AM:

Cheers
Terry
Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
This "vernon" character seems to think that being "educated" means
accepting his church's dogma and not being able to think for yourself.
What's really funny is the complete denial of reality.
I notice the bashing is limited to imperfect Christian "men" and
Jehovah, what about say-- Dharmakaya Buddha?

"Imperfect Christian 'men'" seem to do a lot of bashing (e.g., Vernon's
"Atheist = uneducated always" garbage). It's that bashing that leads
to web sites like the one I cited that I called a "hit piece" - these
so-called Christians piss everyone else off and some people bash back.

The Buddhists don't tend to bash people, so they don't generate the
same sort of negative reaction.


You misunderstand me. I'm writing of the living field that is our
objective reality.

I'm curious, though. Do you consider CDC data on disease rates broken
down by state to be bashing when all that is stated is the data or a
citation to it?

It's not important when trying to conceptualize the *Big* picture.

I'm sure some Christians don't like it because it
makes their hypocrisy all too clear. When you take a "holier than
thou" attitude, it sort of helps to have all the objective measures
of "sinfulness" in your favor.

I'll stay with the "sinners" in San Francisco any day - its
safer.

It's still safer.

I've thought of making the Bay area my home. I don't tend to reject
"sinners" when they're not "pushy" about it. 0[

Do you mean pushy as in what you twisted religious freaks appear to be?

So, your imagination and self image is running away again.

^^^ tsk tsk. The BRILLIANT scholar can't even communicate in
English!

plural subject ("imagination" AND "self image) requires a plural
verb.


"So, your imagination and self image ARE running away again."

"Basics", folks! "Basics!"

 

[Dionisio]

Their Xmas program "Oy Vey in a Manger" is hillarious, but very
offensive in spots if you are seriously religious to the point of not
having any humor about it. The joke about "30 years old, never
married, hangs out with 12 guys, friends with prostitutes but never
has sex with them" has, for its punch line, not "gay", but something a
lot more specific. So as to not offend the Christians too much, the
word starts with 'b' and ends with 'm'. Let's leave it at that.

Aww... It isn't in the video. (http://www.kinseysicks.com)


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

May bloody piles torment you.
May corns grow on your feet.
May crabs as big as turtles,
Crawl up your ass and eat.
And when you're old and feeble,
And become a nervous wreck,
I hope your head falls through your ass,
And breaks your f**king neck.
-- McLean and McLean

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[Don Bowey]

x-no-archive: yes
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Baloney.

(snip)

 

[No One]

I presume -- perhaps incorrectly in some cases -- that folks are
following the conversation, can keep it in their heads, and don't need
to be bothered re-reading things over and over and over.

Very bad assumption. People do not read every post on a newsgroup
and may start reading a thread after there have been a number of
exchanges between various individuals. Of the posts they do read,
many are simply skimmed - the ones that get read more carefully are
the ones they are interested in that day.

You should quote enough of a post to show the context of the text you
are replying to. You should not blindly quote the whole post.

 

[Dionisio]

You should quote enough of a post to show the context of the text you
are replying to. You should not blindly quote the whole post.

Done. So why the issue?

(Caution viewers: Bitchfight brewing. Please be sure to place your bets before the window
closes. Thank you.)


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

"I'm not really fond of children. I think they're really cute for a little while, say 15
minutes. I like seeing them dance around in commercials for Welch's grape juice, but I
don't think everyone has to get one."
--RuPaul

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[Robert Baer]

Just so we're clear... You do realize that this is being posted on
a.p.h., yes?

Wars are *CIVIL* ???

 

[Meltdarok]

Don Bowey wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 PM:

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 1:00 PM:

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 AM:
Cheers
Terry
Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
This "vernon" character seems to think that being "educated" means
accepting his church's dogma and not being able to think for yourself.
What's really funny is the complete denial of reality.
I notice the bashing is limited to imperfect Christian "men" and
Jehovah, what about say-- Dharmakaya Buddha?
"Imperfect Christian 'men'" seem to do a lot of bashing (e.g., Vernon's
"Atheist = uneducated always" garbage). It's that bashing that leads
to web sites like the one I cited that I called a "hit piece" - these
so-called Christians piss everyone else off and some people bash back.

The Buddhists don't tend to bash people, so they don't generate the
same sort of negative reaction.

You misunderstand me. I'm writing of the living field that is our
objective reality.

I'm curious, though. Do you consider CDC data on disease rates broken
down by state to be bashing when all that is stated is the data or a
citation to it?

It's not important when trying to conceptualize the *Big* picture.

I'm sure some Christians don't like it because it
makes their hypocrisy all too clear. When you take a "holier than
thou" attitude, it sort of helps to have all the objective measures
of "sinfulness" in your favor.

I'll stay with the "sinners" in San Francisco any day - its
safer.
It's still safer.

I've thought of making the Bay area my home. I don't tend to reject
"sinners" when they're not "pushy" about it. 0[

Do you mean pushy as in what you twisted religious freaks appear to be?

When you call me a "religious freak" I guess the words Panentheistic
Monist doesn't occur to you.

 

[Meltdarok]

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 4:01 PM:

Odd - I thought the electromagnetic field, and various other quantum
fields, is what constitutes our "objective reality".

These fields are produced in our local space-time environment we like
to call the universe. I'm speaking of the much, much, much larger
Field within which our local universe is manifested.

Trying to evade an inconvenient truth?

I say stop commenting about the people, and start to comment
on the concept of the living entity field please.

I'll stay with the "sinners" in San Francisco any day - its
safer.
It's still safer.

I've thought of making the Bay area my home. I don't tend to reject
"sinners" when they're not "pushy" about it. 0[

Nobody will "push" you to sin, with a possible exception if you are a
real hottie,

Which definition is always at an individual's discretion.

but the "sinners" *will* expect you to return the favor.
You can, however, expect some smirks if you turn up at the corner of
18th and Castro and loudly tell your wife Malphasia, "Did you see that?
Is it a man or a woman? Now Ah've seen *everything*!"

What makes you think that Id have to be in San Fran for that to happen--
again? If that person chooses to appear in an "outrageous" manner by my
definition, I may quietly chuckle it's true. It would have it be more
than a blue spiked mohawk with generously tattooed and pierced body as well.

 

[Don Bowey]

Don Bowey wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 PM:

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 1:00 PM:

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 AM:
Cheers
Terry
Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
This "vernon" character seems to think that being "educated" means
accepting his church's dogma and not being able to think for yourself.
What's really funny is the complete denial of reality.
I notice the bashing is limited to imperfect Christian "men" and
Jehovah, what about say-- Dharmakaya Buddha?
"Imperfect Christian 'men'" seem to do a lot of bashing (e.g., Vernon's
"Atheist = uneducated always" garbage). It's that bashing that leads
to web sites like the one I cited that I called a "hit piece" - these
so-called Christians piss everyone else off and some people bash back.

The Buddhists don't tend to bash people, so they don't generate the
same sort of negative reaction.

You misunderstand me. I'm writing of the living field that is our
objective reality.

I'm curious, though. Do you consider CDC data on disease rates broken
down by state to be bashing when all that is stated is the data or a
citation to it?
It's not important when trying to conceptualize the *Big* picture.

I'm sure some Christians don't like it because it
makes their hypocrisy all too clear. When you take a "holier than
thou" attitude, it sort of helps to have all the objective measures
of "sinfulness" in your favor.

I'll stay with the "sinners" in San Francisco any day - its
safer.
It's still safer.
I've thought of making the Bay area my home. I don't tend to reject
"sinners" when they're not "pushy" about it. 0[

Do you mean pushy as in what you twisted religious freaks appear to be?

When you call me a "religious freak" I guess the words Panentheistic
Monist doesn't occur to you.

No, it didn't, but when I consider that you are offering the terms monism
and pantheistic to explain the lineage of your process, it alters nothing.
The terms don't justify your smug ugly view of what God wants.

God may be in everything, who knows? Not anyone who ever lived. Imagine
what you will of what He wants. In my view generous is better than stingy.

What we do know is that, for whatever reason, we have free will and we do
not appear to have received divine programming for applying it. So you
don't like the way I think and I don't like the way you think.

 

[Meltdarok]

Don Bowey wrote, On 1/5/2008 11:07 AM:

Don Bowey wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 PM:

On 1/4/08 10:58 AM, in article Ilvfj.11$Z61.4@trnddc07, "Meltdarok"

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 1:00 PM:

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 AM:
Cheers
Terry
Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
This "vernon" character seems to think that being "educated" means
accepting his church's dogma and not being able to think for yourself.
What's really funny is the complete denial of reality.
I notice the bashing is limited to imperfect Christian "men" and
Jehovah, what about say-- Dharmakaya Buddha?
"Imperfect Christian 'men'" seem to do a lot of bashing (e.g., Vernon's
"Atheist = uneducated always" garbage). It's that bashing that leads
to web sites like the one I cited that I called a "hit piece" - these
so-called Christians piss everyone else off and some people bash back.

The Buddhists don't tend to bash people, so they don't generate the
same sort of negative reaction.

You misunderstand me. I'm writing of the living field that is our
objective reality.

I'm curious, though. Do you consider CDC data on disease rates broken
down by state to be bashing when all that is stated is the data or a
citation to it?
It's not important when trying to conceptualize the *Big* picture.

I'm sure some Christians don't like it because it
makes their hypocrisy all too clear. When you take a "holier than
thou" attitude, it sort of helps to have all the objective measures
of "sinfulness" in your favor.

