Norwegian DNS compromized

Thomas M. Jett free_dixie at
Wed Feb 28 17:41:15 UTC 2007

Hash: SHA512

Michael_google gmail_Gersten wrote:
> I'm doing a LOT of trimming on this reply.
>>  Yes, and this is, given the limits of technology, best left to the
>>  realm of The Good Lord to handle ( the rules are in The Bible if only
>>  people would abide by them.  There is something that the vast
>> majority
>>  of people fail to take into consideration, and that is the fact that
>>  evil exists in this world.  It does, and while we cannot endorse it,
>>  or go along with it, we do have to tolerate it in as much as we
>> cannot
>>  prevent it without actually hurting ourselves in the process
>>  (reference the quote of Thomas Paine).
> Please, take a second look at this statement. I'm not taking this out
> of context.
I'm taking a second look at it, and a third and forth ect... etc...
despite the fact that I've been up far too long.
> Yes, we cannot prevent someone else's ability to make a choice,
> without that coming back and restricting our choices. Absolutely.
> You have chosen to say "The Bible has the rules of The Good Lord".
> That's your choice.
Yes, that is correct.
> You are choosing to say all of the following:
> 1. The God of Abraham is Lord.
> 2. The God of Abraham is God.
> 3. The God of Abraham is Good. (Job, Jonah, and Ester come to mind.)
> 4. The rules given to the generations from Abraham to Moses still
> apply today.
> 5. The guidelines and interpretations of those, as expressed by
> prophets up til about 200 BC (old testament), or up til about 100 AD
> (new testament), or by male rulers who kicked women out of the ruling
> class through about 400 AD (Roman catholic church), or ..., are in
> fact valid and appropriate in 2010 AD.
Quiet correct, except that  you do not take into consideration that
since the birth of Christ the world is under a new covenant, and the
old covenant ( the one in effect B.C. while still a good general
guideline is not literally God's Law.
> 6. Any advice / prophets / instructions given to anyone else are
> invalid. (See: Muslim, Taoist, etc).
While I recognize that these philosophies may have something to
contribute to understanding human morality and nature, and did the
pagan Greek's, I do not recognize them as religions.  The only
authority a Christian can recognize is the authority of God.  If that
offends the current *multiculturist* (sp?) sensibilities of the
majority of people today, so be it.
> While it is your choice to say all of those (and I do not agree with
> all of them), as soon as you say that everyone else "should" do these,
> or even apply the label "evil" to anyone that disagrees with you, or
> otherwise try to say "This is proper, that is not", you are in
> violation of the very right of choice.
Nay, I would say!  I am a Jeffersonian to the core (sorry if you're
not familiar with the Jeffersonian philosophy, but a quick study on
Jefferson would do everybody a lot of good).  While I recognize that
there are moral absolutes, something the moral subjectivests, and
moral relitivists today reject (which is why we have such high rates
of all kinds of crime and immorality), I also recognize the fact that
*is* their choice.  I also recognize that there has to be some kind of
basic  fundamental foundation for law (The Ten Commandments are the
foundation for most western law, especially English Common Law), for
any civilization to exist.  Again, though, I am a hard core
Jeffersonian, and the core of Jeffersonian thought was what he called
a patchwork of cultures.  A confederation of states, each with it's
own individual culture, and free to be as it thought proper.  I
currently reside in Mississippi, and say the laws in one of the
surrounding states (Tenn., Ala., Ark., or La.) were based upon pagan
or even satanic beliefs.  Despite the fact that I believe their
culture, their law  to be sinful, and wrong, I would in no way attempt
to force them to conform to the laws of my State (that is of course
unless they attempted to force me to comply with their culture/law.).
So, perhaps you now have a better understanding of my position.
Regardless, it's way past time for me to hit the hay.  So perhaps if
you're interested we can continue the conversation at a later date.

You're Obd't Servant,
Thomas M. Jett
> "He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy
> from oppression" Forcing all those views about God on another is
> oppression.
No one is  forcing..........those who are forced to God have no Belief
in God, they just comply to avoid oppression.
> .

Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3265 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <>

More information about the tor-talk mailing list