Re: **Creation and more****
MarkT
> Creation and more
"Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution - ignorance is."
Visit No Answers in Genesis! http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm
--
My Blog - - my thoughts on Christianity/ song covers & pics & links
http://www.blognow.com.au/strooth/
My Soundclick Page - download my original songs in mp3 format
http://www.soundclick.com/marktindall
Wrighteous Network
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.creationresearch.org/
http://www.creationontheweb.com/
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/
Oh Thank you again Mark.
You really are halp us this week. :)
"MarkT" <moi@home0000000009woohoo0000009> wrote in message
news:463fd6b3$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
MarkT
swa...@ozemail.com.au
Mark, Your denigration of Creation Scientists does not assist with an
understanding of the controversy about Origins.
As I have posted previously, those scientists, some with triple earned
doctorates from accredited Universities, who are seeking scientific
answers that the Universe may be younger and that the macroevolution
of plants and animals DID NOT OCCUR, have just as much right to
present their ideas to the public as do the Evolutionists.
Those scientists are not morons. How could they be????
In your view it would be better for you to say they are misguided, but
they would probably believe that of you.
Creation Scientists and other specialists of interest
http:www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2084
Gladys Swager
Theo Bekkers
> As I have posted previously, those scientists, some with triple earned
> doctorates from accredited Universities, who are seeking scientific
> answers that the Universe may be younger and that the macroevolution
> of plants and animals DID NOT OCCUR,
Gladys, you continue to use shouting to make your points. Do you not realise
that shouting makes you sound desperate to convince without using reasoning,
and detracts from your credibility?
Theo
MarkT
> Mark, Your denigration of Creation Scientists
... is utterly reasonable.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
to what I believe and which a number of other posters, including
yourself, claim that I am an idiot to believe.
It is (supposedly) a free country and we all have a right to express
our convictions. You have posted what you think; I have posted what I
think.
You were indoctrinated in evolution in your teen-age years and still
accept that it is right. I began my journey in these issues much later
in life.
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> > Mark, Your denigration of Creation Scientists
>
> ... is utterly reasonable.
>
and very determined (stubborn).
My understandings of God Almighty are that He would not have created
by a bits-and-pieces process of unicellular to multicellular in animal
and plant life. Similarities do not prove that He created by
evolution.
Countering the Critics Questions and Answers
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3057/
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
><snip>
>Mark, Your denigration of Creation Scientists does not assist with an
>understanding of the controversy about Origins.
Ignore Mark. He hates everyone.
>As I have posted previously, those scientists, some with triple earned
>doctorates from accredited Universities, who are seeking scientific
>answers that the Universe may be younger and that the macroevolution
>of plants and animals DID NOT OCCUR, have just as much right to
>present their ideas to the public as do the Evolutionists.
And they do, and get mocked for it.
>Those scientists are not morons. How could they be????
How could they not be?
>In your view it would be better for you to say they are misguided, but
>they would probably believe that of you.
Their beliefs have no value.
>Gladys Swager
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
I do not represent atheists or atheism
Barry OGrady
>"s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Mark, Your denigration of Creation Scientists
>
>... is utterly reasonable.
True, but coming from you it carries no weight.
Sean McHugh
"s...@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
>
> On May 8, 2:23 pm, "Theo Bekkers" <tbekk...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> > s...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > > As I have posted previously, those scientists, some with triple earned
> > > doctorates from accredited Universities, who are seeking scientific
> > > answers that the Universe may be younger and that the macroevolution
> > > of plants and animals DID NOT OCCUR,
> >
> > Gladys, you continue to use shouting to make your points. Do you not realise
> > that shouting makes you sound desperate to convince without using reasoning,
> > and detracts from your credibility?
> >
> Theo, I have used capitalisation for emphasis, to attract attention
> to what I believe and which a number of other posters, including
> yourself, claim that I am an idiot to believe.
>
> It is (supposedly) a free country and we all have a right to express
> our convictions.
You are right; there is no law against arrogance (or ignorance).
>You have posted what you think; I have posted what I
> think.
Except you post what you _think_ in capitals, as if your thoughts
have greater authority. There are instances where it one capitalises
a word for emphasis. That does not apply to the above. You have
shouted a pure opinion.
> You were indoctrinated in evolution in your teen-age years and still
> accept that it is right. I began my journey in these issues much later
> in life.
You a recent fundamentalist? I don't think so. Anyway, please don't
try to present the very lateness of your attempts to tackle science,
as affording you greater credibility.
Sean McHugh
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Except you post what you _think_ in capitals, as if your thoughts
> have greater authority. There are instances where it one capitalises
> a word for emphasis. That does not apply to the above. You have
> shouted a pure opinion.
>
believe
that their thoughts, opinions, ideas and convictions 'have greater
authority'.
> > You were indoctrinated in evolution in your teen-age years and still
> > accept that it is right. I began my journey in these issues much later
> > in life.
>
> You a recent fundamentalist? I don't think so. Anyway, please don't
> try to present the very lateness of your attempts to tackle science,
> as affording you greater credibility.
>
1. I am an evangelical Christian - non-denominational - desiring that
all Christian leaders would come to a consensus about the basic
concepts of the teachings of Jesus Christ. .
2. I am not taking 'greater credibility' to myself. I have explained
quite a number of times before why I present the work of the Creation
scientists.
I am well aware of the power of indoctrinations. I have had to step
away from a few of them myself when I have come to believe that they
were wrong and there was a better way.
I am aware that there are posters, including yourself, who think I am
either an idiot or close to being one when I say that Macro-evolution
could not have occurred either of itself or that God Almighty did it
that way.
I'm too old to be fussed about such accusations.
Gladys Swager
Dave Oldridge
news:1178597329.1...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> <snip>
> Mark, Your denigration of Creation Scientists does not assist with an
> understanding of the controversy about Origins.
>
> As I have posted previously, those scientists, some with triple earned
> doctorates from accredited Universities, who are seeking scientific
> answers that the Universe may be younger and that the macroevolution
> of plants and animals DID NOT OCCUR, have just as much right to
> present their ideas to the public as do the Evolutionists.
Certainly. In what we like to call "civilized" countries, they have the
right to lie in public.
> Those scientists are not morons. How could they be????
OF COURSE they are not morons. But their "message" is pitched to morons
and to the ignorant.
> In your view it would be better for you to say they are misguided, but
> they would probably believe that of you.
They certainly ARE misguided because it's manifestly evident that they
are liars. They are lying, either about the expertise they claim or the
science that this expertise is supposed to represent. Personally, I
don't care WHICH lie they are telling. What's more important to me is
WHY they are lying. All too often it's just because telling lies to a
creationist audience is a lot easier than writing serious grant
proposals. It's an easy, dishonest living--as Gautama would put it, NOT
"right livelihood."
> Creation Scientists and other specialists of interest
> http:www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2084
What I find with all of these people is that they are willing to lie to
me, either about their expertise or about the scientific matters that it
is supposed to represent. Now tell me, how can I trust organizations
that are populated by people I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE to be deliberate
liars? Why should ANYONE pay any attention to them? I would, of course,
permit them to enter my church. But I would NOT give them pulpit space,
nor would I serve them communion while I know they are in a state of
unrepented sin. Why is this NOT a problem for the clergy who invite them
into their churches?
Inquiring minds want to know...
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Dave Oldridge
news:463ffbb7$1...@news.bekkers.com.au:
Actually, in these forms, I tend to use capitals where I would use italics
in my word processor. Why? Because they provide the same needed emphasis
on certain words and phrases.
Dave Oldridge
news:1178708580....@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> On May 9, 8:36 pm, Sean McHugh <smch...@shoal.net.au> wrote:
>> "s...@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> Except you post what you _think_ in capitals, as if your thoughts
>> have greater authority. There are instances where it one capitalises
>> a word for emphasis. That does not apply to the above. You have
>> shouted a pure opinion.
>>
> Sean, I know how most, if not all,. who post in these newsgroups
> believe
> that their thoughts, opinions, ideas and convictions 'have greater
> authority'.
>
>> > You were indoctrinated in evolution in your teen-age years and still
>> > accept that it is right. I began my journey in these issues much
later
>> > in life.
>>
>> You a recent fundamentalist? I don't think so. Anyway, please don't
>> try to present the very lateness of your attempts to tackle science,
>> as affording you greater credibility.
>>
> 1. I am an evangelical Christian - non-denominational - desiring that
> all Christian leaders would come to a consensus about the basic
> concepts of the teachings of Jesus Christ. .
That's nice, but I have come to expect the exact opposite from militant
creationist proponents.
> 2. I am not taking 'greater credibility' to myself. I have explained
> quite a number of times before why I present the work of the Creation
> scientists.
Well, you seem to have missed the point that they are, almost to a man,
terribly dishonest people. That is to say, when they HAVE expertise,
they are actually willing to lie to me about the science. When they
don't, they seem quite willing to represent themselves as experts (e.g.
"Dr." Hovind).
> I am well aware of the power of indoctrinations. I have had to step
> away from a few of them myself when I have come to believe that they
> were wrong and there was a better way.
> I am aware that there are posters, including yourself, who think I am
> either an idiot or close to being one when I say that Macro-evolution
> could not have occurred either of itself or that God Almighty did it
> that way.
Then why hasn't anyone actually EXPLAINED the condition of the chimp and
human genomes in any RATIONAL manner OTHER than the more obvious
conclusion that we share a common genetic ancestor?
> I'm too old to be fussed about such accusations.
Right. Ignore the truth and it will eventually go away. But you do
understand that, in order for that to happen you have to end up as far
away from the Source of ALL TRUTH as you possibly can get....
The problem with false religion is that it pretends to be an agent of the
light all the while leading you down into darkness. Its teachers say one
thing, claim they are doing right all the while sinning and teaching you
to sin along with them. The devil is very subtle in these matters,
deceiving even the very elect, as scripture tells us. He gets you to
invest emotional capital in spreading the more convincing lies until
you're so caught up in the lying that you cannot stand the truth any
more. Then he has you. Next thing you know, you're lying to the one
person you can actually hope to REALLY deceive--yourself. When you start
doing that, the devil owns your soul.
Dave Oldridge
news:1178669840....@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> On May 8, 2:38 pm, "MarkT" <moi@home00000000010woohoo00000010> wrote:
>> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> > Mark, Your denigration of Creation Scientists
>>
>> ... is utterly reasonable.
>>
> according to your understandings. You are about ten years my senior,
> and very determined (stubborn).
>
> My understandings of God Almighty are that He would not have created
> by a bits-and-pieces process of unicellular to multicellular in animal
> and plant life. Similarities do not prove that He created by
> evolution.
Similarities of non-functioning DNA and insertion points for retroviruses
as well as the fusion of the 2p and 2q ape chromosomes into the human
chromosome 2, complete with the displayed seams of the fusion are pretty
conclusive evidence--I would say beyond REASONABLE doubt--that humans and
chimps come from a common ancestral gene pool. Moreover, I would argue
that this deduction also implies rigorously that the present differences
between humans and chimps are the result of divergent evolution. As to
WHY that occurs in God's creation, you will have to ask HIM. I'm sorry
if your religion doesn't have anyone who can actually talk to Him in
it...that's YOUR problem. Maybe you should try to find a religion with
actual priests of God in it instead of these charlatans who boast and lie
and pose but who actually have nothing going in the way of communion with
God Almighty.
Ken Smith
><snip>
>Mark, Your denigration of Creation Scientists does not assist with an
>understanding of the controversy about Origins.
>As I have posted previously, those scientists, some with triple earned
>doctorates from accredited Universities, who are seeking scientific
>answers that the Universe may be younger and that the macroevolution
>of plants and animals DID NOT OCCUR, have just as much right to
>present their ideas to the public as do the Evolutionists.
They do *not* have the right to present their views *as science*
unless they have substantial support from the scientific community.
