Goto page Previous 1, 2
Winston
Guest
Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:55 pm
Bob_Villa wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 24, 4:32 pm, Winston<Wins...@Bigbrother.net> wrote:
"The Pope has given back all the lovely money and land
and apologized for 2000 years of lies and theft?"
Should we give the US back to the UK?
Er. You mean to the Indians, yes?
Quote:
"Televangelists have finally stopped fleecing their
flocks and returned all the stolen property?"
This is just another form of telemarketing and I haven't seen them
lately...I think they are delegated to certain channels.
What you don't know won't hurt them.
Quote:
"Priests have stopped raping the children of their
congregation and then threatening that their parents
will "rot in Hell" if they speak out?"
All the majors have had this problem where pedophiles have found easy
prey (no pun intended). Now, even deacons go through 6 yrs of
training including physiological profiling (and their spouse).Were
these atrocities swept under the rug? Of course!
The broom is still sweeping, no doubt.
Note that the church is 'self-policing'.
Reminds one of the successes we've seen with financial
'self-policing'. :(
(...)
Quote:
If you have an enormous amount of property that is not used for a
specific religious purpose...it should be taxed.
Which means I can stop paying taxes because I
religiously want to? What is wrong with this picture? :)
Quote:
If by "political influence" you mean "abortion rights"
That an a lot of other things about your private
life that aren't any of my business.
--Winston
Winston
Guest
Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:49 pm
Robert Macy wrote:
Quote:
Thank God for a 'flameless' discussion.
<G>
--Winston
Robert Macy
Guest
Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:42 pm
On Jan 25, 7:55 am, Winston <Wins...@Bigbrother.net> wrote:
Quote:
Bob_Villa wrote:
On Jan 24, 4:32 pm, Winston<Wins...@Bigbrother.net> wrote:
"The Pope has given back all the lovely money and land
and apologized for 2000 years of lies and theft?"
Should we give the US back to the UK?
Er. You mean to the Indians, yes?
"Televangelists have finally stopped fleecing their
flocks and returned all the stolen property?"
This is just another form of telemarketing and I haven't seen them
lately...I think they are delegated to certain channels.
What you don't know won't hurt them.
"Priests have stopped raping the children of their
congregation and then threatening that their parents
will "rot in Hell" if they speak out?"
All the majors have had this problem where pedophiles have found easy
prey (no pun intended). Now, even deacons go through 6 yrs of
training including physiological profiling (and their spouse).Were
these atrocities swept under the rug? Of course!
The broom is still sweeping, no doubt.
Note that the church is 'self-policing'.
Reminds one of the successes we've seen with financial
'self-policing'. :(
(...)
If you have an enormous amount of property that is not used for a
specific religious purpose...it should be taxed.
Which means I can stop paying taxes because I
religiously want to? What is wrong with this picture? :)
If by "political influence" you mean "abortion rights"
That an a lot of other things about your private
life that aren't any of my business.
--Winston
Thank God for a 'flameless' discussion.
Bob_Villa
Guest
Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:12 pm
On Jan 27, 8:42 am, Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 25, 7:55 am, Winston <Wins...@Bigbrother.net> wrote:
Bob_Villa wrote:
On Jan 24, 4:32 pm, Winston<Wins...@Bigbrother.net> wrote:
"The Pope has given back all the lovely money and land
and apologized for 2000 years of lies and theft?"
Should we give the US back to the UK?
Er. You mean to the Indians, yes?
"Televangelists have finally stopped fleecing their
flocks and returned all the stolen property?"
This is just another form of telemarketing and I haven't seen them
lately...I think they are delegated to certain channels.
What you don't know won't hurt them.
"Priests have stopped raping the children of their
congregation and then threatening that their parents
will "rot in Hell" if they speak out?"
All the majors have had this problem where pedophiles have found easy
prey (no pun intended). Now, even deacons go through 6 yrs of
training including physiological profiling (and their spouse).Were
these atrocities swept under the rug? Of course!
The broom is still sweeping, no doubt.
Note that the church is 'self-policing'.
Reminds one of the successes we've seen with financial
'self-policing'. :(
(...)
If you have an enormous amount of property that is not used for a
specific religious purpose...it should be taxed.
Which means I can stop paying taxes because I
religiously want to? What is wrong with this picture? :)
If by "political influence" you mean "abortion rights"
That an a lot of other things about your private
life that aren't any of my business.
--Winston
Thank God for a 'flameless' discussion.
Right...we don't want to start another one about "hell"! B^)
josephkk
Guest
Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:42 am
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:16:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero_at_gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote:
"The Religious Right have finally (and at last) decided
to adhere to rules involving tax-free religious
organizations and political influence?"
If you have an enormous amount of property that is not used for a
specific religious purpose...it should be taxed.
