From: Peter on
"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:XgMDeeEERD4LFA27(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> 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
>


Tanakh = Bible


--
Peter

From: Peter on
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message
news:hrpeig06nk(a)news7.newsguy.com...
> 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.
>


So I overstated to make a point. The fact is Torah, as appears in Tanakh,
has never changed. The important point that the poster totally gives no
credence to the beliefs of others, stands. He has proven it is subsequent
statements.

Now if you want to discuss Talmud, you will find an appropriate discussion
list at: http://www.shamash.org/

--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010050409111538165-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-05-04 07:32:36 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>
>>

>> I am not really a Rush fan myself, don't often listen to him, but I'm
>> thankful for him anyway. Like Ann Coulter (whose column I read faithfully
>> every Thursday), he drives leftist-liberals nuts, infuriating them all
>> the
>> more by raking in millions while aggravating them.
>>
>> Ann is really much better at it, though. She gets the liberals foaming at
>> the mouth, jumping up and down and flapping their arms, which is a
>> delight
>> to see.
>
> However much of what she sprouts is so off the wall, one can only be left
> scratching one's head in bewilderment.


But she is one good looking woman.

--
Peter
Good thing looks can't kill, or can they?

From: Neil Harrington on
Peter wrote:
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2010050409111538165-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2010-05-04 07:32:36 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com>
>> said:
>>>
>
>>> I am not really a Rush fan myself, don't often listen to him, but
>>> I'm thankful for him anyway. Like Ann Coulter (whose column I read
>>> faithfully every Thursday), he drives leftist-liberals nuts,
>>> infuriating them all the
>>> more by raking in millions while aggravating them.
>>>
>>> Ann is really much better at it, though. She gets the liberals
>>> foaming at the mouth, jumping up and down and flapping their arms,
>>> which is a delight
>>> to see.
>>
>> However much of what she sprouts is so off the wall, one can only be
>> left scratching one's head in bewilderment.
>
>
> But she is one good looking woman.

Even better looking is Monica Crowley. She's usually on O'Reilly's show
Tuesdays, doing the good fight against the liberal Alan Colmes -- who is
actually her brother-in-law, though this is rarely mentioned.

Monica is also a regular on The McLaughlin Group, weekends. (I get it
Sundays on a couple of different channels, though I understand it's
Saturdays elsewhere. These are PBS channels and evidently each station
arranges its own schedule.)

Monica is really a knockout, as well as being very knowledgeable, articulate
and quick on her feet in an argument. Try to catch her some weekend.

She also does a regular column Wednesdays in the Washington Times.


From: tony cooper on
On Tue, 04 May 2010 11:12:51 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:

>What do you believe to be the basis for the state having an interest in
>marriage?

The basis is the law of the state. To be married, the couple must
apply to the state for a license to do so. If the state won't grant a
marriage license, then the couple cannot legally marry.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida