On 02/09/11 20:13, Sam Wilson wrote:
In ,
The Real wrote:

On 02/09/11 18:48, Sam Wilson wrote:
In ,
Alistair wrote:

I thought Christianity was "think of others before yourself" not "have
someone else think of others so you don't have to"?

"Love your enemies."

Evangelicals /hate/ that long-haired hippy stuff, which is why they tend
to be very light indeed on the teachings of Jesus and very heavy on the
rantings of Paul. The first thing the evangelicals would do if Jesus
came back - once his identity was incontrovertibly established - would
be to put him to death, then claim he came back and told them to carry
on hating.

Not my experience, sorry.

Mine, though. A detestable bunch. If they want a church of their own
they should set one up and stop trying to take over the CofE and CofS by
stealth.

Ian

On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 19:36:12 +0100, The Real Doctor
wrote:

On 02/09/11 18:21, Tim Fenton wrote:
In last year's Senate race, he backed Sharron Angle, who had the benefit
of being seriously bat**** mad. That she lost is something Adrian has
had considerable difficulty accepting.

Good grief.

He also claims to be Jewish, but believes in Jesus Christ (or, as he
would say, Yeshua).

Sensible way to hedge your bets, I suppose.

As with those in the Islamic world who recognise him, they don't
attribute the same qualities, status etc.

On Sep 2, 2:47*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 19:36:12 +0100, The Real Doctor

wrote:
On 02/09/11 18:21, Tim Fenton wrote:
In last year's Senate race, he backed Sharron Angle, who had the benefit
of being seriously bat**** mad. That she lost is something Adrian has
had considerable difficulty accepting.

Good grief.

He also claims to be Jewish, but believes in Jesus Christ (or, as he
would say, Yeshua).

Sensible way to hedge your bets, I suppose.

As with those in the Islamic world who recognise him, they don't
attribute the same qualities, status etc.

Charles,

The accepted definitionn of a Jewish person is that he, or she, is the
child of a Jewess, no ifs, ands, or buts.

See http://www.shema.com/messianic_judaism.php. It will explain my
position on Y'shua HaMoshiach.

You may not agree with from whence I come on this. But, I am sure you
will grasp the concept.

Unfortunately, is is well beyond the grasp of young Timmy.

In uk.railway Nick twisted the electrons to say:
It would seem to me dangerously irresponsible to run a health service,
or a welfare system, on the hope that random members of the general

One could argue it's dangerously irresponsible to run a welfare system at
all ...

public will contribute funds to it out of the goodness of their heart.
I mean, those members of the public who have a social conscience and
are relatively well-off probably would, but you can't rely on it.

And yet charities like the RNLI actively resist the idea of state
financing ... I guess this means deaths at sea increa

State funding through taxes means you compel people who can afford it
into giving money to support the health service and welfare, and to my
mind, that's the way it should be if you want to guarantee the income
as much as practically possible.

Any sensible charity presumably budgets for expected changes in both
income and expenditure ... Something we've yet to see any UK government
being any good at.

If you don't like paying tax, remind yourself that you might find
yourself in a position where you will be the beneficiary of the tax
system one day.

OTOH, if I hadn't been forced to pay those taxes I would've been better
off and would therefore have been less likely to need the to beg the
government to give back to me some some of the money they forcibly took
from me ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

In article
,
(1506) wrote:

The accepted definitionn of a Jewish person is that he, or she, is the
child of a Jewess, no ifs, ands, or buts.

See http://www.shema.com/messianic_judaism.php. It will explain my
position on Y'shua HaMoshiach.

You may not agree with from whence I come on this. But, I am sure you
will grasp the concept.

I'm afraid you will find if you look back in history that this is not
universally accepted. Fortunately my father decided not to hang around in
Berlin in 1936 and argue about it.

Not that this is anything to do with either Boltar or u.t.l.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sep 4, 4:27*am, wrote:
In article
,

(1506) wrote:
The accepted definitionn of a Jewish person is that he, or she, is the
child of a Jewess, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Seehttp://www.shema.com/messianic_judaism.php. *It will explain my
position on Y'shua HaMoshiach.

You may not agree with from whence I come on this. *But, I am sure you
will grasp the concept.

I'm afraid you will find if you look back in history that this is not
universally accepted. Fortunately my father decided not to hang around in
Berlin in 1936 and argue about it.


Your father was very wise.

In article
,
(1506) wrote:

On Sep 4, 4:27*am, wrote:
In article
,

(1506) wrote:
The accepted definitionn of a Jewish person is that he, or she, is the
child of a Jewess, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Seehttp://www.shema.com/messianic_judaism.php. *It will explain my
position on Y'shua HaMoshiach.

You may not agree with from whence I come on this. *But, I am sure you
will grasp the concept.

I'm afraid you will find if you look back in history that this is not
universally accepted. Fortunately my father decided not to hang around
in Berlin in 1936 and argue about it.

Your father was very wise.

He thought so. I agree.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 12:07:01 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote:

On Sep 4, 4:27*am, wrote:
In article
,

(1506) wrote:
The accepted definitionn of a Jewish person is that he, or she, is the
child of a Jewess, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Maybe not by your definition but plenty of Jews do not have Jewish
mothers.

Seehttp://www.shema.com/messianic_judaism.php. *It will explain my
position on Y'shua HaMoshiach.

You may not agree with from whence I come on this. *But, I am sure you
will grasp the concept.

I'm afraid you will find if you look back in history that this is not
universally accepted. Fortunately my father decided not to hang around in
Berlin in 1936 and argue about it.


Your father was very wise.

On Sep 4, 11:06*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 12:07:01 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote:

On Sep 4, 4:27*am, wrote:
In article
,

(1506) wrote:
The accepted definitionn of a Jewish person is that he, or she, is the
child of a Jewess, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Maybe not by your definition but plenty of Jews do not have Jewish
mothers.

NOT my definition, the rabbinical position since the Crusades.

On 05/09/2011 08:51, 1506 wrote:
On Sep 4, 11:06 pm, Charles wrote:
On Sun, 4 Sep 2011 12:07:01 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Sep 4, 4:27 am, wrote:
In article
,

(1506) wrote:
The accepted definitionn of a Jewish person is that he, or she, is the
child of a Jewess, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Maybe not by your definition but plenty of Jews do not have Jewish
mothers.

NOT my definition, the rabbinical position since the Crusades.

A comparatively new idea then...

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail