Lance goes slumming.



Kyle Legate wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>
>> You were talking about what Jesus felt about abortion, prefacing that
>> with "... theres not a whole lot of Christ, in current Christianity ..."
>>
>> Now you're using current Christianity as the measure of how Jesus felt
>> about it.
>>

> http://thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm


Yes, that's the guy.
 
Kyle Legate wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>
>> You were talking about what Jesus felt about abortion, prefacing that
>> with "... theres not a whole lot of Christ, in current Christianity ..."
>>
>> Now you're using current Christianity as the measure of how Jesus felt
>> about it.
>>

> http://thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm


Yes, that's the guy.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 7, 7:31 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > On Nov 5, 7:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>>
>> >> Jean-Yves - exactly how did they perform abortions before, say, 1800
>> >> without killing the woman?

>>
>> > Often, with herbal abortifacients (google up silphium or sylphium if
>> > you're interested), though occasionally mechanically, or with external
>> > massage: there are acupuncture and acupressure points that are reputed
>> > to be effective at inducing abortion.

>>
>> Silphium was a close relative of Fennel and grew in Libya. It has been
>> extinct for centuries and claiming abortifacient qualities for it seems
>> to
>> ignore the fact that it was in general use as a seasoning used by most of
>> the population of the eastern Mediterranean and excuse me but they didn't
>> seem to have any problems reproducing.
>>
>> For the uninitiated, the natural rate of miscarriage is about one in
>> five.
>> That makes it pretty easy to claim that some "herb" or another,
>> acupressure
>> or massage caused a miscarriage. Statistically they can demonstrate a
>> connection between caffeine and miscarriage rates. But that's pretty
>> meaningless when you discover that almost EVERYONE uses some form of
>> caffeine or another so the sample rates for those having miscarriages
>> that
>> do not use caffeine are vanishingly small.

>
> Thanks, Tom, for falling into the trap. You've now just proved to all
> of us that before 1800, no matter its efficacy, people spent a great
> deal of thought and effort investigating methods for controlling
> births, both before and after conception.


So by calling your preposterous statement the BS it was I was somehow
admitting that abortants were USED?

Sorry, I thought you understood English.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 7, 7:31 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > On Nov 5, 7:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>>
>> >> Jean-Yves - exactly how did they perform abortions before, say, 1800
>> >> without killing the woman?

>>
>> > Often, with herbal abortifacients (google up silphium or sylphium if
>> > you're interested), though occasionally mechanically, or with external
>> > massage: there are acupuncture and acupressure points that are reputed
>> > to be effective at inducing abortion.

>>
>> Silphium was a close relative of Fennel and grew in Libya. It has been
>> extinct for centuries and claiming abortifacient qualities for it seems
>> to
>> ignore the fact that it was in general use as a seasoning used by most of
>> the population of the eastern Mediterranean and excuse me but they didn't
>> seem to have any problems reproducing.
>>
>> For the uninitiated, the natural rate of miscarriage is about one in
>> five.
>> That makes it pretty easy to claim that some "herb" or another,
>> acupressure
>> or massage caused a miscarriage. Statistically they can demonstrate a
>> connection between caffeine and miscarriage rates. But that's pretty
>> meaningless when you discover that almost EVERYONE uses some form of
>> caffeine or another so the sample rates for those having miscarriages
>> that
>> do not use caffeine are vanishingly small.

>
> Thanks, Tom, for falling into the trap. You've now just proved to all
> of us that before 1800, no matter its efficacy, people spent a great
> deal of thought and effort investigating methods for controlling
> births, both before and after conception.


So by calling your preposterous statement the BS it was I was somehow
admitting that abortants were USED?

Sorry, I thought you understood English.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 7, 7:31 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > On Nov 5, 7:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>>
>> >> Jean-Yves - exactly how did they perform abortions before, say, 1800
>> >> without killing the woman?

>>
>> > Often, with herbal abortifacients (google up silphium or sylphium if
>> > you're interested), though occasionally mechanically, or with external
>> > massage: there are acupuncture and acupressure points that are reputed
>> > to be effective at inducing abortion.