If by "political influence" you mean "abortion rights", then I believe
you have a moral obligation to use your influence to "right a wrong".
Even if you don't believe in the sanctity of life...think of the loss
of human potential!
Do you really want to go into potential human beings considering just who
and what those persons seeking abortion really are? Let alone what kind
of future that can provide for them? Really?
?-)
Bob_Villa
Guest
Sun Jan 29, 2012 3:01 pm
On Jan 28, 11:42 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Quote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:16:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
wrote:
"The Religious Right have finally (and at last) decided
to adhere to rules involving tax-free religious
organizations and political influence?"
If you have an enormous amount of property that is not used for a
specific religious purpose...it should be taxed.
If by "political influence" you mean "abortion rights", then I believe
you have a moral obligation to use your influence to "right a wrong".
Even if you don't believe in the sanctity of life...think of the loss
of human potential!
Do you really want to go into potential human beings considering just who
and what those persons seeking abortion really are? Let alone what kind
of future that can provide for them? Really?
?-)
I guess you don't really follow..."human potential" is what that
individual "may be" capable of accomplishing.
josephkk
Guest
Thu Feb 02, 2012 5:21 am
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:01:57 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero_at_gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 28, 11:42 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:16:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
wrote:
"The Religious Right have finally (and at last) decided
to adhere to rules involving tax-free religious
organizations and political influence?"
If you have an enormous amount of property that is not used for a
specific religious purpose...it should be taxed.
If by "political influence" you mean "abortion rights", then I believe
you have a moral obligation to use your influence to "right a wrong".
Even if you don't believe in the sanctity of life...think of the loss
of human potential!
Do you really want to go into potential human beings considering just who
and what those persons seeking abortion really are? Let alone what kind
of future that can provide for them? Really?
?-)
I guess you don't really follow..."human potential" is what that
individual "may be" capable of accomplishing.
Do read more carefully, the word order i used is different.
?-)
Bob_Villa
Guest
Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:51 pm
On Feb 1, 10:21 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:01:57 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:42 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:16:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
wrote:
"The Religious Right have finally (and at last) decided
to adhere to rules involving tax-free religious
organizations and political influence?"
If you have an enormous amount of property that is not used for a
specific religious purpose...it should be taxed.
If by "political influence" you mean "abortion rights", then I believe
you have a moral obligation to use your influence to "right a wrong".
Even if you don't believe in the sanctity of life...think of the loss
of human potential!
Do you really want to go into potential human beings considering just who
and what those persons seeking abortion really are? Let alone what kind
of future that can provide for them? Really?
?-)
I guess you don't really follow..."human potential" is what that
individual "may be" capable of accomplishing.
Do read more carefully, the word order i used is different.
?-)
That was my point...you didn't follow what I was referring to!
josephkk
Guest
Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:33 am
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 02:51:39 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero_at_gmail.com>
wrote:
Quote:
On Feb 1, 10:21 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:01:57 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:42 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:16:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
wrote:
"The Religious Right have finally (and at last) decided
to adhere to rules involving tax-free religious
organizations and political influence?"
If you have an enormous amount of property that is not used for a
specific religious purpose...it should be taxed.
If by "political influence" you mean "abortion rights", then I believe
you have a moral obligation to use your influence to "right a wrong".
Even if you don't believe in the sanctity of life...think of the loss
of human potential!
Do you really want to go into potential human beings considering just who
and what those persons seeking abortion really are? Let alone what kind
of future that can provide for them? Really?
?-)
I guess you don't really follow..."human potential" is what that
individual "may be" capable of accomplishing.
Do read more carefully, the word order i used is different.
?-)
That was my point...you didn't follow what I was referring to!
Nonsense. You failed to get my point.
?-)
Bob_Villa
Guest
Sat Feb 11, 2012 4:14 pm
On Feb 10, 10:33 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 02:51:39 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Feb 1, 10:21 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 05:01:57 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jan 28, 11:42 pm, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 05:16:20 -0800 (PST), Bob_Villa <pheeh.z...@gmail.com
wrote:
"The Religious Right have finally (and at last) decided
to adhere to rules involving tax-free religious
organizations and political influence?"
If you have an enormous amount of property that is not used for a
specific religious purpose...it should be taxed.
If by "political influence" you mean "abortion rights", then I believe
you have a moral obligation to use your influence to "right a wrong".
Even if you don't believe in the sanctity of life...think of the loss
of human potential!
Do you really want to go into potential human beings considering just who
and what those persons seeking abortion really are? Let alone what kind
of future that can provide for them? Really?
?-)
I guess you don't really follow..."human potential" is what that
individual "may be" capable of accomplishing.
Do read more carefully, the word order i used is different.
?-)
That was my point...you didn't follow what I was referring to!
Nonsense. You failed to get my point.
?-)
Took looooong enough! Dah!
Goto page Previous 1, 2