I'll stay with the "sinners" in San Francisco any day - its
safer.
It's still safer.
I've thought of making the Bay area my home. I don't tend to reject
"sinners" when they're not "pushy" about it. 0[

Do you mean pushy as in what you twisted religious freaks appear to be?

When you call me a "religious freak" I guess the words Panentheistic
Monist doesn't occur to you.

No, it didn't, but when I consider that you are offering the terms monism
and pantheistic to explain the lineage of your process, it alters nothing.
The terms don't justify your smug ugly view of what God wants.

Tell me what my smug ugly view of what God wants is please.

God may be in everything, who knows? Not anyone who ever lived. Imagine
what you will of what He wants. In my view generous is better than stingy.

What we do know is that, for whatever reason, we have free will and we do
not appear to have received divine programming for applying it. So you
don't like the way I think and I don't like the way you think.

What prompts you to say that I don't like the way you think; and
what is it that I am thinking that you don't like, and how did
you reach that conclusion?

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

To complete the discussion, there is NO god. Just those delusional ideas
of mad men. ( or power hungry )

That's OK - He doesn't believe in you either. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[donald]

That's OK - He doesn't believe in you either. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

He ???

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because
I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

-- Susan B. Anthony

So, whats your true goal ??

donald

 

[Don Bowey]

Don Bowey wrote, On 1/5/2008 11:07 AM:

Don Bowey wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 PM:
On 1/4/08 10:58 AM, in article Ilvfj.11$Z61.4@trnddc07, "Meltdarok"

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 1:00 PM:

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 AM:
Cheers
Terry
Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
This "vernon" character seems to think that being "educated" means
accepting his church's dogma and not being able to think for yourself.
What's really funny is the complete denial of reality.
I notice the bashing is limited to imperfect Christian "men" and
Jehovah, what about say-- Dharmakaya Buddha?
"Imperfect Christian 'men'" seem to do a lot of bashing (e.g., Vernon's
"Atheist = uneducated always" garbage). It's that bashing that leads
to web sites like the one I cited that I called a "hit piece" - these
so-called Christians piss everyone else off and some people bash back.

The Buddhists don't tend to bash people, so they don't generate the
same sort of negative reaction.

You misunderstand me. I'm writing of the living field that is our
objective reality.

I'm curious, though. Do you consider CDC data on disease rates broken
down by state to be bashing when all that is stated is the data or a
citation to it?
It's not important when trying to conceptualize the *Big* picture.

I'm sure some Christians don't like it because it
makes their hypocrisy all too clear. When you take a "holier than
thou" attitude, it sort of helps to have all the objective measures
of "sinfulness" in your favor.

I'll stay with the "sinners" in San Francisco any day - its
safer.
It's still safer.
I've thought of making the Bay area my home. I don't tend to reject
"sinners" when they're not "pushy" about it. 0[

Do you mean pushy as in what you twisted religious freaks appear to be?
When you call me a "religious freak" I guess the words Panentheistic
Monist doesn't occur to you.

No, it didn't, but when I consider that you are offering the terms monism
and pantheistic to explain the lineage of your process, it alters nothing.
The terms don't justify your smug ugly view of what God wants.

Tell me what my smug ugly view of what God wants is please.

I can only extrapolate from what you say. Re read some of what you have
said.

What prompts you to say that I don't like the way you think; and
what is it that I am thinking that you don't like, and how did
you reach that conclusion?

You said of yourself: ...I don't tend to reject "sinners" when they're not
"pushy" about it....

Does God want you to be judgmental about people? How do you know?

 

[Tom]

When you call me a "religious freak" I guess the words Panentheistic
Monist doesn't occur to you.

The term "oxymoron" does, though.

 

[No One]

No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 4:01 PM:

These fields are produced in our local space-time environment we like
to call the universe. I'm speaking of the much, much, much larger
Field within which our local universe is manifested.

You mean string theory? I was trying to keep it simple for you.

I say stop commenting about the people, and start to comment
on the concept of the living entity field please.

A "living entity field" is a figment of your imagination, and apparently
an attempt to avoid dealing with the data we have.

It's still safer.
I've thought of making the Bay area my home. I don't tend to reject
"sinners" when they're not "pushy" about it. 0[

Nobody will "push" you to sin, with a possible exception if you are a
real hottie,

Which definition is always at an individual's discretion.

My guess is that you don't have anything to worry about. Someone
that into religion is rarely a hottie.

What makes you think that Id have to be in San Fran for that to happen--
again? If that person chooses to appear in an "outrageous" manner by my
definition, I may quietly chuckle it's true. It would have it be more
than a blue spiked mohawk with generously tattooed and pierced body as
well.

Wait till someone from the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence walks by.