From: David Ruether on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eK-dnRQ104OhLELWnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d(a)giganews.com...

> I wonder how long it will take for the religious nuts to realize that they are not doing themselves any favors by getting the
> government to give them extra perks. Sooner or later, they will have to back out of every one. I bet the "Under God" will be
> removed from the pledge of allegiance to the flag too.....I predict within 20 years. I am as good a citizen as any religious
> person. I should be able to pledge my allegiance to my flag without professing a belief in any god or gods. Atheism is simple
> common sense. It should not be a consignment to a lower grade of citizenship.

Agreed...
--DR


From: Chris H on
In message <4be0315f$1$27711$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter
<peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> writes
>"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:LQGEykCvjC4LFAm9@p
>haedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <4be01b06$0$790$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter
>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> writes
>
>>>Your tolerance for the belief of others is almost as underwhelming as
>>>your ignorance and/or lack of veracity.
>>
>> Anyone is free to believe what they like as a faith. I tolerate all
>> faiths etc. (even though most faiths do not tolerate others who do not
>> believe as they do as demonstrated above)
>>
>> However: Re-writing history is not something I tolerate in anyone.
>>
>> I have not argued with anyone's faith. However I will argue with the
>> ludicrous statement that the bible has not changed in over 5000 years...
>> Some parts are only just 1500 years old.
>>
>
>
>What parts of Tanakh have changed?
>Feel free to Google the term.

The book under discussion was the Bible... feel free to Google the term

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



From: J. Clarke on
On 5/4/2010 7:02 AM, Peter wrote:
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:feqdnRdL4qPZMELWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>
>>>
>> Yes, and our government has defined marriage, so all non-felons should
>> be allowed to participate in it. <snip>
>
> In what State are felons not permitted to marry?

Everyone _is_ allowed to participate. The problem the gays have is that
they don't like any of the people with whom they are allowed to participate.
From: J. Clarke on
On 5/4/2010 10:23 AM, Peter wrote:
> "Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:LQGEykCvjC4LFAm9(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <4be01b06$0$790$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter
>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> writes
>
>>> Your tolerance for the belief of others is almost as underwhelming as
>>> your ignorance and/or lack of veracity.
>>
>> Anyone is free to believe what they like as a faith. I tolerate all
>> faiths etc. (even though most faiths do not tolerate others who do not
>> believe as they do as demonstrated above)
>>
>> However: Re-writing history is not something I tolerate in anyone.
>>
>> I have not argued with anyone's faith. However I will argue with the
>> ludicrous statement that the bible has not changed in over 5000 years...
>> Some parts are only just 1500 years old.
>>
>
>
> What parts of Tanakh have changed?
> Feel free to Google the term.

According to the Talmud, Tanach dates from around 400 BC, with the
Masoretic Text not being finalized until some time around 700 AD. The
oldest known scriptural writing is I believe a fragment of text dates to
around 600 BC, and the oldest known Hebrew writing of any kind to around
1000 BC. The oldest complete text dates to around 200 BC and is not
identical to the Masoretic Text--don't ask me for the details--that's a
job for someone who specializes in such things.

So any argument that the Bible "has not changed in over 5000 years"
falls flat.



>
>

From: Neil Harrington on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4bdf6043$0$27770$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
> news:sbSdnV7ggokaQ0DWnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>
>> Yes, within reasonable limits. Some conditions are astronomically
>> expensive to treat, and the money has to come from somewhere. Insurance
>> companies on average have only about a 3.5% profit margin, so despite the
>> steady complaints from Obama & Co. about "greedy insurance companies,"
>> there is really not much to be saved by squeezing them harder.
>
> 3.5% of what number?

I don't know.

> Can you tell me how these profits are calculated?

No.

> what profits are you referring to?
> Profits calculated for stockholder purposes/
> Profits calculated for regulatory rate making purposes?
> Profits calculated for tax purposes?
> You do realize they are not all the same. Please tell me how contract
> acquisition costs are treated in calculating your profit margin.
> How are reinsurance treaties and executive compensating figured into the
> equation?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know. Please don't be like others and tell me to
> research the answer. I already know and just need to know if we are
> discussing the same thing.

You make a very good point. I don't really know the answers to any of those
questions.