[BadAssButterfly (On Moderation)]

Re: Easter is coming up soon - SOON!

God loves you so much that He is fully prepared to send you to hell for mocking Him and ignoring His many commandments. We are trying our level best to get you to understand that, vile heathen.

That doesn't sound like anything even remotely resembling love to me.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Easter is coming up soon - SOON!

So much for the idea of a loving god, eh?

God loves you so much that He is fully prepared to send you to hell for mocking Him and ignoring His many commandments. We are trying our level best to get you to understand that, vile heathen.

[Brother John]

Re: Easter is coming up soon - SOON!

God doesn't love blasphemers.

[BadAssButterfly (On Moderation)]

Re: Easter is coming up soon - SOON!

They wouldn't eat it because they consider pigs to be dirty and abominable. You claimed to have a way of making dirty, abominable animals clean. Do you admit you were talking rubbish?

My point was that it really doesn't matter what their reasons for dietary preferences are. I can tell someone all day that pork is ok to eat and if they have a reason in their own mind not to eat it, whther that reason is that they consider it unclean or some other reason, they won't eat it. Just like my husband could tell me all day that veal is ok to eat and I would still refuse to eat it, because I have my reasons for objecting to it.

Praise! After a brief exposure to Landover, another unsaved scumdog begins reading the Bible!

Please - I grew up Baptist and left that faith. I didn't start reading th Bible because of the likes of you.

Jewish festivals. Jewish customs. If Jesus ate rice during Passover - and there is no reason to assume He didn't - then He cannot have been Jewish.

I've eaten rice dishes at seder dinners I've attended with Jewish friends. As I recall, the only prohibitions regarding food were no pork, no shellfish, no leavened bread, and no meat and dairy in the same dish.

Indeed I don't. The Lord has blessed me with an overabundance of testosterone, so I don't have to worry about such things.

So if you have all this extra testosterone, does that mean you're hairier than Esau? Does your wife braid the hair on your back for you?

Maybe He gave you an inquiring mind so He'd have a good reason to send you to Hell?

So much for the idea of a loving god, eh?

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Easter is coming up soon - SOON!

For the same reason that my huband would never offer to cook veal for me. I won't eat it because I find the method of production unnecessarily cruel. The fact that I find it objectionable doesn't mean that he can't eat it if he wants it. He is free to eat it, just as I am free to eat a bacon cheeseburger, even though my Jewish and Muslim friends can't/won't. They don't have to justify their dietary habits to me, just as I don't have to justify mine to them.

They wouldn't eat it because they consider pigs to be dirty and abominable. You claimed to have a way of making dirty, abominable animals clean. Do you admit you were talking rubbish?

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. Luke 2:21

Mary's post-natal purification:
When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord") Luke 2:22-23

Praise! After a brief exposure to Landover, another unsaved scumdog begins reading the Bible!

What does rice have to do with anything?

Jewish festivals. Jewish customs. If Jesus ate rice during Passover - and there is no reason to assume He didn't - then He cannot have been Jewish.

I suppose you don't cut your hair or shave either.
'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Leviticus 19:27

Indeed I don't. The Lord has blessed me with an overabundance of testosterone, so I don't have to worry about such things.

According to you, he's the one who gave me an inquiring mind - he shouldn't have done that if he didn't want me to ask questions or if he expectd me to accept "Because I say so" as an answer.

Maybe He gave you an inquiring mind so He'd have a good reason to send you to Hell?

[Sista Lateefah]

Re: Easter is coming up soon - SOON!

According to you, he's the one who gave me an inquiring mind - he shouldn't have done that if he didn't want me to ask questions or if he expectd me to accept "Because I say so" as an answer.

He had done did that to test yo faith in Him. Obviously, you has failed the test and is currently destined for eternal damnation! Praise Jesus!

[BadAssButterfly (On Moderation)]

Re: Easter is coming up soon - SOON!

But why would it upset them? You've just explained that you know a way to make inherently filthy, abominable animals clean, so why would they get upset?


For the same reason that my huband would never offer to cook veal for me. I won't eat it because I find the method of production unnecessarily cruel. The fact that I find it objectionable doesn't mean that he can't eat it if he wants it. He is free to eat it, just as I am free to eat a bacon cheeseburger, even though my Jewish and Muslim friends can't/won't. They don't have to justify their dietary habits to me, just as I don't have to justify mine to them.

Friend, you are what is vulgarly known as "all mouth and no trousers." Care to support any of these assertions? Find me a Bible verse where it mentions a hook-nosed yid slicing His Holy Foreskin off,

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived. Luke 2:21

Mary's post-natal purification:
When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord") Luke 2:22-23



or a contemporary historical account of how Our Lord argued with Joseph and Mary about how stupid and pointless it was to ban Him from eating rice for a week.

What does rice have to do with anything?

The Old Testament dietary laws were explictly repealed in Acts 10 (see, that's one of the many differences between you and us, we can back up our statements.) And no, we do not plant multiple crops in the same field or wear poly/cotton blends, since those laws are still in force. We follow the WHOLE Bible.

I suppose you don't cut your hair or shave either.
'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Leviticus 19:27

He's the Lord. He works in mysterious ways. That's what He does.

According to you, he's the one who gave me an inquiring mind - he shouldn't have done that if he didn't want me to ask questions or if he expectd me to accept "Because I say so" as an answer.

[SUV]

Re: Easter is coming up soon - SOON!

So! Already Our Saviour is Risen (again)!

"THE RIZ!"

He's gonna - ease on up, ease on up the road....
Gonna - ease on up, ease on up the road....

.

[Brother John]

Re: Easter is coming up soon - SOON!

Intermezzo:

I don't know about you guys, but it's been Easter here for more than two hours already!
Although sadly bunnies are still very much tradition here...

[Brother Temperance]

Re: Easter is coming up soon - SOON!

I don't keep swine because my neighborhood isn't zoned for livestock. And I would not offer a Muslim or a Jewish person a pig as a gift any more than I would offer my Christian mother a Tarot deck as a gift - gifts are supposed to please and reflect the tastes of the recipient, not the giver.

But why would it upset them? You've just explained that you know a way to make inherently filthy, abominable animals clean, so why would they get upset?

He was born to a Jewish mother - Jewish.
He was circumcised - in those days only Jews were circumsised - Jewish.
His mother had to go through the post-natal ritual purification process - Jewish.
He celebrated Jewish holy days - Jewish.

Friend, you are what is vulgarly known as "all mouth and no trousers." Care to support any of these assertions? Find me a Bible verse where it mentions a hook-nosed yid slicing His Holy Foreskin off, or a contemporary historical account of how Our Lord argued with Joseph and Mary about how stupid and pointless it was to ban Him from eating rice for a week.

So I guess that means you don't eat shellfish, pork, or meat and dairy in the same dish, you don't plant more than one crop in the same field, and you don't wear poly/cotton blends, eh? After all, your book says that all these are abominations as well.

The Old Testament dietary laws were explictly repealed in Acts 10 (see, that's one of the many differences between you and us, we can back up our statements.) And no, we do not plant multiple crops in the same field or wear poly/cotton blends, since those laws are still in force. We follow the WHOLE Bible.

Then why send him as an infant? Why not just plunk him down as a full-grown man in the middle of Palestine and let him get busy preaching? Why bother with nursing, weaning, toilet-training, puberty and other business associated with getting a human being from baby to man?

He's the Lord. He works in mysterious ways. That's what He does.

[BadAssButterfly (On Moderation)]

Re: Easter is coming up soon - SOON!

Jesus was the Son of God! It is absurd to say he belonged to any particular race. He took on human form to come to earth and to die temporarily for our sins. Can you understand this? Can you understand that with God all things are possible? God created the heavens and the earth and everything within them: he is omnipotent -- he can raise people from the dead, create people, and so on. God could create a Y chromosome or anything else whenever he liked.

Satan has blinded you to the obvious, my friend.

Then why send him as an infant? Why not just plunk him down as a full-grown man in the middle of Palestine and let him get busy preaching? Why bother with nursing, weaning, toilet-training, puberty and other business associated with getting a human being from baby to man?

[Enobarbus]

Re: Easter is coming up soon - SOON!

He was born to a Jewish mother - Jewish.
He was circumcised - in those days only Jews were circumsised - Jewish.
His mother had to go through the post-natal ritual purification process - Jewish.
He celebrated Jewish holy days - Jewish.

And Jesus referrred to JHWH as everyone's potential heavenly father - if he had no physical father, where did the Y chromosome come from?

Jesus was the Son of God! It is absurd to say he belonged to any particular race. He took on human form to come to earth and to die temporarily for our sins. Can you understand this? Can you understand that with God all things are possible? God created the heavens and the earth and everything within them: he is omnipotent -- he can raise people from the dead, create people, and so on. God could create a Y chromosome or anything else whenever he liked.

Satan has blinded you to the obvious, my friend.

[Enobarbus]

Re: Easter is coming up soon - SOON!

This is why the KJV1611 uses "shall" (in the middle-English form "shalt") frequently. It is indicating a command. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass." (A verse Ted Haggard might have reviewed more frequently.) "Will" indicates intent.

As recently as 1980, Strunk and White (Elements of Style, 3rd Edition, 1979) expressed the difference so:

A distressed swimmer cries, "I shall drown; no one will save me!" The swimmer doesn't intend to drown.

A suicide cries, "I will drown; no one shall save me!" The suicide does intend to drown.

See the difference?

That Brother, I'm afraid, is the highly disputable rule -- or rather the short version of a rule that Fowler spent 20 pages trying to explain. And you have shortened it even more and, I'm afraid, mis-interpreted it. The rule says that "will" indicates determination in the first person, while "shall" indicates simple intention, while it is reversed in the second and third person.

There is a discussion here:

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=11482.3&nav=messages&webtag=ab-esl

It makes a difference whether will/shall is used in the first person "I will" or "I shall" do something versus the second/third person "you/he will" or "you/he shall" do something.

1) For first person use, will is emphatic while shall is indicative. If I say "I shall go to school tomorrow," I am simply indicating an event that is going to happen. If I say "I will go to school tomorrow," I am making an emphatic statement that I intend to go to school no matter what anyone else says.

2) For second or third person, the connotations are reversed. "You shall go to school tomorrow," is considered imperative and means that you are going whether you want to or not. "You will go to school tomorrow" is indicative and just means that I expect it is going to happen.

This is the traditional shortened form of the rule, but it is not taken seriously by any modern experts. Nor for that matter is Strunk and White. Some of the advice, like not using the passive voice, is just plain silly.

In his 1908 book, Fowler wrote:

SHALL AND WILL

IT is unfortunate that the idiomatic use, while it comes by nature to southern Englishmen (who will find most of this section superfluous), is so complicated that those who are not to the manner born can hardly acquire it; and for them the section is in danger of being useless. In apology for the length of these remarks it must be said that the short and simple directions often given are worse than useless. The observant reader soon loses faith in them from their constant failure to take him right; and the unobservant is the victim of false security.

A distressed swimmer cries, "I shall drown; no one will save me!" The swimmer doesn't intend to drown.

A suicide cries, "I will drown; no one shall save me!" The suicide does intend to drown.

See the difference?

No. Sorry Brother, but the truth is almost the opposite.

As I said "shall" in the legal sense of compulsion is a different situation. But if you are attempting to apply it to the drowning man, surely, if he says "I shall drown" that means that he does intend to drown. In practice, and contrary to the Strunk and White and conventional rule, "shall" in all persons expresses determination.

One example -- and there are many:

. . . . even though large tracts of Europe
and many old and famous States have fallen
or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo
and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule,
we shall not flag or fail.
We shall go on to the end;
we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence
and growing strength in the air,
we shall defend our island,
whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills,
.
we shall never surrender!

Winston Churchill.

This is the opposite of the rule. Here's another description of it:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/37/S0313700.html

USAGE NOTE: The traditional rules for using shall and will prescribe a highly complicated pattern of use in which the meanings of the forms change according to the person of the subject. In the first person, shall is used to indicate simple futurity: I shall (not will) have to buy another ticket. In the second and third persons, the same sense of futurity is expressed by will: The comet will (not shall) return in 87 years. You will (not shall) probably encounter some heavy seas when you round the point. The use of will in the first person and of shall in the second and third may express determination, promise, obligation, or permission, depending on the context. Thus I will leave tomorrow indicates that the speaker is determined to leave; You and she shall leave tomorrow is likely to be interpreted as a command. The sentence You shall have your money expresses a promise (“I will see that you get your money”), whereas You will have your money makes a simple prediction. •Such, at least, are the traditional rules. The English and some traditionalists about usage are probably the only people who follow these rules, and then not with perfect consistency. In America, people who try to adhere to them run the risk of sounding pretentious or haughty. Americans normally use will to express most of the senses reserved for shall in English usage. Americans use shall chiefly in first person invitations and questions that request an opinion or agreement, such as Shall we go? and in certain fixed expressions, such as We shall overcome. In formal style, Americans use shall to express an explicit obligation, as in Applicants shall provide a proof of residence, though this sense is also expressed by must or should. In speech the distinction that the English signal by the choice of shall or will may be rendered by stressing the auxiliary, as in I will leave tomorrow (“I intend to leave”); by choosing another auxiliary, such as must or have to; or by using an adverb such as certainly. •In addition to its sense of obligation, shall also can convey high moral seriousness that derives in part from its extensive use in the King James Bible, as in “Righteousness shall go before him and shall set us in the way of his steps” (Ps 85:13) and “He that shall humble himself shall be exalted” (Mt 23:12). The prophetic overtones that shall bears with it have no doubt led to its use in some of the loftiest rhetoric in English. This may be why Lincoln chose to use it instead of will in the Gettysburg Address:“government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” See Usage Note at should.

http://www.uoregon.edu/~spike/ling290/badEnglish.html

Example 4: shall and will.

"In Old and Middle English times shall and will were sometimes used to express simple futurity, though as a rule they implied, respectively, obligation [shall] and volition [will]. The present prescrbed use of these words, the bane of many an American and Northern British schoolchild, stems ultimately from the seventeenth century, the rules having first been codified by John Wallis, an eminent professor of geometry at Oxford who wrote in Latin a grammar of the English language (Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae, 1653.). The rule is... to express a future event without emotional ovetones, one should say I shall, we shall, but you/he/she/they will; conversely, for emphasis, willfulness, or insistence, one should say I/we will, but you/he/she/they shall... Despite a crusade of more than three centuries on behalf of the distinction, the rule for making it is still largely a mystery for most Americans, who get along very well in expressing futurity and willfulness without it."
(p. 205)

Some more info. Warning: this may seem to trample all over many cherished notions.

http://www.uqu.edu.sa/majalat/humanities/2vol15/011.pdf

[BadAssButterfly (On Moderation)]

Re: Easter is coming up soon - SOON!

All of which are False Christians, last time I checked.

True Christians follow the Bible. ALL of it, not just the parts they like.

So I guess that means you don't eat shellfish, pork, or meat and dairy in the same dish, you don't plant more than one crop in the same field, and you don't wear poly/cotton blends, eh? After all, your book says that all these are abominations as well.

[BadAssButterfly (On Moderation)]

Re: Easter is coming up soon - SOON!

This is the Killer Rabbit of Caerbannog (which is so vicious that it can only be killed by the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch).

[ATTACH]1492[/ATTACH]

Looks like someone's spent a little too much time watching Monty Python.