By all means present their views as religion, and teach them as part
of a syllabus in religion in schools - even the Australain Academy of
Science agrees that creationism could be taught as part of a syllabus
on "dogmatic or comparative religion" in schools.
Or do you accept that astrologers have the right to have their ideas
taught as part of science in schools?
Or that homosexuals have the right to have their ideas taught as part
of the biology syllabus in schools?
>Those scientists are not morons. How could they be????
>In your view it would be better for you to say they are misguided, but
>they would probably believe that of you.
>Creation Scientists and other specialists of interest
>http:www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2084
>Gladys Swager
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`She was not quite sure in her own mind that this dance frock was a very good
idea. The fire, she thought, was hot enough already without fanning it; she
felt no urge to drag out feminine allure.' from Neville Shute, "Pastoral"
Ken Smith
example of lying.
Dave Oldridge <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> writes:
I have a creationist book at home entitled "Starlight and Time". The
name of teh author escapes me at the moment - I'll post it, with other
bibliographical data, next week.
The author states, as a preliminary to trying to use generakl
relativity to show that the Earth is at the centre of the universe,
"any bounded manifold has a centre."
Now a brief excursion. If you need two numbers to describe something,
this can be said to be a point on a two dimensional manifold.
For example, latitude and longitude are enough to specify your
position on the surface of the Earth. So the surface of the Earth is
a two dimensional manifold. It is clearly bounded - it has a finite
area, and doesn't extend to infinity.
Thus, according to the creationist, the surface of the Earth must have
a centre. Now just which point *on the surface of the Earth* is this
centre?
The point beneath the spire on the dome of St Peters in the Vatican?
The point beneath the middle of teh Speaker's chair in Federal
Parliament in Canberra?
The point on the surface immediately beneath the middle of the F1 key
on the keyboard I'm using at the moment?
The absurdity of this claim should be immediately obvious.
Just why this lie is being promulgated I don't know, but since it is
foundational to the whole of the rest of the book, it means that a
whole work has been constructed on a lie.
And it's no use any creationist proclaiming bias on the part of
"atheistic humanist mathematicians" - any mathematician would say the
same thing, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist, ...
>> what Creation Scientists and other specialists of interest
>> http:www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2084
>What I find with all of these people is that they are willing to lie to
>me, either about their expertise or about the scientific matters that it
>is supposed to represent. Now tell me, how can I trust organizations
>that are populated by people I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE to be deliberate
>liars? Why should ANYONE pay any attention to them? I would, of course,
>permit them to enter my church. But I would NOT give them pulpit space,
>nor would I serve them communion while I know they are in a state of
>unrepented sin. Why is this NOT a problem for the clergy who invite them
>into their churches?
>Inquiring minds want to know...
>--
>Dave Oldridge+
>ICQ 1800667
Salaam
swa...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote innews:1178669840....@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
<snip>
>
> > My understandings of God Almighty are that He would not have
> > created by a bits-and-pieces process of unicellular to multicellular in > > animal and plant life. Similarities do not prove that He created by
> > evolution.
>
> Similarities of non-functioning DNA and insertion points for retroviruses
> as well as the fusion of the 2p and 2q ape chromosomes into the human
> chromosome 2, complete with the displayed seams of the fusion are
> pool. Moreover, I would argue that this deduction also implies
> rigorously that the present differences between humans and chimps
> are the result of divergent evolution. As to
> WHY that occurs in God's creation, you will have to ask HIM. I'm sorry
> if your religion doesn't have anyone who can actually talk to Him in
> it...that's YOUR problem. Maybe you should try to find a religion with
> actual priests of God in it instead of these charlatans who boast and lie
> and pose but who actually have nothing going in the way of communion > with God Almighty.
>
actually talk to Him'?
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>"s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>
>><snip>
>>Mark, Your denigration of Creation Scientists does not assist with an
>>understanding of the controversy about Origins.
>
>>As I have posted previously, those scientists, some with triple earned
>>doctorates from accredited Universities, who are seeking scientific
>>answers that the Universe may be younger and that the macroevolution
>>of plants and animals DID NOT OCCUR, have just as much right to
>>present their ideas to the public as do the Evolutionists.
>
>They do *not* have the right to present their views *as science*
>unless they have substantial support from the scientific community.
>By all means present their views as religion, and teach them as part
>of a syllabus in religion in schools - even the Australain Academy of
>Science agrees that creationism could be taught as part of a syllabus
>on "dogmatic or comparative religion" in schools.
>
>Or do you accept that astrologers have the right to have their ideas
>taught as part of science in schools?
>Or that homosexuals have the right to have their ideas taught as part
>of the biology syllabus in schools?
Or that Christian preachers have the right to preach mythology as
though fact.
Or that Christians have the right to pretend to be skeptics?
>>Gladys Swager
>
>Ken Smith
>
>--
>Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
You are none of those.
Barry OGrady
>Just in case some creationists wants evidence, let my give a concrete
>example of lying.
Stop pretending to be a scientist and mathematician.
You don't make the grade as either.
Barry
Theo Bekkers
> Just in case some creationists wants evidence, let my give a concrete
> example of lying.
> For example, latitude and longitude are enough to specify your
> position on the surface of the Earth. So the surface of the Earth is
> a two dimensional manifold. It is clearly bounded - it has a finite
> area, and doesn't extend to infinity.
>
> Thus, according to the creationist, the surface of the Earth must have
> a centre. Now just which point *on the surface of the Earth* is this
> centre?
> The point beneath the spire on the dome of St Peters in the Vatican?
> The point beneath the middle of teh Speaker's chair in Federal
> Parliament in Canberra?
> The point on the surface immediately beneath the middle of the F1 key
> on the keyboard I'm using at the moment?
I suppose you could argue that, as the universe has no boundaries and space
curves back on itself, the centre of the universe is wherever you want it to
be. Some people could even say that _they_ were the centre of the universe,
and they'd be right. :-)
Theo
Pastor Dave
<swa...@ozemail.com.au> claimed:
Dave is a foolish man, who actually gets angry at anyone
who believe what God said about the Creation. He worships
men over God and places his perception of God's world over
God's word.
--
Pastor Dave
Tragedy is a tool for the living to gain wisdom.
not a guide, by which to live. - Robert Kennedy
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
> ><snip>
> >Mark, Your denigration of Creation Scientists does not assist with an
> >understanding of the controversy about Origins.
> >As I have posted previously, those scientists, some with triple earned
> >doctorates from accredited Universities, who are seeking scientific
> >answers that the Universe may be younger and that the macroevolution
> >of plants and animals DID NOT OCCUR, have just as much right to
> >present their ideas to the public as do the Evolutionists.
>
> They do *not* have the right to present their views *as science*
> unless they have substantial support from the scientific community.
How will they ever have 'substantial support'
from the scientific community'????.
There is a very interesting scenario that I have known for some time,
but
have not posted on in depth.
John Dewey, given the title of the Father of Progressive Education,
Humanist of the Year (date I have not looked up for this posting),
supporter of Evolution was born in 1859, the year that Darwin rushed
the publication of his Origin of the Species. By the late 1800's John
Dewey had the American education system 'at his feet'. But before his
death in 1952 there were complaints of decreases in Literacy, Numeracy
and Behaviours. Sounds familar of NSW from 1975 according to political
campaigning and media reporting of it.
As an admirer of Charles Darwin I would think the the teaching of
evolution actually happening would have been part of his educational
policy. I need to check that out.
So the announcement that in American schools that evolution would be
taught following the advent of Sputnik on the basis that in Russia
evolution was taught and that gave Russia the advantage in science
could have been more of (dare I think it??) a hood-winking of the
American parents to enable the Evolutionists - humanists, secularists,
atheists, perhaps a percentage of Christians and other religionists -
so that they would be
'the only ones able to teach the children' - a phrase that was told me
by a Sydney lecturer in Teacher Education 1979/1980 that was their
intention!.
One point in that movement was that America was only about four months
behind Russia in launching its first satellite.
Interesting also it could have been known that John Morris with
Whitcombe were working on their creationist text, The Genesis Flood,
during the 1950's, pubished in 1960,
and that the Evolution Protest Movement, started in England in the
early 1900's from the original Christian protests from soon after
1859, had been taken to America prior to 1960.
> By all means present their views as religion, and teach them as part
> of a syllabus in religion in schools - even the Australain Academy of
> Science agrees that creationism could be taught as part of a syllabus
> on "dogmatic or comparative religion" in schools.
>
except that Creationism is more than 'just religion'. - but you might
never accept that!!!
> Or do you accept that astrologers have the right to have their ideas
> taught as part of science in schools?
Astrology can be shown to be fake. It can be shown to work on self-
fulfilling prophecies and exra sensory perception which does exist
although scientists, I have read, say they do not have the scientific
evidence according to the tests they have done, but the testin
procedures could be incorrect..
> Or that homosexuals have the right to have their ideas taught as part
> of the biology syllabus in schools?
>
What should be taught in Sexual Education is celibacy before marriage
and fidelity within it with knowledge of maintaining abstinence.
But parents should have the information to do that, as schools should
concentrate on training children to earn a living.
> >Those scientists are not morons. How could they be????
> >In your view it would be better for you to say they are misguided, but
> >they would probably believe that of you.
> >Creation Scientists and other specialists of interest
> >http:www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2084
>
> `She was not quite sure in her own mind ....
Your quotes do not contribute to the postings on most occasions.
As you can see, for the first time, I have left one part.
Ken, I don't know everything, I will grant you that.
I know the power of indoctrinations, some of which in respect of the
NSW education system I changed in my own teaching to have it stated
publically about 45 years later, in one subject area, it was'the way
to go'.
Sometimes it takes the Tertiary level academics a long time to do 'the
research' to prove something that others had known for quite a long
time.
In the meanwhile actions can be taken to make life difficult for those
who had the audacity to say that the professional academics were
wrong.
It may be, in time, that the Creation Scientists may gain for
themselves more credit than they are given now.
Gladys Swager
Dave Oldridge
news:1178760066.8...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
Any actual CHRISTIAN denomination that still preserves the sacraments God
gave us instead of making up their own. That would do for starters.
But even NO priest is better than the phonies you've been following.
Dave Oldridge
news:1q0543hsqt1ncost7...@4ax.com:
You're a fool, "Pastor." If you think telling transparent lies like this
is going to save you, then you are already standing with one leg in the
pit of hell. You see, neither you, nor anyone else KNOWS what God said
about the creation. You have a whole head full of stuff some MAN told
you God said. Moreover, you worship those men over God because you will
flatly refuse to recognize that God's creation actually speaks for
itself.
As for God's word, your ignorance of it is almost as bad as your
ignorance of science. Nor is it your puerile beliefs about science that
have gotten you into the line of God's wrath. Rather, it is your
absolute WILLINGNESS to lie about science in His name that is causing
your spiral into the pit. It's not MY anger you have to concern yourself
with. What you need to ask yourself is whether the ego gratification
you're getting from lying at top speed in God's name is worth an eternity
in a lake of fire that you will spend for sins that you neither repented
nor wanted to repent.
You tell me you're a Christian, but you know what I see? I see a devout
narcissist trying to convince me that he knows God when all he knows is
that he feels good when people bow down to HIM (i.e., you seek to
supplant worship of God with worship of YOU).
Dave Oldridge
news:ebt443lpvgmuauomm...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 9 May 2007 23:58:22 +0000 (UTC), k...@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken
> Smith) wrote:
>
>>"s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>>
>>><snip>
>>>Mark, Your denigration of Creation Scientists does not assist with an
>>>understanding of the controversy about Origins.
>>
>>>As I have posted previously, those scientists, some with triple
>>>earned doctorates from accredited Universities, who are seeking
>>>scientific answers that the Universe may be younger and that the
>>>macroevolution of plants and animals DID NOT OCCUR, have just as much
>>>right to present their ideas to the public as do the Evolutionists.
>>
>>They do *not* have the right to present their views *as science*
>>unless they have substantial support from the scientific community.
>>By all means present their views as religion, and teach them as part
>>of a syllabus in religion in schools - even the Australain Academy of
>>Science agrees that creationism could be taught as part of a syllabus
>>on "dogmatic or comparative religion" in schools.
>>
>>Or do you accept that astrologers have the right to have their ideas
>>taught as part of science in schools?
>>Or that homosexuals have the right to have their ideas taught as part
>>of the biology syllabus in schools?
>
> Or that Christian preachers have the right to preach mythology as
> though fact.
> Or that Christians have the right to pretend to be skeptics?
Well, YOU are clearly not a skeptic. You have your mind firmly made up.
Dave Oldridge
news:1178789430.0...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
I read "The Genesis Flood." Since Morris had taken enough physics
courses to know better, I will assume that he wrote the lies deliberately
and with intent to deceive an audience thought (probably correctly) to be
ignorant.
Ignorance is excusable. Deliberately lying to ignorant people to sell
books to them is a sin. I see no evidence that Morris EVER repented this
sin. In fact, all I see is evidence that he repeated it over and over
and taught his children and disciples to do likewise. Therefore, I do
not want to end up in the place he most likely ended up. Do you?
>> By all means present their views as religion, and teach them as part
>> of a syllabus in religion in schools - even the Australain Academy of
>> Science agrees that creationism could be taught as part of a syllabus
>> on "dogmatic or comparative religion" in schools.
>>
> except that Creationism is more than 'just religion'. - but you might
> never accept that!!!
You're right. In addition to being bad religion, it's also a con game
with money and souls at stake.
>> Or do you accept that astrologers have the right to have their ideas
>> taught as part of science in schools?
>
> Astrology can be shown to be fake. It can be shown to work on self-
Creationism, as it's taught by people like Morris HAS BEEN shown to be
fake.
> fulfilling prophecies and exra sensory perception which does exist
> although scientists, I have read, say they do not have the scientific
> evidence according to the tests they have done, but the testin
> procedures could be incorrect..
Actually, astrology has one thing that creationism doesn't have. You can
use it to predict the tides and, to a lesser degree, the weather.
>> Or that homosexuals have the right to have their ideas taught as part
>> of the biology syllabus in schools?
>>
> What should be taught in Sexual Education is celibacy before marriage
> and fidelity within it with knowledge of maintaining abstinence.
Uh huh. And if you believe that TEACHING celibacy before marriage will
CAUSE celibacy before marriage, then I want to interest you in a couple
of nice bridges.
> But parents should have the information to do that, as schools should
> concentrate on training children to earn a living.
Schools SHOULD concentrate on teaching children how to learn things.
Sadly, they often concentrate on the exact opposite. If fundamentalist
creationists had their educational way, that's EXACTLY what they would
do. That's what they DID in the one "Christian" school I attended as a
boy for two years.
>> >Those scientists are not morons. How could they be????
>> >In your view it would be better for you to say they are misguided,
but
>> >they would probably believe that of you.
>> >Creation Scientists and other specialists of interest
>> >http:www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2084
>>
>> `She was not quite sure in her own mind ....
>
> Your quotes do not contribute to the postings on most occasions.
> As you can see, for the first time, I have left one part.
> Ken, I don't know everything, I will grant you that.
> I know the power of indoctrinations, some of which in respect of the
> NSW education system I changed in my own teaching to have it stated
> publically about 45 years later, in one subject area, it was'the way
> to go'.
> Sometimes it takes the Tertiary level academics a long time to do 'the
> research' to prove something that others had known for quite a long
> time.
> In the meanwhile actions can be taken to make life difficult for those
> who had the audacity to say that the professional academics were
> wrong.
>
> It may be, in time, that the Creation Scientists may gain for
> themselves more credit than they are given now.
Yes, maybe some judge in a court somewhere will actually grow a pair and
sentence them when they perjure themselves in public courtrooms.
Really, really tired of all the lies. But I'm not, as "Pastor Dave"
lied, angry at the liars so much as interested in warning all of you that
GOD is angry about it.
Of course if you're still a bunch of spiritual scofflaws come the day,
then so be it.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote innews:1178760066.8...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> > On May 10, 9:50 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> > wrote:
> >> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote
> >> innews:1178669840....@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> > My understandings of God Almighty are that He would not have
> >> > created by a bits-and-pieces process of unicellular to
> >> > multicellular in animal and plant life. Similarities do not
> >> > prove that He created by evolution.
>
> >> Similarities of non-functioning DNA and insertion points for
> >> retroviruses as well as the fusion of the 2p and 2q ape chromosomes
> >> into the human chromosome 2, complete with the displayed seams > >> of the fusion are pretty conclusive evidence--I would say beyond
> >> REASONABLE doubt--> that humans and chimps come from a
> >> common ancestral gene pool. Moreover, I would argue that this
> >> deduction also implies rigorously that the present
> >> are the result of divergent evolution. As to
> >> WHY that occurs in God's creation, you will have to ask HIM. I'm
> >> sorry if your religion doesn't have anyone who can actually talk to
> >> Him in it...that's YOUR problem. Maybe you should try to find a
> >> religion with actual priests of God in it instead of these charlatans
> >> who boast and lie and pose but who actually have nothing going in
> > >the way of communion with God Almighty.
>
> > And what would be 'the religion with actual priests of God' ...'who
> > actually talk to Him'?
>
> Any actual CHRISTIAN denomination that still preserves the
> sacraments God gave us instead of making up their own. That would
> do for starters.
> But even NO priest is better than the phonies you've been following.
>
wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ are the ones,
who from their training, are telling the untruths. Jesus taught from
early in His ministry (John 3 : 16) that belief, faith in Him gave
Eternal Life.
At the last supper with his disciples the partaking of the bread and
the wine was to be symbolic and a remembrance of the death and
resurection that Jesus knew that He was to shortly suffer. The
Protestants who follow the fact that the Lord's Supper, Communion has
that sense have the better understanding. If, as I suspect, you are
posting from a Roman Catholic (I don't know the Orthodox attitude on
this) perspective you have been given a double standard ie faith in
Jesus Christ but you can only have it if you eat His body and drink
His blood.- a doctrine called 'transubstantiation'
It is by grace, the unmerited favour of God, through faith
that we are saved.
A lot went wrong in respect of doctrines in the Church at Rome, some
brought about the Reformation in 1517, and although there were faults
in Protestantism in many instances they have been closer to the truth.
But Rome still wants to appear to be the leading advocate of the
Christian faith.
But to ally Roman Catholic doctrine with the issue of Creationism/
Evolution, if that is what you have done, is very much amiss.
Creation supporters come from a range of denominations, even some
Roman Catholics, but I have not seen statistics of the percentages
from each denomination. Evolutionary theory has many supporters who
are agnostics and atheists.
As I type I am trying to remember the Pope who, in more recent times,
moved the Vatican to accept evolution as a fact, but just now I can't
recall - I do not have a 'photographic' memory.
I have read that a Roman Catholic priest -scientist proposed the Big
Bang for the start of the Universe from very dense matter. But that
raises the issue from whence came the 'dense matter'??? And how could
*** all*** the heavenly bodies come from such matter???? I have read
that there are 'walls' of galaxies that continue on into space and who
knows what will be discovered as better telescopes are invented.
I accept that God did it. God created and that God is allowing us
through the work of many scientists, (some believe in Him, others
don't) to come to understandings of His creation. But to say that
Darwin is the guru of those understandings from his Origin of the
Species doesn't make sense to me.
I believe that God created. But it has been said why didn't He do it
all in one miraculous creation of a very short duration of time???.
It has been pointed out that in the giving of the Law to Moses that
the six days were to be an example of (hu)man's lifestyle. Six days
for work and the seventh day rest. That does not mean Saturday, as the
new Dispensation of Grace given by Jesus Who rose from the dead on the
first day of the week supersedes the former dispensation of Law given
to the Israelite tribes. .
There is so much informatio/ knowledge in this study. I see these
postings as a means to share what knowledge we each have.
Gladys Swager
Theo Bekkers
> Actually, astrology has one thing that creationism doesn't have. You
> can use it to predict the tides and, to a lesser degree, the weather.
Um, that would be astronomy Dave. Astronomy teaches us that light from
distant stars takes millions of years to reach us. Another nail in the
coffin of creationist lies.
Theo
swa...@ozemail.com.au
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3051
If God created the Universe, then who created God?
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/185
Gladys Swager
Dave Oldridge
news:1178839417.4...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
So you're simply a heretic who denies what Jesus plainly taught about
this. See John 6.
> At the last supper with his disciples the partaking of the bread and
> the wine was to be symbolic and a remembrance of the death and
> resurection that Jesus knew that He was to shortly suffer. The
In other words, the Holy Private Interpretation uber alles.
> Protestants who follow the fact that the Lord's Supper, Communion has
> that sense have the better understanding. If, as I suspect, you are
No, they simply have their private understanding.
> posting from a Roman Catholic (I don't know the Orthodox attitude on
> this) perspective you have been given a double standard ie faith in
> Jesus Christ but you can only have it if you eat His body and drink
> His blood.- a doctrine called 'transubstantiation'
So Jesus was LYING in John 6 or is John 6 not part of scripture in your
cult?
> It is by grace, the unmerited favour of God, through faith
> that we are saved.
Yes, it is by grace that we are saved. The sacraments are outward,
physical signs of that grace.
> A lot went wrong in respect of doctrines in the Church at Rome, some
> brought about the Reformation in 1517, and although there were faults
> in Protestantism in many instances they have been closer to the truth.
> But Rome still wants to appear to be the leading advocate of the
> Christian faith.
You're confusing protests that threw the baby out with the bathwater with
orthodoxy.
> But to ally Roman Catholic doctrine with the issue of Creationism/
> Evolution, if that is what you have done, is very much amiss.
Creationism is the devil's tool for beguiling Protestants (who lack
sacramental protections against such wiles) into a life of sin.
> Creation supporters come from a range of denominations, even some
> Roman Catholics, but I have not seen statistics of the percentages
> from each denomination. Evolutionary theory has many supporters who
> are agnostics and atheists.
While this latter is true, that's because Protestants have continually
insisted that a literal interpretation of scripture (well actually NOT so
literal except where they claim it should be according to their Holy
Interpretations) is the only way to be saved. That's heresy. By the
book. Agnostics and atheists can be forgiven for laughing at your
ridiculous heresies which claim that a faulty interpretation of Genesis
somehow trumps reality when it comes to learning things ABOUT reality.
> As I type I am trying to remember the Pope who, in more recent times,
> moved the Vatican to accept evolution as a fact, but just now I can't
> recall - I do not have a 'photographic' memory.
Evolution IS a fact, no matter who refuses to accept it.
> I have read that a Roman Catholic priest -scientist proposed the Big
> Bang for the start of the Universe from very dense matter. But that
> raises the issue from whence came the 'dense matter'??? And how could
> *** all*** the heavenly bodies come from such matter???? I have read
> that there are 'walls' of galaxies that continue on into space and who
> knows what will be discovered as better telescopes are invented.
If you actually understood the meaning of the equations that govern
general relativity, you would not be asking such questions. Because, you
see, there is no "where" and no "when" before the beginning for anything
to be in.
> I accept that God did it. God created and that God is allowing us
> through the work of many scientists, (some believe in Him, others
> don't) to come to understandings of His creation. But to say that
> Darwin is the guru of those understandings from his Origin of the
> Species doesn't make sense to me.
Darwin was merely one of the first to understand the role that natural
selection plays in evolution. He WAS a very astute observer of nature,
though, and that is why he has earned so much respect.
> I believe that God created. But it has been said why didn't He do it
> all in one miraculous creation of a very short duration of time???.
The physical evidence tells us of billions of years of time. You can, of
course, subscribe to any variant of omphalism you like and I couldn't
criticize it (omphalism is reality-proof, really). But what you cannot
do with impunity is try to tell me that you have scientific evidence of a
young earth. And that's EXACTLY what organizations like the ICR and AiG
are LYING about.
> It has been pointed out that in the giving of the Law to Moses that
> the six days were to be an example of (hu)man's lifestyle. Six days
> for work and the seventh day rest. That does not mean Saturday, as the
> new Dispensation of Grace given by Jesus Who rose from the dead on the
> first day of the week supersedes the former dispensation of Law given
> to the Israelite tribes. .
Well, you're correct that Jesus gave the apostles charge over matters of
which days to hold feasts on, including the Sabbath, though there are
Protestant cults that insist on a Saturday sabbath. What they do not
realize is that it is still Church policy in some quarters to leave this
up to the local bishop.
> There is so much informatio/ knowledge in this study. I see these
> postings as a means to share what knowledge we each have.
My problem with creationism is that all of its manifestations are
"ministries" that are perpetrated by liars and whose propaganda is simply
riddled with them. Sin is sin is sin and there can be no real excuse for
it no matter how "holy" the cause. We are not called to "sin for Jesus"
but rather to REPENT our sins and ask His help in not REPEATING them.
Dave Oldridge
@news.bekkers.com.au:
Uh, actually in these particulars, astrology and astronomy agree. One of
the very few areas where they do, though. What I'm saying here is that the
methods astrologers use do permit accurate prediction of tides and somewhat
less accurate, but still significant prediction of weather (due to tides in
the ocean of air that surrounds us, actually).
Barry OGrady
They are all phonies, especially those who claim that science supports
their mythology.
>--
>Dave Oldridge+
Barry OGrady
YOU are a hypocrit. You accuse people who do not believe your particular
perverse view of Christianity of not understanding God the way you do.
You call creationists idiots but then rave on with your own idiocy.
**News Flash**
You are all wrong. There is no God and science does not support your
mythology.
>--
>Dave Oldridge+
Barry OGrady
You are talking about yourself. You think you have a special line to God
and that we should follow your words and worship you.
Your stories about God are no more true than those of the creationists.
Theo Bekkers
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> Um, that would be astronomy Dave. Astronomy teaches us that light
>> from distant stars takes millions of years to reach us. Another nail
>> in the coffin of creationist lies.
> Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3051
>
> If God created the Universe, then who created God?
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/185
Gladys, do you actually have any opinions of your own that you could put
into words for us. Stop being a parrot for Creationist websites.
Theo
Chris Bell
> **News Flash**
> You are all wrong. There is no God and science does not support your
> mythology.
>
convincing argument to refute the fact that over all recorded history
the vast majority of humans have believed in a god or gods. Why were and
are they all wrong? Were and are they all deluded and are only you and a
few others right? Why should we believe you?
BTW, science never supports mythologies of any sort.
>
>>--
>>Dave Oldridge+
>
>
> Barry
> =====
> Home page
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
> I do not represent atheists or atheism
Chris
Ken Smith
>On May 10, 9:58 am, k...@maths.uq.edu.au (Ken Smith) wrote:
>> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>> ><snip>
>> >Mark, Your denigration of Creation Scientists does not assist with an
>> >understanding of the controversy about Origins.
>> >As I have posted previously, those scientists, some with triple earned
>> >doctorates from accredited Universities, who are seeking scientific
>> >answers that the Universe may be younger and that the macroevolution
>> >of plants and animals DID NOT OCCUR, have just as much right to
>> >present their ideas to the public as do the Evolutionists.
>>
>> They do *not* have the right to present their views *as science*
>> unless they have substantial support from the scientific community.
>How will they ever have 'substantial support'
>from the scientific community'????.
For a start, they could put forward their ideas, with accompanying
evidence, WITHOUT making any reference to evolution, Darwinism, ...
There are plenty of books on evolution which don't make any reference
to creationism, but simply present the actual evidence for evolution.
Now it's up to creationists to produce a book, citing evidence in
support of their ideas, and without any criticism of other ideas.
Just one point - interpretation of some ancient religious writings
doesn't count as scientific evidence.
[rest deleted]
>Gladys Swager
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
"After two millennia of Western domination, is it time to look East for
wisdom about the faith we have practised so erratically?"
Philip Yancey in "Soul Survivor"
Barry OGrady
>Barry OGrady wrote:
>> **News Flash**
>> You are all wrong. There is no God and science does not support your
>> mythology.
>>
>Barry, you say this all the time but have never been able to produce a
>convincing argument to refute the fact that over all recorded history
>the vast majority of humans have believed in a god or gods.
I have no reason to do that.
>Why were and are they all wrong? Were and are they all deluded and are
>only you and a few others right? Why should we believe you?
You know they can't all be right, so why not accept they are all wrong?
How did you come to be taken in?
>BTW, science never supports mythologies of any sort.
Some Christians like to think science does support their mythology.
>Chris
Chris Bell
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:43:37 GMT, Chris Bell <c.b...@dataslow.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Barry OGrady wrote:
>>
>>>**News Flash**
>>>You are all wrong. There is no God and science does not support your
>>>mythology.
>>>
>>
>>Barry, you say this all the time but have never been able to produce a
>>convincing argument to refute the fact that over all recorded history
>>the vast majority of humans have believed in a god or gods.
>
>
> I have no reason to do that.
>
think your responses are very bot-like.
>
>>Why were and are they all wrong? Were and are they all deluded and are
>>only you and a few others right? Why should we believe you?
>
>
> You know they can't all be right, so why not accept they are all wrong?
> How did you come to be taken in?
>
some other colour i.e. not red. Where did you learn logic? My money
wonæ„’ necessarily be on the majority opinion on many matters, but it is
not usually out on the looney fringe. My guess is that if less than 5%
of the (informed) population agree at least in principle with me, then
perhaps I should worry.
>
>>BTW, science never supports mythologies of any sort.
>
>
> Some Christians like to think science does support their mythology.
>
make them wrong?
>
>>Chris
>
>
> Barry
> =====
> Home page
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
> I do not represent atheists or atheism
Chris
Barry OGrady
>Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:43:37 GMT, Chris Bell <c.b...@dataslow.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>
>>>>**News Flash**
>>>>You are all wrong. There is no God and science does not support your
>>>>mythology.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Barry, you say this all the time but have never been able to produce a
>>>convincing argument to refute the fact that over all recorded history
>>>the vast majority of humans have believed in a god or gods.
>>
>>
>> I have no reason to do that.
>>
>Arenæ„’ you human? Am I wasting my time talking to a bot? I sometimes
>think your responses are very bot-like.
You are not making sense. Why would I dispute that many humans believe
in a god or gods?
>>>Why were and are they all wrong? Were and are they all deluded and are
>>>only you and a few others right? Why should we believe you?
>>
>>
>> You know they can't all be right, so why not accept they are all wrong?
>> How did you come to be taken in?
>>
>Thatæ„€ a good argument. Because all cars arenæ„’ red, they must all be
>some other colour i.e. not red.
If that were true then all cars would be some colour other than red, but
I have seen red cars so I know you are wrong.
>Where did you learn logic?
You are not using logic.
>My money
>wonæ„’ necessarily be on the majority opinion on many matters, but it is
>not usually out on the looney fringe. My guess is that if less than 5%
>of the (informed) population agree at least in principle with me, then
>perhaps I should worry.
By definition no informed people are Christian.
>>>BTW, science never supports mythologies of any sort.
>>
>>
>> Some Christians like to think science does support their mythology.
>>
>And some atheists think science supports their mythology too. Does that
>make them wrong?
According to you it does, but logic is not your strong point.
The bible does not relate to the real world. Christianity is mythology.
>>>Chris
>>
>>
>> Barry
Dave Oldridge
And you know this because of your own omniscience, right?
> I do not represent atheists or atheism
I hope not. Most atheists have more sense.
Dave Oldridge
I've never claimed that science supports my faith, though it does so in a
different manner from what you're implying here.
That is to say, I choose to have my theology informed by science rather
than try to force science to be informed by theology. That's the real
problem the fundies have. Their hierarchy is all wrong and their faith
is so weak they feel they need scientific justification for it, even if
they have to manufacture it from whole cloth.
Dave Oldridge
And you know this because of your own omniscience, right?
Just trying to establish that, when the shiny outside is taken off,
you're just as much a flaming narcissist as the fundies you revile.
Dave Oldridge
The Bible is a very complex collection. Parts of it ARE, in fact,
histories, even if they are bad ones. But much of it is sacred myth,
some of it designed for specific religio-political campaigns, some of it
more generally instructive.
You seem to be simply determined to hate all religion, probably because
some nun rapped your knuckles when you were six.
Tracii Hyatt
"Dave Oldridge" <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message news:Xns9931930FD2F39...@64.59.135.159...
> ICQ 1800667
swa...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 May 2007 19:46:09 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>
<snip>
>
> >>> And what would be 'the religion with actual priests of God' ...'who
> >>> actually talk to Him'?
>
> >>Any actual CHRISTIAN denomination that still preserves the
> >> sacraments God gave us instead of making up their own. That
> > >would do for starters.
> >>But even NO priest is better than the phonies you've been following.
>
church that Jesus founded. It was not the first church. That was
founded at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came on those gathered in
Jerusalem so they were able to speak the languages of the visitors and
tell them of the amazing events of the death, resurrection and
ascension of Jesus Christ. That was a fulfillment of the words of
Jesus recorded in
John 15 : 26 - 27.
"But when the Comforter is come, Whom I will send to you from the
Father, He shall testify of Me, and you shall be witnesses, because
you have been with Me from the beginning."
The claim that Peter was the first Pope is also false. Jesus did not
say that He would build His church on Peter, but on the truth that
Peter had said of Jesus that He was Christ, the Son of the Living God.
It is strange that Paul did not mention Peter in his letter to the
Romans if Peter had a prominent position in the church there. Peter
became the apostle to the Jews at Jerusalem; Paul was the apostle to
the Gentiles and well-suited for that as He was both a jew and held
Roman citizenship.
What the reformers were doing from the time of Wycliff in England
(late 1300's) was to try to correct the heresies that had been allowed
to come into the Church at Rome and when the hierarchy at rome would
not recant some formed their own.churches outside the authority of
Rome.
> > They are all phonies, especially those who claim that science
> > supports their mythology.
>
> I've never claimed that science supports my faith, though it does so in a
> different manner from what you're implying here.
> That is to say, I choose to have my theology informed by science rather
> than try to force science to be informed by theology. That's the real
> problem the fundies have. Their hierarchy is all wrong and their faith
> is so weak they feel they need scientific justification for it, even if
> they have to manufacture it from whole cloth.
>
I assume that by 'have to manufacture it from whole cloth' - you mean
that Creation scientists need whatever facts they can find and from
any source to support their faith.
I don't find them that way. What I have experienced is that they are
thoughtful people, many very highly trained in their scientific
disciplines
(earned Ph D's. - % world wide of all Creation scientists I do not
know, but some have triple doctorates)
who are seeking evidence that the Universe is younger and that
organisms have not/do not change from one kind (family) to another
kind.
ie that Macroeveolution did not/could not have happened.
If they believe that God has called them to do that work and if others
believe they should support them financially that is a legitimate
activity in a free, democratic society.
I have come to wonder if much of the denigation from Evolutionists is
based on a fear that they (evolutionists) might be proved to be
incorrect in some of what they say, from their observations - the
scientific method does not hold for Origins science.
Embryonic Recapitualtion and Similarities Questions and Answers
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2997/
Humans: images of God or advanced apes?
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/ 3835
Gladys Swager
I do not say that I am competent in this study, because I am not and
am too old to gain the necessary qualifications. What I do say is that
Creation Scientists have a right to be heard.
