Posted On: January 31, 2006, 9:18 am CST

Posted By: ozymandias

A good guess PB. Even if I may not consider a religious person 'an employee' of his/her parish/diocese/sinagogue/whatever, conditions should be thorougly read through to know that. We are all (I should think) insurance people. We know about small print and tricks. But, provided there is no proven intention by underwriters to cheat in policy conditions, texts stand as "Bible truth".

This takes me to your poking again into the "anti" issue. If you are a Christian, and it seems that you are one, then you shouldn't be using the name of the Lord to your fancy purposes. But, as this is a way as any other to enlighten people about what it truthful and what is not, I'll take the glove once again but will call it a day in this respect, please.

Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and the only who was visible to humans in due course. He appeared as a man to us (probably to avoid scaring the peasants' shite out) but He wasn't. Thus being God and not really man (although he had a few apparent lapses along His martyrdom) His motives cannot be interpreted by human standards. Trying to do this would be foolish and useless, and won't throw any light upon what He eventually did. His (or His father's motives) were other than being 'against' this or that, but rather to save humanity from sin (spiritual death). Those who cannot learn from errors of their own (and eventually from others' errors) are doomed to repeat them over and over again. And this was clearly pointed out in Proverbs 26:11. Ozymandias aka Argie, rests.

I plead for your patience and understanding: English is my second language as you might have guessed by my butchered grammar. I am an Argentine male of Basque roots without a single drop of AS blood who sat for Cambridge Proficiency in seven subjects quite well though, some fity years ago. I don't intend to patronise or preach, just to keep the record straight (as I see it). Thanks.