Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 31 Jan 2007 08:55 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:abb29$45bfe3fa$4fe7077$5106(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:a557c$45bfbb21$49ecf90$4084(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:5eaf0$45bfb26f$49ecf90$3729(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:epnm4l$df5$4(a)blue.rahul.net... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <45BE8D83.976CEBA6(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>[.....] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Same question could be asked of Cain and Abel. Although every time >>>>>>>>>>I try >>>>>>>>>>asking priest or vicars they get annoyed with me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I just discovered he lived to be 950 yrs old too ! Maybe he was a >>>>>>>>>space alien ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If you assume as I do that some confused months and years, he made it >>>>>>>>to >>>>>>>>79 which is old enough to get remarked on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This is close to special pleading. The holy text is specific enough at >>>>>>>times, yet for something quite simple like days and nights it gets >>>>>>>confused? >>>>>> >>>>>>How many translations/transcriptions in ~5000 years? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That is the special pleading. The plea that Commandment X has survived >>>>>and is the word of God, but Y has suffered a transcription error. >>>> >>>>We don't know that there weren't more or fewer commandments. >>>>We don't know that today's commandment X is anything like >>>>the original, if there was one. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Exactly. The devout will claim that (for example) Homosexuality is the >>>one sin the Catholic Church can *never* condone (lets ignore the priests >>>for now). Yet this is based on the transcriptions / translations and >>>interpretations which have taken place in the last 2000 years. Given that >>>they get errors in fundamentals (who was Cain's wife? Who was Abel's >>>wife? etc), why do they assume that the doctrine they are going on about >>>(homosexuality in this example) is actually what they think it is? >> >>Religion, IMO, is designed to answer the unanswerable >>because there's a common human need for it. We spoke >>about possible genetic implications earlier. Depending >>on the particular society the answers deviate from one >>another perhaps even to the point of being opposites >>in diverse locations. Given human inconsistency there's >>no reason to think that religious answers can anything >>but inconsistent. > > > I agree. I dont know why you seem to think this differs from any thing I > said. > > >>OTOH it has been pointed out, even by Sagan, that to a >>space alien human societies (therefore religion as well) >>would appear indistinguishable. > > > Maybe so, but so what? > > >>As much as you get into this it seems you have a bug up >>your butt about this stuff. That's too bad because it >>means you're not over your upbringing yet. > > > Perhaps. I am not sure what bug I have up my butt though, all I said was > religious doctrine suffers from the fallacy of special pleading and saying > that X is acceptable because "it is written" is ludicrous. > > Everything you have written agrees with what I said, does that mean you have > a bug up your butt as well? The difference is that you appear to be bothered by religion. >>I wish you Godspeed! :-) > > > Thank you. > >
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Jan 2007 08:48 In article <epo4a4$kra$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <9d81f$45bf6f6d$4fe7196$2020(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>Lloyd Parker wrote: >> >>> In article <epne6r$8ss_002(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>>In article <45BE0B7D.D6FA8748(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Only losing nations and their executives ever face the >>>>>>>>consequences. No nation or national executive engages >>>>>>>>in war with the thought of losing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Hmmmm, well there's more than few in the UK who would like to see Tony >>>> >>>>Blair >>>> >>>>>>>prosecuted for war crimes. >>>>>> >>>>>>Under whose law? Islam's? >>>>> >>>>>Under British law you nitwit. Britain is a signatory to the Geneva >>>> >>>>Conventions >>>> >>>>>you know. >>>> >>>>So you want your political leaders to be punished for >>>>trying to do their job. That kind of thinking must >>>>give lots of encouragement to those who intend to >>>>destroy your lifestyle. >>>> >>>>/BAH >>> >>> >>> The sovereign being above the law went out in the US around 1776. I doubt >it >>> applies in the UK any longer either. >> >>Not completely. Judicial immunity and a few other features >>arise out of sovereign immunity. This has been discussed in >>SCOTUS opinions more than a few times. >> > >But not sovereign immunity (or Nixon wouldn't have needed that pardon). Nixon didn't need the pardon; the United States of America needed that pardon. You may not remember the villification Ford received because he took away all chances of getting revenge. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 31 Jan 2007 08:57 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > > > >Extradition treaties allow the arrest and deportation of criminals who > >have traveled to a different country. They exist because most countries > >don't want to be a safe haven for criminals. > > They have to exist because one country's law cannot apply to > another country's law. Criminal law is locally defined. > Extradition treaties define a few acts of commission that both countries > agree to call illegal. You are *completely* wrong. Extradition was never mean to be about the extra-territorial application of law although the USA now seems to think it can use it that way. Extradition has always traditionally been about the return of a suspected criminal to the country in which the crime was committed. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Jan 2007 08:51 In article <45BF4AF7.6D3EA07(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> I don't expect them to do a damned thing about Iran's atomic >> bombs. > >Iran has no atomic bombs. The news was reported that Iran started up their centrifuges this week. Just out of curiosity, do you keep a stick of TNT from blowing up by pulling the lit fuse when the fire is 1/4" away from the stick or by storing the fuses and the sticks in separate buildings? /BAH
From: Eeyore on 31 Jan 2007 08:58
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > > >So what. If a German comes to the UK and drives at 80MPH on the motorway he > >has broken the law and the police can take action. > > Only in specified cases can police take action. At the moment > I'm thinking about diplomatic immunity. You want to arrest diplomats too now ? Graham |