Dave Oldridge
news:1179278049....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> On May 16, 7:22 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 10 May 2007 19:46:09 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>> > <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>> >>"s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in
>> >>news:1178760066.8...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> >>> And what would be 'the religion with actual priests of God'
>> >>> ...'who actually talk to Him'?
>>
>> >>Any actual CHRISTIAN denomination that still preserves the
>> >> sacraments God gave us instead of making up their own. That
>> > >would do for starters.
>> >>But even NO priest is better than the phonies you've been
>> >>following.
>>
> The church at Rome (the Vatican) has maintained that it is the true
> church that Jesus founded. It was not the first church. That was
The early church had major sees (archdioceses in today's parlance) at
Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Rome. Later Constantinople
(Byzantium) was added.
> founded at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came on those gathered in
> Jerusalem so they were able to speak the languages of the visitors and
> tell them of the amazing events of the death, resurrection and
> ascension of Jesus Christ. That was a fulfillment of the words of
> Jesus recorded in
> John 15 : 26 - 27.
> "But when the Comforter is come, Whom I will send to you from the
> Father, He shall testify of Me, and you shall be witnesses, because
> you have been with Me from the beginning."
>
> The claim that Peter was the first Pope is also false. Jesus did not
> say that He would build His church on Peter, but on the truth that
> Peter had said of Jesus that He was Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Now you are casting your own PRIVATE interpretation onto the words of
scripture.
> It is strange that Paul did not mention Peter in his letter to the
> Romans if Peter had a prominent position in the church there. Peter
> became the apostle to the Jews at Jerusalem; Paul was the apostle to
> the Gentiles and well-suited for that as He was both a jew and held
> Roman citizenship.
Peter was bishop in Antioch and Alexandria before he took over (for about
13 months after Paul's death) Paul's ministry in Rome.
> What the reformers were doing from the time of Wycliff in England
> (late 1300's) was to try to correct the heresies that had been allowed
> to come into the Church at Rome and when the hierarchy at rome would
> not recant some formed their own.churches outside the authority of
> Rome.
No, what they were mostly doing was showing their frustration at the
Roman rite by abandoning the sacrament of Holy Orders and denaturing most
of the others.
>> > They are all phonies, especially those who claim that science
>> > supports their mythology.
>>
>> I've never claimed that science supports my faith, though it does so
>> in a different manner from what you're implying here.
>> That is to say, I choose to have my theology informed by science
>> rather than try to force science to be informed by theology. That's
>> the real problem the fundies have. Their hierarchy is all wrong and
>> their faith is so weak they feel they need scientific justification
>> for it, even if they have to manufacture it from whole cloth.
>>
> I assume that by 'have to manufacture it from whole cloth' - you mean
> that Creation scientists need whatever facts they can find and from
> any source to support their faith.
Oh, they don't need to be bothered by FACTS at all. Cunning lies are as
much a part of their repertoire as actual facts are. And you may say
that they are not lying but just ignorant, but you cannot tell me that
people with PhD's in disciplines that REQUIRE at least a basic knowledge
of physics (mining engineering for example) are making egregiously false
claims that fly in the face of basic physics because they're ignorant.
No, they are doing it because they know that their target audience is
ignorant and will likely be deceived!
> I don't find them that way. What I have experienced is that they are
> thoughtful people, many very highly trained in their scientific
> disciplines
> (earned Ph D's. - % world wide of all Creation scientists I do not
> know, but some have triple doctorates)
> who are seeking evidence that the Universe is younger and that
> organisms have not/do not change from one kind (family) to another
> kind.
> ie that Macroeveolution did not/could not have happened.
> If they believe that God has called them to do that work and if others
> believe they should support them financially that is a legitimate
> activity in a free, democratic society.
And virtually every one of those triple doctorates has lied in public
about the science they claim to be expert in.
> I have come to wonder if much of the denigation from Evolutionists is
> based on a fear that they (evolutionists) might be proved to be
> incorrect in some of what they say, from their observations - the
> scientific method does not hold for Origins science.
No it's based on righteous indignation at a rampant public FRAUD!!!
> Embryonic Recapitualtion and Similarities Questions and Answers
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2997/
Nobody has been teaching this stuff (the way creationist LIARS claim it
is being taught) since AT LEAST the 1960's when I took my second year
embryology cours.
> Humans: images of God or advanced apes?
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/ 3835
Yes, the materialist heretics think that God is a belching, farting
apelike creature. They simply MUST interpret scripture in the most
materialist fashion possible and they are "persecuted" if the school
science class teaches truths that conflict with their misreading of
scripture.
I feel so sorry for them that the tears are, to be blunt, running down my
leg!
Get off it!! This whole racket is a fraud, to take money and political
power out of the churches and give it to the fraud artists. Creationism
is the best scam since Ponzi's scheme and much less likely to land its
perpetrators in jail where they (morally) belong!
> Gladys Swager
>
> I do not say that I am competent in this study, because I am not and
> am too old to gain the necessary qualifications. What I do say is that
> Creation Scientists have a right to be heard.
Yep. They do have a right to be heard, even if they are fraudulent scam
artists (which, for the most part they are). What they do not have is a
right to be heard in the science classes at my local public school. I'm
paying taxes for kids to be taught SCIENCE in those classes, not some
religion-based fraud. Moreover, I don't want their heretical religion
taught there because, when it is, it ends up in my orthodox place of
worship in the form of misconceptions and false doctrines. Science
classes in school should be for teaching science, not teaching lies about
science made up by some hypocrite.
Dave Oldridge
news:PaSdndPQupUZ2tfb...@giganews.com:
Not a Christian
I believe that you are not.
Also that you are not ethical, since you tried to impute your words about
me to me.
But then what can I expect from fundamentalists?
Sean McHugh
Dave Oldridge wrote:
>
> Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1s2f43h3imsgj8uro...@4ax.com:
<snip>
> Just trying to establish that, when the shiny outside is taken off,
> you're just as much a flaming narcissist as the fundies you revile.
I don't think that that is right. Barry doesn't revile the fundies.
In fact, he will often, if not usually, side with them in reviling
against non-fundamentalist Christians.
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
swa...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote innews:1179278049....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> > On May 16, 7:22 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> > wrote:
<snip>
> > The church at Rome (the Vatican) has maintained that it is the true
> > church that Jesus founded. It was not the first church. That was
>
> The early church had major sees (archdioceses in today's parlance) at
> Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Rome. Later Constantinople
> (Byzantium) was added.
>
> > founded at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came on those gathered in
> > Jerusalem so they were able to speak the languages of the visitors
> > and tell them of the amazing events of the death, resurrection and
> > ascension of Jesus Christ. That was a fulfillment of the words of
> > Jesus recorded in John 15 : 26 - 27.
> > "But when the Comforter is come, Whom I will send to you from the
> > Father, He shall testify of Me, and you shall be witnesses, because
> > you have been with Me from the beginning."
>
> > The claim that Peter was the first Pope is also false. Jesus did not
> > say that He would build His church on Peter, but on the truth that
> > Peter had said of Jesus that He was Christ, the Son of the Living God.
>
> Now you are casting your own PRIVATE interpretation onto the words of
> scripture.
>
It is not my own 'private nterpretation' it is the interpretation of
New Testament scholars, whose work I have acepted.
> > It is strange that Paul did not mention Peter in his letter to the
> > Romans if Peter had a prominent position in the church there. Peter
> > became the apostle to the Jews at Jerusalem; Paul was the apostle to
> > the Gentiles and well-suited for that as He was both a jew and held
> > Roman citizenship.
>
> Peter was bishop in Antioch and Alexandria before he took over (for
> out 13 months after Paul's death) Paul's ministry in Rome.
>
What is your authority for that statement?
Who first recorded it in the first hundred years of the Christian
faith?
> > What the reformers were doing from the time of Wycliff in England
> > (late 1300's) was to try to correct the heresies that had been allowed
> > to come into the Church at Rome and when the hierarchy at Rome
> > would not recant some formed their own.churches outside the
> > authority of Rome.
>
> No, what they were mostly doing was showing their frustration at the
> Roman rite by abandoning the sacrament of Holy Orders and denaturing
> most of the others.
>
I do not understand what you mean by using the term 'denaturing'? It
is a term that I have heard/read before this?
<snip>.
They have come to different conclusions.
'Global warming' has scientists with different views as to its cause,
or whether it actually exists at the present time.
> > I have come to wonder if much of the denigation from Evolutionists is
> > based on a fear that they (evolutionists) might be proved to be
> > incorrect in some of what they say, from their observations - the
> > scientific method does not hold for Origins science.
>
> No it's based on righteous indignation at a rampant public FRAUD!!!
>
> > Embryonic Recapitualtion and Similarities Questions and Answers
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2997/
>
> Nobody has been teaching this stuff (the way creationist LIARS claim it
> is being taught) since AT LEAST the 1960's when I took my second year
> embryology course.
>
I wonder if the Ceationists at that time pointed out that fallacy. I
am aware that it has been given to High school students in more recent
times.
> > Humans: images of God or advanced apes?
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3835
>
> Yes, the materialist heretics think that God is a belching, farting
> apelike creature. They simply MUST interpret scripture in the most
> materialist fashion possible and they are "persecuted" if the school
> science class teaches truths that conflict with their misreading of
> scripture.
>
Scripture never states that God made humans to evolve from apes.
> I feel so sorry for them that the tears are, to be blunt, running down my
> leg!
>
> Get off it!! This whole racket is a fraud, to take money and political
> power out of the churches and give it to the fraud artists. Creationism
> is the best scam since Ponzi's scheme and much less likely to land its
> perpetrators in jail where they (morally) belong!
>
I can see that you have a hatred of Creationists.
There is a lot of research still to be done on both sides of this
argument.
Miller's mangled arguments. A review of 'Finding Darwin's God'
by Kenneth
Miller
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1826
Should Creationists' taxes be used to teach their children an idea of
origins and molecules-to-man that they do not accept to be true
in their children's science classes???
Gladys Swager
<snip>
Chris Bell
>
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
>
>>Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:1s2f43h3imsgj8uro...@4ax.com:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>Just trying to establish that, when the shiny outside is taken off,
>>you're just as much a flaming narcissist as the fundies you revile.
>
>
>
> I don't think that that is right. Barry doesn't revile the fundies.
> In fact, he will often, if not usually, side with them in reviling
> against non-fundamentalist Christians.
>
I tkink you are right here. In fact, Barry seems to me like a
fundamentalist atheist. He just cannot get around the fact that there is
more to life than the concrete.
This makes him just as hard to argue against as any other fundamentalist
who can´t see past his/her certainties which can never possibly be
called into question. Are many other atheists as dogmatic as he is? The
others on arc don´t seem that way to me.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Sean McHugh
>
Chris
Chris Bell
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 10:55:35 GMT, Chris Bell <c.b...@dataslow.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Barry OGrady wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 May 2007 10:43:37 GMT, Chris Bell <c.b...@dataslow.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>**News Flash**
>>>>>You are all wrong. There is no God and science does not support your
>>>>>mythology.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Barry, you say this all the time but have never been able to produce a
>>>>convincing argument to refute the fact that over all recorded history
>>>>the vast majority of humans have believed in a god or gods.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have no reason to do that.
>>>
>>
>>Arenæ„’ you human? Am I wasting my time talking to a bot? I sometimes
>>think your responses are very bot-like.
>
>
> You are not making sense. Why would I dispute that many humans believe
> in a god or gods?
>
than most humans who have ever lived?
>
>>>>Why were and are they all wrong? Were and are they all deluded and are
>>>>only you and a few others right? Why should we believe you?
>>>
>>>
>>>You know they can't all be right, so why not accept they are all wrong?
>>>How did you come to be taken in?
>>>
>>
>>Thatæ„€ a good argument. Because all cars arenæ„’ red, they must all be
>>some other colour i.e. not red.
>
>
> If that were true then all cars would be some colour other than red, but
> I have seen red cars so I know you are wrong.
>
>
>>Where did you learn logic?
>
>
> You are not using logic.
>
>
>>My money
>>wonæ„’ necessarily be on the majority opinion on many matters, but it is
>>not usually out on the looney fringe. My guess is that if less than 5%
>>of the (informed) population agree at least in principle with me, then
>>perhaps I should worry.
>
>
> By definition no informed people are Christian.
>
understand simple logic.
>
>>>>BTW, science never supports mythologies of any sort.
>>>
>>>
>>>Some Christians like to think science does support their mythology.
>>>
>>
>>And some atheists think science supports their mythology too. Does that
>>make them wrong?
>
you can see that your argument is fallacious.
>
> According to you it does, but logic is not your strong point.
> The bible does not relate to the real world. Christianity is mythology.
>
Shakespeares Collected Works, Greek mythology etc etc. Even the thoughts
that go through your mind are part of the real world. Christianity is
most certainly part of the real world, as is atheism and Jainism and
every other religion. Try not to just string together random ridiculous
phrases in future.
>
>>>>Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>Barry
>
>
> Barry
> =====
> Home page
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
> I do not represent atheists or atheism
Chris
Sean McHugh
> Sean McHugh wrote:
>
> > Dave Oldridge wrote:
>
> >>news:1s2f43h3imsgj8uro...@4ax.com:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>Just trying to establish that, when the shiny outside is taken off,
> >>you're just as much a flaming narcissist as the fundies you revile.
>
> > I don't think that that is right. Barry doesn't revile the fundies.
> > In fact, he will often, if not usually, side with them in reviling
> > against non-fundamentalist Christians.
>
> I tkink you are right here. In fact, Barry seems to me like a
> fundamentalist atheist. He just cannot get around the fact that there is
> more to life than the concrete.
>
> This makes him just as hard to argue against as any other fundamentalist
> who can´t see past his/her certainties which can never possibly be
> called into question. Are many other atheists as dogmatic as he is?
Perhaps, but none that I have ever met. I have wondered if, despite
his not at all sharing the fundamentalists' beliefs, he admires the
immovability of their dogma.
Dave Oldridge
news:1179367139.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
You do seem fond of the interpretations of heretics.
>> > It is strange that Paul did not mention Peter in his letter to the
>> > Romans if Peter had a prominent position in the church there. Peter
>> > became the apostle to the Jews at Jerusalem; Paul was the apostle
>> > to the Gentiles and well-suited for that as He was both a jew and
>> > held Roman citizenship.
>>
>> Peter was bishop in Antioch and Alexandria before he took over (for
>> out 13 months after Paul's death) Paul's ministry in Rome.
>>
> What is your authority for that statement?
Church history.
> Who first recorded it in the first hundred years of the Christian
> faith?
Actually, quite a bit was recorded. The Bible doesn't contain all of it.
>> > What the reformers were doing from the time of Wycliff in England
>> > (late 1300's) was to try to correct the heresies that had been
>> > allowed to come into the Church at Rome and when the hierarchy at
>> > Rome would not recant some formed their own.churches outside the
>> > authority of Rome.
>>
>> No, what they were mostly doing was showing their frustration at the
>> Roman rite by abandoning the sacrament of Holy Orders and denaturing
>> most of the others.
>>
> I do not understand what you mean by using the term 'denaturing'? It
> is a term that I have heard/read before this?
Basically it means distorting them until they are no longer what they
were. They have watered down Holy Matrimony so that divorces are now
routine. They have (except for some Pentacostals floundering about with
glossolalia) abandoned Holy Unction altogether. They no longer possess
valid Holy Orders and they have, for the most part abandoned Chrismation
(confirmation). Moreover, they sin and sin and sin without ever
repenting, having abandoned Reconciliation totally. Some have even
abandoned the traditional formula for Baptism, inventing their own.
NO!!! They have INVENTED lies that show, by their clearly cunning
devices that they are INTENDED TO DECEIVE. Mens rea. That's a legal
term, meaning 'guilty mind.' It's used in law when a prosecutor is
showing criminal intent.
> 'Global warming' has scientists with different views as to its cause,
> or whether it actually exists at the present time.
So? And some of them are in the pay of oil companies who don't want you
to worry about it (in one prominent case, having moved over from being
paid by the tobacco industry to prove that the weed isn't a health
hazard).
>> > I have come to wonder if much of the denigation from Evolutionists
>> > is based on a fear that they (evolutionists) might be proved to be
>> > incorrect in some of what they say, from their observations - the
>> > scientific method does not hold for Origins science.
>>
>> No it's based on righteous indignation at a rampant public FRAUD!!!
>>
>> > Embryonic Recapitualtion and Similarities Questions and Answers
>> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2997/
>>
>> Nobody has been teaching this stuff (the way creationist LIARS claim
>> it is being taught) since AT LEAST the 1960's when I took my second
>> year embryology course.
>>
> I wonder if the Ceationists at that time pointed out that fallacy. I
> am aware that it has been given to High school students in more recent
> times.
You are? Which high school students. Where?
>> > Humans: images of God or advanced apes?
>> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3835
>>
>> Yes, the materialist heretics think that God is a belching, farting
>> apelike creature. They simply MUST interpret scripture in the most
>> materialist fashion possible and they are "persecuted" if the school
>> science class teaches truths that conflict with their misreading of
>> scripture.
>>
> Scripture never states that God made humans to evolve from apes.
It also doesn't state that stars are suns or that planets go around them.
>> I feel so sorry for them that the tears are, to be blunt, running
>> down my leg!
>>
>> Get off it!! This whole racket is a fraud, to take money and
>> political power out of the churches and give it to the fraud artists.
>> Creationism is the best scam since Ponzi's scheme and much less
>> likely to land its perpetrators in jail where they (morally) belong!
>>
> I can see that you have a hatred of Creationists.
No, actually it's their god I hate. The father of lies is very active
among them.
> There is a lot of research still to be done on both sides of this
> argument.
Yes, but to date the only research creationists have actually performed
has been on the subject of which lies will sell best.
> Miller's mangled arguments. A review of 'Finding Darwin's God'
> by Kenneth
> Miller
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1826
The opening claim (that Miller spreads a bunch of straw man arguments in
a debate) sounds like whining projection to me, coming as it does from a
disciple of the good old Gish gallop, which is PRECISELY this technique!
The next paragraph is straight out argumentum ad hominem. This review is
WORTHLESS. It is written by a liar and hypocrite. And the fact that it
convinces you of anything else other than the author's mendacity is
living proof that you have learned to hate reason at the feet of masters
(of hating reason). Why do you people fall for such frauds? I've read
Miller's book. It's pretty obvious the author of this review hasn't. Or
he was so busy mainlining his own bile that he didn't pay any attention
to it. This is not a review, it's a vicious, malicious and mendacious
ATTACK. And the writer is headed for a long sojourn in a lake of fire
according to the very scriptures he CLAIMS (falsely) to follow.
> Should Creationists' taxes be used to teach their children an idea of
> origins and molecules-to-man that they do not accept to be true
> in their children's science classes???
They can always move to Turkey or some other place where they will merely
be taxed for being Christians.
And yes, the goverment has the right to collect taxes, even if you don't
like how they are spent. Try not paying them and you will see that they
do.
And no, we are NOT going to take evolution out of the science classes
just because your phony religion says we need to be told lies about it.
Find a priest. Repent your sins, including the ones your phony teachers
told you that you had to commit in order to please God and THEN let's
talk.
And yes, Miller is, in fact a practising Roman Catholic (I'm not, my
catholicism is not too happy with infallible popes--an idea put forward
by the Jesuits in the 1850's).
Dave Oldridge
@shoal.net.au:
>
>
> Dave Oldridge wrote:
>>
>> Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:1s2f43h3imsgj8uro...@4ax.com:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> Just trying to establish that, when the shiny outside is taken off,
>> you're just as much a flaming narcissist as the fundies you revile.
>
>
> I don't think that that is right. Barry doesn't revile the fundies.
> In fact, he will often, if not usually, side with them in reviling
> against non-fundamentalist Christians.
Not particularly a surprise. Fundies tend to flock together on some
issues, no matter what their pseudo-theological (or anti-theological)
basis.
lynx
--
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
Barry OGrady
I know that because I can read.
>> I do not represent atheists or atheism
>
>I hope not. Most atheists have more sense.
They ignore you?
>--
>Dave Oldridge+
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry OGrady
Sounds good.
>That's the real
>problem the fundies have. Their hierarchy is all wrong and their faith
>is so weak they feel they need scientific justification for it, even if
>they have to manufacture it from whole cloth.
I think I see your point though it seems to me that science refutes
the very basis of Christianity.
Barry OGrady
Am I wrong about you?
>Just trying to establish that, when the shiny outside is taken off,
>you're just as much a flaming narcissist as the fundies you revile.
The fundies are wrong too. I just don't see them as so hypocritical.
Barry OGrady
All designed to exploit people.
I say all the parts about the supernatural are myth.
>You seem to be simply determined to hate all religion, probably because
>some nun rapped your knuckles when you were six.
More likely because I wasn't indoctrinated and I hate seeing the harm it
does.
>--
>Dave Oldridge+
Dave Oldridge
news:Ic83i.1077$wH4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
So that's why you're so immobile!
Dave Oldridge
Except it doesn't. The bibliolaters think the basis of Christianity is
the Bible, interpreted literally. CHRISTIANS think it's Jesus Christ.
They are not the same thing.
Dave Oldridge
Nope... you never read THAT crap anywhere. You made it up, either from
whole cloth or because you think you're omniscient.
>>> I do not represent atheists or atheism
>>
>>I hope not. Most atheists have more sense.
>
> They ignore you?
Mostly they ignore my theism unless I get it so much in their face that
they need to warn me. But then I rarely worship at their churches, so
it's not too likely that I'll commit any inadvertent sacrilege against
their Ungod. But I do occasionally end up crossposting to alt-atheism,
so I guess that's considered a sacrilege againsth the Unholy None.
Dave Oldridge
Speaking ex cathedra from your presumed omniscience, I note.
>>You seem to be simply determined to hate all religion, probably
>>because some nun rapped your knuckles when you were six.
>
> More likely because I wasn't indoctrinated and I hate seeing the harm
> it does.
I don't believe you. Mere lack of indoctrination does not produce such
bigotry. There's usually a deep-rooted emotional attachment of some
kind.
Dave Oldridge
Yep. Persistently, maliciously and viciously.
>>Just trying to establish that, when the shiny outside is taken off,
>>you're just as much a flaming narcissist as the fundies you revile.
>
> The fundies are wrong too. I just don't see them as so hypocritical.
>
That's because you know that they are like you in respect of hating and
reviling anything different from themselves. Me, I just insist that THEY
follow the rules they SAY they are following. I don't have a problem
with what you believe. I don't have a problem with what THEY believe.
Just as long as you realize that others, like me, believe something
different and don't want to be treated as second-class citizens on
account of it.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote innews:1179367139.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> > On May 17, 3:26 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
> > wrote:
> >> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote
> >> innews:1179278049....@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> >> > On May 16, 7:22 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> > The church at Rome (the Vatican) has maintained that
> >> > it is the true church that Jesus founded. It was not
> >> > the first church.
The first church, (ie the believers, they were not in a building under
a human leader), was at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost when the
Holy Spirit came upon them so that they were able to spontaneously
speak the languages of the people from other Mediterranean regions who
had come to Jerusalem at that time and to tell them of the wonderful
events that had happened in Jerusalem, the crucifixion of Jesus and
His resurrection three days later and then His ascension into
heaven.
>
<snip>
That was a fulfillment of the words of
> >> > Jesus recorded in John 15 : 26 - 27.
> >> > "But when the Comforter is come, Whom I will send to
> >> > you from the Father, He shall testify of Me, and you
> >> > shall be witnesses, because you have been with Me from > >> > the beginning."
> >> > The claim that Peter was the first Pope is also false. > >> > Jesus did not say that He would build His church on
> >> > Peter, but on the truth that Peter had said of Jesus >> > >that He was Christ, the Son of the Living God.
>
> >> Now you are casting your own PRIVATE interpretation onto > >> the words of scripture.
>
> > It is not my own 'private nterpretation' it is the
> > interpretation of New Testament scholars, whose work I
> > have accepted.
>
> You do seem fond of the interpretations of heretics.
>
They are 'heretics' because the Roman Catholic hierarchy say that.
That does not mean that what they say is true.
The 'Rock' on which Jesus said He would build His church was the fact
the 'Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.'
> >> > It is strange that Paul did not mention Peter in his > >> > letter to the Romans if Peter had a prominent position > >> > in the church there. Peter became the apostle to the
> >> > Jews at Jerusalem; Paul was the apostle
> >> > to the Gentiles and well-suited for that as He was
> >> > both a Jew and held Roman citizenship.
>
> >> Peter was bishop in Antioch and Alexandria before he
> >> took over (for out 13 months after Paul's death) Paul's > >> ministry in Rome.
Then it would have to be said that Paul was the first Pope!
>
> > What is your authority for that statement?
>
> Church history.
>
> > Who first recorded it in the first hundred years of the
> > Christian faith?
>
> Actually, quite a bit was recorded. The Bible doesn't contain all of it.
>
Just to say 'Church History' and it 'was recorded' are not sufficient
answers. Are those records still available today?
If they are, have they been posted on the Internet?
> >> > What the reformers were doing from the time of Wycliff > >> > in England (late 1300's) was to try to correct the
> >> > heresies that had been allowed to come into the Church > >> > at Rome and when the hierarchy at Rome would not
> >> > recant some formed their own churches outside the
> >> > authority of Rome.
>
> >> No, what they were mostly doing was showing their
> >> frustration at the Roman rite by abandoning the
> >> sacrament of Holy Orders and denaturing most of the
> >> others.
>
> > I do not understand what you mean by using the term 'denaturing'? It
> > is a term that I have not heard/read before this?
>
> Basically it means distorting them until they are no longer > what they were. They have watered down Holy Matrimony so > that divorces are now routine.
The 'Divorce issue' is more a modern one as secularists have
chosen to repeal laws to enable them to have easy divorces.
> They have (except for some Pentacostals floundering about
> with glossolalia) abandoned Holy Unction altogether. They > no longer possess valid Holy Orders and they have, for the > most part abandoned Chrismation (confirmation). Moreover, > they sin and sin and sin without ever repenting, having
> abandoned Reconciliation totally. Some have even
> abandoned the traditional formula for Baptism, inventing
> their own.
>
'Speaking-in-tongues' has been over emphasised. I believe it can
happen in modern times, but it happens spontaneously.
>
'Holy unction' - anointing with oil for religious purposes is still
practised in some services.
As we pray for medical personnel they can have insights to enable many
to be healed - and that can be seen as the work of the Holy Spirit
Whom, Jesus said would lead us into all truth'. There are not many
miracles, even at Lourdes in proportion to those who attend there.
>
Confirmation can be a religious rite, expected at a given age, but it
may not always bring an understanding of our relationship with Jesus
Christ as god and Saviour in our own lives.
Reconcilation? Do you mean a return to the Church at Rome?
As I thought about Vatican II I had a sense that within those meetings
there were plans to counter the effects of the Billy Graham Crusades
as they had swept the world in the previous decade. I have found that
an office for Christian Unity was established. Pope John Paul II
proclaimed, 'All ye wnaderers from Rome, return' in 1982. What Rome
has to understand is that it was the edicts from Rome
(transubstantiation, indulgences, celibacy of clergy, relics, Mary
named the Mother of God, her assumption into heaven, sainthoods given
as rewards for service, prayers to dead saints when Jesus is the only
mediator between God and us prayers, Latin and nor the vernacular the
language of worship etc) that brought about the break-away movements.
Rome has to stop wandering from the truth.
> > <snip>.
>
> >> > I assume that by 'have to manufacture it from whole
> >> > cloth' - you mean that Creation scientists need
> >> > whatever facts they can find and from any source to
> >> > support their faith.
>
> >> Oh, they don't need to be bothered by FACTS at
> >> all. Cunning lies are as much a part of their
> >> repertoire as actual facts are. And you may
> >> say that they are not lying but just ignorant, but you
> >> cannot tell me that people with PhD's in disciplines
> >> that REQUIRE at least a basic knowledge
> >> of physics (mining engineering for example) are making
> >> egregiously false claims that fly in the face of basic
> >> physics because they're ignorant. No, they are doing it > >> because they know that their target audience is ignorant > >> and will likely be deceived!
>
Evolutionists have a 'target audience' in the schools and through the
media' who are told (macro)evolution did happen.
Just believe us, We know! But there is no scientific (repeatable
testing) - it is based on observations - without the consideration
that God made organisms in a certain way, each according to their
families and by the power of His word.
He did not need millions of years for molecules to become humans.
> >> > I don't find them that way. What I have experienced
> >> > is that they are thoughtful people, many very highly
> >> > trained in their scientific disciplines
> >> > (earned Ph D's. - % world wide of all Creation
> >> >scientists I do not
> >> > know, but some have triple doctorates)
> >> > who are seeking evidence that the Universe is younger > >> > and that organisms have not/do not change from one
> >> > kind (family) to another kind.
> >> > ie that Macroeveolution did not/could not have
> >> > happened. If they believe that God has called them to > >> > do that work and if others believe they should
> >> > support them financially that is a legitimate activity > >> > in a free, democratic society.
>
> >> And virtually every one of those triple doctorates has
> >> lied to the public about the science they claim to be
> >> expert in.
>
> > They have come to different conclusions.
>
> NO!!! They have INVENTED lies that show, by their clearly
> cunning devices that they are INTENDED TO DECEIVE. Mens
> rea. That's a legal term, meaning 'guilty mind.' It's
> used in law when a prosecutor is showing criminal intent.
>
<snip>
>
> >> > I have come to wonder if much of the denigation from Evolutionists
> >> > is based on a fear that they (evolutionists) might be proved to be
> >> > incorrect in some of what they say, from their observations - the
> >> > scientific method does not hold for Origins science.
>
> >> No it's based on righteous indignation at a rampant public FRAUD!!!
>
> >> > Embryonic Recapitualtion and Similarities Questions and Answers
> >> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2997/
>
> >> Nobody has been teaching this stuff (the way creationist LIARS claim
> >> it is being taught) since AT LEAST the 1960's when I took my second
> >> year embryology course.
>
> > I wonder if the Ceationists at that time pointed out that fallacy. I
> > am aware that it has been given to High school students in more recent
> > times.
>
> You are? Which high school students. Where?
>
I know the High School, I don't know the name of the teacher and I
wouldn't give it if I did in this posting. I have seen the photocopied
worksheet. Teachers have information tha thas been given to them and
are not trained in all the disciplines
within a science course of study.
> >> > Humans: images of God or advanced apes?
> >> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3835
>
<snip>
> > Scripture never states that God made humans to evolve from apes.
>
> It also doesn't state that stars are suns or that planets go around them.
>
Scripture (Biblical does not tell us all things about the world and
the Universe. As one scientist said, "I am thinking God's thoughts
after Him."
<snip>
>
> > Miller's mangled arguments. A review of 'Finding Darwin's God' byKenneth Miller
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1826
>
> The opening claim (that Miller spreads a bunch of straw man arguments in
> a debate) sounds like whining projection to me, coming as it does from a
> disciple of the good old Gish gallop, which is PRECISELY this technique!
>
> The next paragraph is straight out argumentum ad hominem. This review is
> WORTHLESS. It is written by a liar and hypocrite. And the fact that it
> convinces you of anything else other than the author's mendacity is
> living proof that you have learned to hate reason at the feet of masters
> (of hating reason). Why do you people fall for such frauds? I've read
> Miller's book. It's pretty obvious the author of this review hasn't. Or
> he was so busy mainlining his own bile that he didn't pay any attention
> to it. This is not a review, it's a vicious, malicious and mendacious
> ATTACK. And the writer is headed for a long sojourn in a lake of fire
> according to the very scriptures he CLAIMS (falsely) to follow.
>
I do not believe that holding a creationist view makes one a candidate
for 'the lake of fire' That is wrong theology.
> > Should Creationists' taxes be used to teach their children an idea of
> > origins and molecules-to-man that they do not accept to be true
> > in their children's science classes???
>
<snip>
>
> Find a priest. Repent your sins, including the ones your phony teachers
> told you that you had to commit in order to please God and THEN let's
> talk.
>
I can see that anything that you have not accepted is a sin.
That's a quick way of trying to squash all debate and further
investigation.
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that you
may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of the
righteous ... availeth much. James 5 - 16 says nothing about
confession to a priest and especially a priest of the Roman Catholic
Church.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
The fundies have the advantage that they all work from the same
Bible so they are united where hypocrites like you all choose different
things to believe.
>--
>Dave Oldridge+
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry OGrady
That applies to all Christians since Christianity is a confidence trick.
>Pete
Barry OGrady
You claim knowledge you don't posses then you are critical of people
who do the same.
You are all wrong.
>--
>Dave Oldridge+
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry OGrady
There is also the fact that you are wrong.
Barry OGrady
Definitely. The Bible exists.
Barry OGrady
Christian beliefs are absurd and dangerous. Religion is the cause
of all the strife in the Middle East.
Barry OGrady
Who are you to say otherwise?
>>>You seem to be simply determined to hate all religion, probably
>>>because some nun rapped your knuckles when you were six.
>>
>> More likely because I wasn't indoctrinated and I hate seeing the harm
>> it does.
>
>I don't believe you. Mere lack of indoctrination does not produce such
>bigotry. There's usually a deep-rooted emotional attachment of some
>kind.
Speaking ex cathedra from your presumed omniscience, I note.
>--
swa...@ozemail.com.au
<snip>
> If one believes they have the truth, there's no room to move.
> That applies to all Christians since Christianity is a confidence trick.
>
Barry,
You are convinced that Christianity is a confidence trick,
but during the past almost two thousand years many Christians have
found that not to be so.
The problem for you is that you have never personally experienced the
Christian faith so you are incorrectly applying your own reactions to
those who have,
without really understanding what the Christian faith is.
However, this topic is about 'Creationism'.
Radiometric Dating in a Rubble
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/396
Differences between humans and animals
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1503/
Gladys Swager
Dave Oldridge
Nope, just your basic BS detector.
>>>>> I do not represent atheists or atheism
>>>>
>>>>I hope not. Most atheists have more sense.
>>>
>>> They ignore you?
>>
>>Mostly they ignore my theism unless I get it so much in their face
>>that they need to warn me. But then I rarely worship at their
>>churches, so it's not too likely that I'll commit any inadvertent
>>sacrilege against their Ungod. But I do occasionally end up
>>crossposting to alt-atheism, so I guess that's considered a sacrilege
>>againsth the Unholy None.
>
> You claim knowledge you don't posses then you are critical of people
> who do the same.
Wrong. I claim knowledge YOU don't possess. And that's what's got your
"omnscient" shirt in a knot.
> You are all wrong.
Still wrong.
Dave Oldridge
news:1179711954.3...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
No, what IS a sin is to make up lies about science and then promulgate
them in God's name. You're following sinners.
> That's a quick way of trying to squash all debate and further
> investigation.
How does one debate liars? One exposes their lies.
> Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that you
> may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of the
> righteous ... availeth much. James 5 - 16 says nothing about
> confession to a priest and especially a priest of the Roman Catholic
> Church.
