New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 11:01 Jim Yanik wrote: > John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in > news:N0BFRcJnNF2EFwo8(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > > > In message <44D84DE5.4A07C7DA(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Tue, 8 Aug > > 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes > > > >>" Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar > >>of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary > >>to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. > > Gee,how about WOMEN? they don't get much freedom under Islamic rule. I suggest you check out their position in the Bible too...... "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."--Genesis 3:16 By this third chapter of Genesis, woman lost her rights, her standing--even her identity, and motherhood became a God-inflicted curse degrading her status in the world. In the New Testament, the bible decrees: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."--1 Tim. 2:11-14 One bible verse alone, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) is responsible for the death of tens of thousands, if not millions, of women. Do women and those who care about them need further evidence of the great harm of Christianity, predicated as it has been on these and similar teachings about women? Church writer Tertullian said "each of you women is an Eve . . . You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law." Martin Luther decreed: "If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it." Such teachings prompted 19th-century feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton to write: "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of woman's emancipation." The various Christian churches fought tooth and nail against the advancement of women, opposing everything from women's right to speak in public, to the use of anesthesia in childbirth (since the bible says women must suffer in childbirth) and woman's suffrage. http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/women.php Graham
From: John Fields on 8 Aug 2006 11:25 On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 12:50:02 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >John Fields wrote: >> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:36:59 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> John Fields wrote: >> >>>> --- >>>> Well, then, you support Israel's right to defend herself under her >>>> own laws and in her own way? >>> No. >>> The right of self defence has to be limited in a civilised society. If >>> somebody slaps me I have no right to burn their house down with them and >>> their family inside. >>> The law recognises 'proportionate response'. >> >> --- >> OK, let's say, in one case, that I slap you for no reason other than >> that I hate you. What would you suggest as an appropriate response? >> A return slap of equal amplitude and duration or a blow of >> sufficient power to make me never want to slap you again? >> >> In the second case, let's say that I slap you with the intent of >> getting slapped back, but my eventual plan is to kill you after you >> slap me back, and for justification I'll call your slap back a >> disproportionate response. >> >> An appropriate response, in my view, would be for you to so severely >> incapacitate me after I slapped you the first time that it would be >> impossible for me to continue. >> >> In other words, I had no business slapping you in the first place, >> so you should make it your business to make sure that I can never >> slap you again. >> >> Do you have a problem with that? > >The problem in the Middle Eastern context is 'who slapped first'. >Your argument can just as well be used to justify the actions of >Hezbollah, Hamas and the PLO as Israel. --- The problem in the middle east is a "Hatfields and McCoys" mentality which has been around for thousands of years. No one even remembers who slapped first, what seems to be important is who slaps last. That's not what I asked you though, is it? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Reg Edwards on 8 Aug 2006 11:25 What do Bush and Blair think makes suicide bombers behave as they do? Bombers appear to be sensible, intelligent, educated people, eg., airline pilots, capable of meticulous planning. They are not drugged, hypnotised or screeming lunatics. It is a question which has been avoided but needs to be answered. Is it because of something the Amercans have done? Any sensible, logical ideas? ====================================
From: John Fields on 8 Aug 2006 11:38 On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 14:23:05 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht >news:vtsgd2lfuljv0fc2jnmnftnko8ajaefnum(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:26:14 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" >> <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: >> >>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht >>>> --- >>>> Well, then, you support Israel's right to defend herself under her >>>> own laws and in her own way? >>> >>>Yes, *defending*, sure, and without the American cheerleaders throwing >>>money at it. Thank you very much. >> >> --- >> Us "throwing money" at Israel is part of our way of defending >> ourselves under our own laws and in our own way, so if you don't >> have a problem with Israel doing the same thing (defending herself >> under her own laws and in her own way) why do you have a problem >> with us doing the same thing? > >It's not exactly staying neutral in the conflicts that Israel >has, is it? --- Nope, we're very partial when it comes to Israel. --- >So you can't complain that this money throwing also >brings you new enemies, ones that take down a WTC tower or two. --- We'd have those enemies no matter what we did, (Radical Islam is our sworn enemy, don'tcha know) and there'd be more of them because the Jews wouldn't kave killed off the ones they did. --- >In fact, by throwing money at it, you increased Isreals problems, >and your own at the same time. --- Nonsense. If we didn't support Israel they'd perish and then the BIG problems would start. --- >And yes, I have a problem with that. I don't enjoy seeing >people with problems, regardless where they live. --- I suggest, then, that you seek therapy for your own. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 8 Aug 2006 11:41
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 14:37:51 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht >news:h9sgd25us6qgn0kbuqo46lce1720e2ig75(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:21:44 +0100, John Woodgate >> <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>In message <7umed296qg2k96rhg962c1cbdfibv65c2l(a)4ax.com>, dated Mon, 7 >>>Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes >>> >>>>I think that now, however, when we see the handwriting on the wall we >>>>have fewer compunctions about going after the author in a pre-emptive >>>>way. >>> >>>But it says 'Mene, mene tekal upharsin.' >> >> --- >> I think that would apply more to the kingdoms of Jerry Falwell and >> his ilk than to the US, but I was referring to events like >> acquisition of nuclear weaponry by those with no respect for life. > >Would you be so kind and immediately turn in all your nuclear >weaponry. Thank you very much. --- If we did you'd all be having your throats slit in public. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |