New Russian fighter...wow!

On Mar 18, 4:39 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:


That said, it is patently apparent to any thinking person, that a
doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead to perpetual war;

The doctrine of an "eye for an eye" was a limitation, not a
requirement.

This Law was quite radical and humane in an age when insult often
resulted in extermination.


Dan Mc

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:31:12 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 18, 4:39 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:


That said, it is patently apparent to any thinking person, that a
doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead to perpetual war;

The doctrine of an "eye for an eye" was a limitation, not a
requirement.


Huh? Who suggested that it was either? Not me.

An-eye-for-an-eye was the common sentiment of non-Christians at the
time of Christ, as I understand it, and it's still practiced
throughout the unenlightened world. An-eye-for-an-eye leads to
perpetual retaliation. Turn the other cheek is its antithesis. And
Tolstoy's

"Let us forgive each other - only then will we live in peace”
-- Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy

is mankind's only hope for peace.

This Law [An-eye-for-an-eye] was quite radical and humane in an age when insult often
resulted in extermination.


It's patently unenlightened today. And those among us who still think
that way do all mankind a disservice, IMO.

Unfortunately, today's hypocritical evangelists (Roman Catholic
pedophiles, homosexual minister Ted Haggard who railed against gays
and drugs while indulging in both, Jim Jones, the Bakers, and a myriad
others who fleece elders into taking loans on their homes to tithe)
pervert the truth and victimize the faithful. The remarkable thing
is, the parishioners beg for more after criminal preachers are exposed
for the frauds they are. It's enough to make one lose his faith in
his fellow man.

It's now the 21st century, and time enlightened humans abandon their
superstitions and magical thinking, and realize, that it is they
themselves who are responsible for their lot in life, not some
imaginary deity. It's time we grow up, and take responsibility for
ourselves.

Just imagine the poor pilot who prays for good weather in the face of
a poor forecast. If he launches, he's doomed. We all know better
than to rely on hope and faith to keep us safe when aviating; why do
we tolerate such mystical bravo sierra in our personal lives?

On Mar 18, 8:27 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

That said, it is patently apparent to any thinking person, that a
doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead to perpetual war;

The doctrine of an "eye for an eye" was a limitation, not a
requirement.

Huh? Who suggested that it was either? Not me.

Yes, you did -- "doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead
to perpetual war"

An-eye-for-an-eye was the common sentiment of non-Christians at the
time of Christ, as I understand it, and it's still practiced
throughout the unenlightened world. An-eye-for-an-eye leads to
perpetual retaliation. Turn the other cheek is its antithesis. And
Tolstoy's

"Let us forgive each other - only then will we live in peace"
-- Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy

is mankind's only hope for peace.

This Law [An-eye-for-an-eye] was quite radical and humane in an age when insult often
resulted in extermination.

It's patently unenlightened today. And those among us who still think
that way do all mankind a disservice, IMO.

Unfortunately, today's hypocritical evangelists (Roman Catholic
pedophiles, homosexual minister Ted Haggard who railed against gays
and drugs while indulging in both, Jim Jones, the Bakers, and a myriad
others who fleece elders into taking loans on their homes to tithe)
pervert the truth and victimize the faithful. The remarkable thing
is, the parishioners beg for more after criminal preachers are exposed
for the frauds they are. It's enough to make one lose his faith in
his fellow man.

It's now the 21st century, and time enlightened humans abandon their
superstitions and magical thinking, and realize, that it is they
themselves who are responsible for their lot in life, not some
imaginary deity. It's time we grow up, and take responsibility for
ourselves.

Just imagine the poor pilot who prays for good weather in the face of
a poor forecast. If he launches, he's doomed. We all know better
than to rely on hope and faith to keep us safe when aviating; why do
we tolerate such mystical bravo sierra in our personal lives?

::YAWN::

Yeah.....

ok

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
Gig 601XL Builder wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Why do republicans favor killing innocent women and children in the
name of big oil?


We don't but sometimes they just get in the way.


If you know it's going to happen then it's, at the very least, as morally
reprehensible as a guy who drives drunk.
I'm known for my understatement.


Bertie

Hi Bertie,

I am a bit confused myself. I am sure it is something that I just don't
understand. A republican friend sent me a note crying that a bill
introduced by Obama to help save peoples lives abroad would cost billions
and they aren't even americans and it is EVIL.
Yes it is good and proper and AMERICAN to spend trillions killing people in
other countries.

It just seems to be that spending billions to save people is better than
spending trillions to kill them. But, what do I know. Maybe they are just
working on the population problem.

Highflyer

On Mar 18, 9:40 pm, "Highflyer" wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in 6.130...



Gig 601XL Builder wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Why do republicans favor killing innocent women and children in the
name of big oil?

We don't but sometimes they just get in the way.

If you know it's going to happen then it's, at the very least, as morally
reprehensible as a guy who drives drunk.
I'm known for my understatement.

Bertie

Hi Bertie,

I am a bit confused myself. I am sure it is something that I just don't
understand. A republican friend sent me a note crying that a bill
introduced by Obama to help save peoples lives abroad would cost billions
and they aren't even americans and it is EVIL.
Yes it is good and proper and AMERICAN to spend trillions killing people in
other countries.

It just seems to be that spending billions to save people is better than
spending trillions to kill them. But, what do I know. Maybe they are just
working on the population problem.

Highflyer

Oh boy...

I think we're about to start the next "debbil made me do it" thread....

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

n Mar 18, 8:27 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

That said, it is patently apparent to any thinking person, that a
doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead to perpetual war;

The doctrine of an "eye for an eye" was a limitation, not a
requirement.

Huh? Who suggested that it was either? Not me.

Yes, you did -- "doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead
to perpetual war"

You have INFERRED that I implied that a doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye
was a limitation or requirement. As I am the one who had the thought,
only I am able to provide a clarification of my intent.

My point is, that if one monkey hits another, and the doctrine of
an-eye-for-an-eye prevails within the group, the hitee will hit back
add infinitum. The doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye perpetuates
violence.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to phrase this more clearly earlier.

On Mar 18, 10:40 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

Huh? Who suggested that it was either? Not me.

Yes, you did -- "doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye must necessarily lead
to perpetual war"

You have INFERRED that I implied that a doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye
was a limitation or requirement. As I am the one who had the thought,
only I am able to provide a clarification of my intent.

My point is, that if one monkey hits another, and the doctrine of
an-eye-for-an-eye prevails within the group, the hitee will hit back
add infinitum. The doctrine of an-eye-for-an-eye perpetuates
violence.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to phrase this more clearly earlier.

You were very clear and I still must conclude that you don't
understand the concept.

And Eye for an eye means if one is wronged, the recompense cannot
exceed the damage.

Period.

Your's is actually the first argument I've ever heard that this
doctrine perpetuates harm.


Dan Mc

Dan writes:

You were very clear and I still must conclude that you don't
understand the concept.

And Eye for an eye means if one is wronged, the recompense cannot
exceed the damage.

Period.

Has anyone explained this concept to Israel? That country seems to suffer
from the same misconception.

On Mar 19, 3:39 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

And Eye for an eye means if one is wronged, the recompense cannot
exceed the damage.


Has anyone explained this concept to Israel? That country seems to suffer
from the same misconception.

Why don't you head on over and handle that for us, bub.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dan writes:

You were very clear and I still must conclude that you don't
understand the concept.

And Eye for an eye means if one is wronged, the recompense cannot
exceed the damage.

Period.

Has anyone explained this concept to Israel? That country seems to
suffer from the same misconception.

Wow, another subject in which Anthony doesn't know **** from shinola.