LG

I hate ice cream. I seldom eat more than a gallon a week, or 1 1/2 gallons tops. If I have to force myself to eat it, I usually let it sit out for a while, which probably accomplishes about the same thing and Pawtucket's microwaving it.

It is, but "tear it down" might be misleading. Not much should be required to put it back up, at a different web address, except to edit the pages, substituting a new name for "The Way Ministry" and updating links to correspond to the new web address.

THIS LINK will give you an idea.

When my father spanked me, I often said that I didn't deserve it, and frequently didn't. (I had a devil for a sister and my father was blind, so I frequently got framed.)I never once said that I got spanked because my father knew he was losing and asked me to settle for a spanking.

Nobody even disapproved of his voicing his opinion, much less threatened his right to do so. "That" didn't happen. Nobody disparaged David for disagreeing with them. Several disparaged him for his nastiness, which appeared without provocation in his second post and has continued throughout.

It was a bad weekend for Pooh characters. Paul Winchell died on Friday and John Fiedler, the voice of Piglet, died on Saturday.

I don't give a hoot about celebrities in general, or Tom Cruise in particular, but I am curious about one thing. Who is the adult ticket for?Or, for the grammar police, for whom is the adult ticket?

Abigail, I was trying to be nice in my last response to you. The truth is that I found your insinuation that I was representing myself to know more than I do to be contemptible. I find your claim that I am defensive about my interpretation of the Bible and your implicaton that I am or was upset about "people discussing different possibilities regarding what something means, or what actually occurred" to be just as contemptible. CM didn't irritate me, because he was straightforward. You are not, your little game does irritate me, and that irritation has nothing to do with anyone's interpretation of the Bible.

Kit, That close approach is past. It occurred on August 27, 2003, but Mars never appeared to be anywhere near as large as the moon. The apparent size of the moon is about 30 arc minutes, some 70 times larger than Mars has ever appeared.

Abigail, I enjoy the Bible as literature. Like other good literature, it makes sense, within its "universe." I can enjoy discussing it within that universe, even though I don't think that universe corresponds very well with reality. You and CM seem to want to set what the Bible says in some other universe, in which words that mean something and make perfect sense in the Biblical universe mean anything one wishes, or nothing at all, and make little sense in their original context. That's fine, but I have little to contribute to such a discussion, so I'll bow out.

What does hyperbaric oxygen therapy have to do with oxygenated water, krysilis?

First, I don't base my knowledge of anything on what TWI taught. Second, if you disagree with anything I said, then say so. Don't toss out vague proposals of possibilities that could apply to everyone, including yourself and the most respected of Jewish scholars, but the liklihood of which you have no basis to assess.Can you point out a single flaw in what I wrote? Can you suggest any circumstances under which CM's suggestion makes a lick of sense?

CM, like I said, I think it's myth anyway. I was just trying to help you to understand what it says.What you suggest indicates that you don't understand what you read in Matthew and Luke, the culture, or Old Testament law.

You may not have noticed that I am the one who started that discussion. It relates to Wierwille's unsupported claim that people thought that Jesus was illegitimate, which is contrary to what the Bible indicates. People thought that Joseph was Jesus' father. The Bible says that he was not (his literal, genetic father).

How do figure that? If you don't mind answering. I don't mind at all. If Joseph was the father, and cared about the law, Mary, or his own child, then he wouldn't have been considering putting her away. First, the law would have required him to marry her, even if they had not been planning on marrying before that. Second, men who care about women do right by them. In modern times, that would at least mean owning up to fatherhood and helping to support and raise the child. Two thousand years ago, that would mean marrying them. Third, men who care about the children they father, even if they don't care about the woman, don't abandon their children. Again, in modern times, they at least help to support and raise them. In biblical times, they'd marry the mother, if for no other reason than to avoid condemning the children to being bastards, which actually meant something back then. The Bible doesn't say that. It says that, before she and Joseph came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. There wouldn't be any public scrutiny or consequences if he went ahead with the marriage. There'd be all sorts of consequences if she were pregnant but not married. If Joseph were the father, but put away his child and the mother of his child, that would be nothing like love. It would be cruel, and completely contrary to custom, as well as the laws of God. Putting her away privately could only be considered loving as an alternative to having her stoned for screwing around with another man while bethrothed to Joseph. If Joseph had been the father, he'd have know what happened and what to do about it, which would have been to carry on with the marriage and love and support his wife and child. You're inventing a contradiction that doesn't exist. The Bible indicates that Jesus' conception was miraculous, but his birth was just like everyone else's. Jesus said that God is able to raise up children of Abraham from stones. If that is so, then he would have no problem conceiving a child of the seed of David, without relying on a human father of David's lineage. Never said there was. It's simply one of three possibilities, of which the only reasonable one is #3. There is, however, evidence that Joseph thought that another man must be the father, because if he didn't, then he wouldn't have been planning to put Mary away, either publicly or privately.

I think the whole story is a myth anyway, but if you're going to believe the story, I'd think you'd accept what it says, which is that Joseph was not Jesus' father. If he and Mary had already had sexual intercourse even once before she "was found with child," then he would have assumed that the child was his, and wouldn't have been trying to decide whether to make her a public example or to put her away quietly. There really are only three options. 1) Joseph was the father, in which case neither his thinking about how to put Mary away nor what the angel said makes sense. 2) Some other man was the father, in which case what Joseph was thinking about doing makes sense and what the angel told him was a lie. 3) The conception was miraculous and no human was the father, in which case the whole thing makes sense, if you believe what it says.

Nobody has been figuratively dragged here without their consent, and certainly not literally.

There are plenty of valid things for which people can criticize TWI, but putting a stop to wholesale, illegal copyright infringement is not one of them.

Or maybe the statement is simply not true.

Please forgive my tone, Trefor. I'm just tired of all the disinformation. The American media, which could have cut through it, chose to propound it.

Trefor, her condition was clear and well documented. No person in that condition has ever recovered. It was an irreversible situation. Regarding her wishes, we don't "only have Michael's word for what Terri wanted." If you had bothered to read the court documents that are available on the Web, you'd know that. Living wills are good, but they don't settle things once and for all. Verbal statements (at least in Texas and Florida) have just as much force, and can override a pre-existing living will.

Well, I'll leave the legal/moral argument, but not falsehoods and mischaracterizations. The dehydrated brain stuff Ron posted is nonsense. As to Trefor's characterization of what happened, all credible evidence indicated PVS, with no chance of recovery.

I don't want to rehash old arguments either, so I'll leave it where it is.

Do you really think that that conservative, evangelical Christian trial judge wasn't cautious, Vickles? Do you think that the other judges who ruled on aspects of the case (mostly appeals) weren't cautious? Even if you do, what other institution than the courts do we have that could better decide such matters?

I appreciate the clarification, such as it is, houseisarockin. I'd have appreciated a direct response even more.