>>
>> Silphium was a close relative of Fennel and grew in Libya. It has been
>> extinct for centuries and claiming abortifacient qualities for it seems
>> to
>> ignore the fact that it was in general use as a seasoning used by most of
>> the population of the eastern Mediterranean and excuse me but they didn't
>> seem to have any problems reproducing.
>>
>> For the uninitiated, the natural rate of miscarriage is about one in
>> five.
>> That makes it pretty easy to claim that some "herb" or another,
>> acupressure
>> or massage caused a miscarriage. Statistically they can demonstrate a
>> connection between caffeine and miscarriage rates. But that's pretty
>> meaningless when you discover that almost EVERYONE uses some form of
>> caffeine or another so the sample rates for those having miscarriages
>> that
>> do not use caffeine are vanishingly small.

>
> Thanks, Tom, for falling into the trap. You've now just proved to all
> of us that before 1800, no matter its efficacy, people spent a great
> deal of thought and effort investigating methods for controlling
> births, both before and after conception.


So by calling your preposterous statement the BS it was I was somehow
admitting that abortants were USED?

Sorry, I thought you understood English.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Nov 7, 7:31 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > On Nov 5, 7:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>>
>> >> Jean-Yves - exactly how did they perform abortions before, say, 1800
>> >> without killing the woman?

>>
>> > Often, with herbal abortifacients (google up silphium or sylphium if
>> > you're interested), though occasionally mechanically, or with external
>> > massage: there are acupuncture and acupressure points that are reputed
>> > to be effective at inducing abortion.

>>
>> Silphium was a close relative of Fennel and grew in Libya. It has been
>> extinct for centuries and claiming abortifacient qualities for it seems
>> to
>> ignore the fact that it was in general use as a seasoning used by most of
>> the population of the eastern Mediterranean and excuse me but they didn't
>> seem to have any problems reproducing.
>>
>> For the uninitiated, the natural rate of miscarriage is about one in
>> five.
>> That makes it pretty easy to claim that some "herb" or another,
>> acupressure
>> or massage caused a miscarriage. Statistically they can demonstrate a
>> connection between caffeine and miscarriage rates. But that's pretty
>> meaningless when you discover that almost EVERYONE uses some form of
>> caffeine or another so the sample rates for those having miscarriages
>> that
>> do not use caffeine are vanishingly small.

>
> Thanks, Tom, for falling into the trap. You've now just proved to all
> of us that before 1800, no matter its efficacy, people spent a great
> deal of thought and effort investigating methods for controlling
> births, both before and after conception.


So by calling your preposterous statement the BS it was I was somehow
admitting that abortants were USED?

Sorry, I thought you understood English.
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If you feel there are scriptures, or any other
> evidence that shows Christ himself in support of abortion, please
> point me to them.


As far as I've been able to make out, these guys think that because Christ
didn't preach against something that couldn't occur, he was for it.
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If you feel there are scriptures, or any other
> evidence that shows Christ himself in support of abortion, please
> point me to them.


As far as I've been able to make out, these guys think that because Christ
didn't preach against something that couldn't occur, he was for it.
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If you feel there are scriptures, or any other
> evidence that shows Christ himself in support of abortion, please
> point me to them.


As far as I've been able to make out, these guys think that because Christ
didn't preach against something that couldn't occur, he was for it.
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If you feel there are scriptures, or any other
> evidence that shows Christ himself in support of abortion, please
> point me to them.


As far as I've been able to make out, these guys think that because Christ
didn't preach against something that couldn't occur, he was for it.
 
Bill C wrote:

> Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?


Rational is one thing. But it's unfashionable. Extreme positions are in
vogue this year. Much simpler, better sound bites.

> That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
> and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
> workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
> of humans.


Do you really see an end to homosexuality, abortion, adultry, etc? Why
is Republican Jesus easier to believe in than Kumbaya Jesus?

Some choose to worry about the violence and suffering in the world and
go for Kumbaya Jesus; others decide to worry about faggots and abortion.
Why is one point of view any more laughable than the other?
 
Bill C wrote:

> Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?


Rational is one thing. But it's unfashionable. Extreme positions are in
vogue this year. Much simpler, better sound bites.

> That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
> and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
> workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
> of humans.


Do you really see an end to homosexuality, abortion, adultry, etc? Why
is Republican Jesus easier to believe in than Kumbaya Jesus?

Some choose to worry about the violence and suffering in the world and
go for Kumbaya Jesus; others decide to worry about faggots and abortion.
Why is one point of view any more laughable than the other?
 
Bill C wrote:

> Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?


Rational is one thing. But it's unfashionable. Extreme positions are in
vogue this year. Much simpler, better sound bites.

> That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
> and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
> workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
> of humans.


Do you really see an end to homosexuality, abortion, adultry, etc? Why
is Republican Jesus easier to believe in than Kumbaya Jesus?

Some choose to worry about the violence and suffering in the world and
go for Kumbaya Jesus; others decide to worry about faggots and abortion.
Why is one point of view any more laughable than the other?
 
Bill C wrote:

> Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?


Rational is one thing. But it's unfashionable. Extreme positions are in
vogue this year. Much simpler, better sound bites.

> That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
> and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
> workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
> of humans.


Do you really see an end to homosexuality, abortion, adultry, etc? Why
is Republican Jesus easier to believe in than Kumbaya Jesus?

Some choose to worry about the violence and suffering in the world and
go for Kumbaya Jesus; others decide to worry about faggots and abortion.
Why is one point of view any more laughable than the other?
 
On Nov 8, 9:23 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 11:08 am, Fred Fredburger
>
> Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?
> Let's be honest here, every religious text is a mish-mash of what the
> current crop of leaders/politicians needed them to say at any given
> point early on, then once the books were mostly finalized they started
> on what it means to be "insert your favorite religion here", and
> whacking each other over power and control.
> Saqmae as secular politicians/leaders. Thunk the fault might be in
> the humans?
> That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
> and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
> workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
> of humans.


Jeez, and all these years I thought Kyle was a goth.

Jesus (the historical one, now) was a revolutionary.
Sometimes revolutionaries are radical redistributionists
in the name of justice; sometimes they're intolerant
maniacs, end-justifies-the-meaners, or murderers.
Sometimes they're all of these things at the same
time. However, they aren't generally people that
the fat cats ought to feel comfortable with, which is
why I made the original "longhaired liberal" joke.
(Of course I don't think what's-his-name was a liberal -
liberals aren't revolutionaries. But he wasn't a
Christian TV Network CEO either.)

There is currently a tendency among people who ought
to know better to replace Kumbaya Jesus with
3-Star General Jesus. This is also a mistake.

Ben
In a counterinsurgency, God is not
necessarily on the side of the big battalions.
 
On Nov 8, 9:23 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 11:08 am, Fred Fredburger
>
> Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?
> Let's be honest here, every religious text is a mish-mash of what the
> current crop of leaders/politicians needed them to say at any given
> point early on, then once the books were mostly finalized they started
> on what it means to be "insert your favorite religion here", and
> whacking each other over power and control.
> Saqmae as secular politicians/leaders. Thunk the fault might be in
> the humans?
> That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
> and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
> workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
> of humans.


Jeez, and all these years I thought Kyle was a goth.

Jesus (the historical one, now) was a revolutionary.
Sometimes revolutionaries are radical redistributionists
in the name of justice; sometimes they're intolerant
maniacs, end-justifies-the-meaners, or murderers.
Sometimes they're all of these things at the same
time. However, they aren't generally people that
the fat cats ought to feel comfortable with, which is
why I made the original "longhaired liberal" joke.
(Of course I don't think what's-his-name was a liberal -
liberals aren't revolutionaries. But he wasn't a
Christian TV Network CEO either.)

There is currently a tendency among people who ought
to know better to replace Kumbaya Jesus with
3-Star General Jesus. This is also a mistake.

Ben
In a counterinsurgency, God is not
necessarily on the side of the big battalions.
 
On Nov 8, 9:23 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 11:08 am, Fred Fredburger
>
> Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?
> Let's be honest here, every religious text is a mish-mash of what the
> current crop of leaders/politicians needed them to say at any given
> point early on, then once the books were mostly finalized they started
> on what it means to be "insert your favorite religion here", and
> whacking each other over power and control.
> Saqmae as secular politicians/leaders. Thunk the fault might be in
> the humans?
> That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
> and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
> workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
> of humans.


Jeez, and all these years I thought Kyle was a goth.

Jesus (the historical one, now) was a revolutionary.
Sometimes revolutionaries are radical redistributionists
in the name of justice; sometimes they're intolerant
maniacs, end-justifies-the-meaners, or murderers.
Sometimes they're all of these things at the same
time. However, they aren't generally people that
the fat cats ought to feel comfortable with, which is
why I made the original "longhaired liberal" joke.
(Of course I don't think what's-his-name was a liberal -
liberals aren't revolutionaries. But he wasn't a
Christian TV Network CEO either.)

There is currently a tendency among people who ought
to know better to replace Kumbaya Jesus with
3-Star General Jesus. This is also a mistake.

Ben
In a counterinsurgency, God is not
necessarily on the side of the big battalions.
 
On Nov 8, 9:23 am, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 11:08 am, Fred Fredburger
>
> Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?
> Let's be honest here, every religious text is a mish-mash of what the
> current crop of leaders/politicians needed them to say at any given
> point early on, then once the books were mostly finalized they started
> on what it means to be "insert your favorite religion here", and
> whacking each other over power and control.
> Saqmae as secular politicians/leaders. Thunk the fault might be in
> the humans?
> That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
> and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
> workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
> of humans.


Jeez, and all these years I thought Kyle was a goth.

Jesus (the historical one, now) was a revolutionary.
Sometimes revolutionaries are radical redistributionists
in the name of justice; sometimes they're intolerant
maniacs, end-justifies-the-meaners, or murderers.
Sometimes they're all of these things at the same
time. However, they aren't generally people that
the fat cats ought to feel comfortable with, which is
why I made the original "longhaired liberal" joke.
(Of course I don't think what's-his-name was a liberal -
liberals aren't revolutionaries. But he wasn't a
Christian TV Network CEO either.)

There is currently a tendency among people who ought
to know better to replace Kumbaya Jesus with
3-Star General Jesus. This is also a mistake.

Ben
In a counterinsurgency, God is not
necessarily on the side of the big battalions.
 
On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Fred Fredburger
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?

>
> Rational is one thing. But it's unfashionable. Extreme positions are in
> vogue this year. Much simpler, better sound bites.
>
> > That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
> > and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
> > workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
> > of humans.

>
> Do you really see an end to homosexuality, abortion, adultry, etc? Why
> is Republican Jesus easier to believe in than Kumbaya Jesus?
>
> Some choose to worry about the violence and suffering in the world and
> go for Kumbaya Jesus; others decide to worry about faggots and abortion.
> Why is one point of view any more laughable than the other?


They aren't. Both are ridiculous. The last thing the world needs is
more excuses to abuse people, unfortunately religion has been used/
misused that way forever.

For a good read:
http://tinyurl.com/249w64

The Bad Popes (Sutton History Classics) (Paperback)
by Russell Chamberlin (Author)



11 Reviews
5 star: (8)
4 star: (3)
3 star: (0)
2 star: (0)
1 star: (0)

See all 11 customer reviews...


(11 customer reviews)

Bill C
 
On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Fred Fredburger
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?

>
> Rational is one thing. But it's unfashionable. Extreme positions are in
> vogue this year. Much simpler, better sound bites.
>
> > That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
> > and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
> > workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
> > of humans.

>
> Do you really see an end to homosexuality, abortion, adultry, etc? Why
> is Republican Jesus easier to believe in than Kumbaya Jesus?
>
> Some choose to worry about the violence and suffering in the world and
> go for Kumbaya Jesus; others decide to worry about faggots and abortion.
> Why is one point of view any more laughable than the other?


They aren't. Both are ridiculous. The last thing the world needs is
more excuses to abuse people, unfortunately religion has been used/
misused that way forever.

For a good read:
http://tinyurl.com/249w64

The Bad Popes (Sutton History Classics) (Paperback)
by Russell Chamberlin (Author)



11 Reviews
5 star: (8)
4 star: (3)
3 star: (0)
2 star: (0)
1 star: (0)

See all 11 customer reviews...


(11 customer reviews)

Bill C