Uh, there was no ROMAN catholic church until about the 4th century. Even
then it did not claim the supremacy that it later came to claim.
However, as long as you're throwing out the tradition that collected and
preserved the Bible, don't you think you ought to throw out the Bible as
well? I mean it's PART of that tradition that you're so anxious to
discard!
Dave Oldridge
Perhaps. But Jesus Christ always existed.
Dave Oldridge
Well, as long as we're clear that you're not an atheist, but rather a
devout narcissist with claims of omniscience.
>>>>You seem to be simply determined to hate all religion, probably
>>>>because some nun rapped your knuckles when you were six.
>>>
>>> More likely because I wasn't indoctrinated and I hate seeing the
>>> harm it does.
>>
>>I don't believe you. Mere lack of indoctrination does not produce
>>such bigotry. There's usually a deep-rooted emotional attachment of
>>some kind.
>
> Speaking ex cathedra from your presumed omniscience, I note.
Nope...speaking from long experience with emotionally disturbed people
like you.
Dave Oldridge
According to you, speaking from your claimed omniscience again.
You've NEVER shown me to be wrong. You just keep pounding on the same
fallacy of argument by assertion of the consequent.
Dave Oldridge
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 21:59:30 GMT, Dave Oldridge
> <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>Sean McHugh <smc...@shoal.net.au> wrote in news:464B7C22.ABF9EFC7
>>@shoal.net.au:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave Oldridge wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>> news:1s2f43h3imsgj8uro...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Just trying to establish that, when the shiny outside is taken off,
>>>> you're just as much a flaming narcissist as the fundies you revile.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think that that is right. Barry doesn't revile the fundies.
>>> In fact, he will often, if not usually, side with them in reviling
>>> against non-fundamentalist Christians.
>>
>>Not particularly a surprise. Fundies tend to flock together on some
>>issues, no matter what their pseudo-theological (or anti-theological)
>>basis.
>
> The fundies have the advantage that they all work from the same
> Bible so they are united where hypocrites like you all choose
> different things to believe.
And the true colours are run up the flagpole. The bibliolatrous fundy
inside the atheist shell emerges!
Dave Oldridge
Interestingly, Christians in those countries are usually marginalized and
in the minority. The religion is outright banned in many places.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote innews:1179711954.3...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
<snip>
>
> >> You do seem fond of the interpretations of heretics.
>
> > They are 'heretics' because the Roman Catholic hierarchy say
> > that. That does not mean that what they say is true.
> > The 'Rock' on which Jesus said He would build His church was
> > the fact the 'Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.'
>
> > 'Holy unction' - anointing with oil for religious purposes is
> > still practised in some services.
I was anointed with oil in a Christian service. I prayed that cures
and preventive means might be found for conditions classified as
'Mental Illnesses' and became an advocate of reform in respect of the
Psychiatric treatments given prior to 1975.
My involvement in this issue came about because I had been given
Electro-Convulsive (Shock) Treatments in their worst form without
anaesthetic in 1950 whrn suffering from Anaemia, in a debilitated
state from Rheumatic Fever and distressed about aspects of my teaching
appointment - aspects that I was unable to manage at that time.
Tha ttreatment was invented by an Italian doctor who was most likely a
Roman Catholic. He died in 1962 and so was not named in the media as
one being involved when psychiatric treatments were being criticised
in the 1980's even though, prior to his death, he had stated that he
had withdrawn his support for the treatments.
>From a text, published in 1964, by a Psychiatric professor who wrote
that such conditions were at their height in the Middle Ages,
I set out a programme indicating areas of investigation for
remediation and prevention. It took the Psychatric professionals here
in Australia thirty-one years (2006) to state that Mental Health
depended on 'good physical health and being happy'.
I've learnt that professionals must either be right or seem to be
right and that they will act on the ideas of others and claim them as
their own.
> > As we pray for medical personnel they can have insights to
> > enable many to be healed - and that can be seen as the work of > > the Holy Spirit Whom, Jesus said would lead us into all truth'. > > There are not many miracles, even at Lourdes in proportion to > > those who attend there.
>
What happened in my situation, in that through media presentations on
better aspects of healthy lifestyles more people could share in them
than had been available, was better than a miracle performed to give a
person 'sainthood status' such as Mary McKillop. I wonder if she will
be declared a saint at the World Youth Day in Sydney next year. She
did her work about 1880. When there were problems in the education
system in NSW, but is no more deserving of 'sainthood' than all the
Christian women (and men) who gave themsleves in service to others
according to their abilities and opportunites in the years since the
English settlement in 1788.
The increased use of conferring of 'sainthoods' in the previous
decades to the present has been used as a PR exercise for the Church
at Rome - perhaps to counter the influence of the Billy Graham
Crusades of the Protestant churches in the 1950's - but they were also
overshadowed by the Sexual revolution from the early 1960's.
<snip>
> > Rome has to stop wandering from the truth.
>
> >> > <snip>.
>
> > Evolutionists have a 'target audience' in the schools and through the
> > media' who are told (macro)evolution did happen.
> > Just believe us, We know! But there is no scientific (repeatable
> > testing) - it is based on observations - without the
> > consideration
> > that God made organisms in a certain way, each according to
> > their families and by the power of His word.
> > He did not need millions of years for molecules to become
> > humans.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Scripture (Biblical does not tell us all things about the world > > and the Universe. As one scientist said, "I am thinking God's
> > thoughts after Him."
>
> > <snip>
>
> > I can see that anything that you have not accepted is a sin.
>
> No, what IS a sin is to make up lies about science and then
> promulgate them in God's name. You're following sinners.
>
> > That's a quick way of trying to squash all debate and further
> > investigation.
>
> How does one debate liars? One exposes their lies.
>
> > Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another,
> > that you may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of the
> > righteous ... availeth much. James 5 - 16 says nothing about
> > confession to a priest and especially a priest of the Roman
> > Catholic Church.
>
> Uh, there was no ROMAN catholic church until about the 4th
> century. Even then it did not claim the supremacy that it later > came to claim.
Was it in the 4th century that Peter was declared the first Pope?
I haven't found a dating on that yet, and the resources that declared
him to be so.
I'm still waiting for your references that gave authority for that
decision.
> However, as long as you're throwing out the tradition that
> collected and preserved the Bible, don't you think you ought to > throw out the Bible as well? I mean it's PART of that tradition > that you're so anxious to discard!
>
The tradition that collected and preserved the Bible is one thing.
Adding to Biblical teaching is the issue that is in debate.
The Church at Rome lost its supremacy over that matter, and still
hasn't recanted all the imposed heresies. Even in 2000 the Pope
intended to grant indulgences for refraining from excessive use of
alcohol, according to one media announcement, and then everything went
very quiet. Perhaps he had been warned that might stir up the
Reformation issue again.
Gladys Swager
Dave Oldridge
news:1179794627.1...@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
You have a rather lopsided view of this process. The RCC actually
appoints a priest to make the case AGAINST sainthood (as well as an
advocate FOR it).
Tradition has him serving as bishop in Antioch, then Alexandria and
finally Rome (after Paul's death). He was, however, considered leader of
the church when in all of those places.
> I haven't found a dating on that yet, and the resources that declared
> him to be so.
> I'm still waiting for your references that gave authority for that
> decision.
Matt 16:18.
>> However, as long as you're throwing out the tradition that
>> collected and preserved the Bible, don't you think you ought to >
>> throw out the Bible as well? I mean it's PART of that tradition >
>> that you're so anxious to discard!
>>
> The tradition that collected and preserved the Bible is one thing.
> Adding to Biblical teaching is the issue that is in debate.
And just where is THAT proscribed?
> The Church at Rome lost its supremacy over that matter, and still
> hasn't recanted all the imposed heresies. Even in 2000 the Pope
> intended to grant indulgences for refraining from excessive use of
> alcohol, according to one media announcement, and then everything went
> very quiet. Perhaps he had been warned that might stir up the
> Reformation issue again.
Well, considering the fact that most creationist apologists seem to think
THEY have a plenary indulgence for false witness, they shouldn't be too
critical of indulgences...
swa...@ozemail.com.au
wrote:
> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote innews:1179794627.1...@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> > On May 22, 9:32 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
> >> "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> >> You do seem fond of the interpretations of heretics.
>
> >> > They are 'heretics' because the Roman Catholic
> >> > hierarchy say that. That does not mean that what they > >> > say is true.
> >> > The 'Rock' on which Jesus said He would build His
> >> > church was the fact the 'Jesus is the Christ, the Son > >> > of the Living God.'
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> > 'Holy unction' - anointing with oil for religious
> >> > purposes is still practised in some services.
>
> > I was anointed with oil in a Christian service. I prayed > > that cures and preventive means might be found for
> > conditions classified as 'Mental Illnesses' and became
> > an advocate of reform in respect of the Psychiatric
> > treatments given prior to 1975.
> > My involvement in this issue came about because I had
> > been given Electro-Convulsive (Shock) Treatments in
> > suffering from Anaemia, in a debilitated state from
> > Rheumatic Fever and distressed about aspects of my
> > teaching appointment - aspects that I was unable to
> > manage at that time.
> > system in NSW, but is no more deserving of 'sainthood'
> > themsleves in service to others
> > according to their abilities and opportunites in the
> > years since the English settlement in 1788.
>
> > The increased use of conferring of 'sainthoods' in the
> > previous decades to the present has been used as a PR
> > exercise for the Church at Rome - perhaps to counter the > > influence of the Billy Graham Crusades of the Protestant > > churches in the 1950's - but they were also overshadowed > > by the Sexual revolution from the early 1960's.
>
> You have a rather lopsided view of this process. The RCC > actually appoints a priest to make the case AGAINST
> sainthood (as well as an advocate FOR it).
>
so you can't accuse me of having 'a lop-sided view', as you did not
know what I knew on that matter. That is just another debating trick
that I am aware that some posters resort to when there is opposition
to what they have posted.
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> > Rome has to stop wandering from the truth.
>
Apostles, disciples, deacons, bishops, but not 'pope'.
The term 'pope' was only used from about the Fourth Century AD, as I
recall from one website.
*The worship of Mary as the 'Mother of God', that there was an
'immaculate conception of her' in her own birth' (she needed Jesus as
her Saviour as every other human does, she was not assumed into heaven
as Jesus had ascended - that doctrine only proclaimed in 1950 by Pope
Pius X11,
*Sainthood should not be a reward given by the Church -
all Christians are saints, even when 'haloes are somewhat tarnished or
screw-whiff' as is evident from New Testament letters of Paul,
*celibacy of clergy should never have been proclaimed in the 1100's,
*reverence of relics - how was it known that some were even relics????
the only worship is to Jesus Christ of the Triune God in Unity,
*Indulgences were instituted to shorten time in Purgatory - a doctrine
not in the New Testament, and were used to provide funds for building
St Peter's 'the finest church in Christendom' - funds that came, in
many instances, from poor people who needed the money for their own
sustenance,
*celibacy should never have been imposed on the clergy,
> >> > Evolutionists have a 'target audience' in the schools > >> > and through the media' who are told (macro)evolution > >> > did happen.
> >> > Just believe us, We know! But there is no scientific > >> > (repeatable testing) - it is based on observations - > >> > without the consideration that God made organisms in > >> > a certain way, each according to their families and > >> > by the power of His word.
> >> > He did not need millions of years for molecules to
> >> > become humans.
>
> >> > <snip>
>
> >> > Scripture (Biblical) does not tell us all things
> >> > about the world and the Universe. As one scientist
> >> > said, "I am thinking God's thoughts after Him."
>
I would not think that any secular evolutionist would say that.
> >> > <snip>
>
> >> > I can see that anything that you have not accepted is > >> > a sin.
>
> >> No, what IS a sin is to make up lies about science and > >> then promulgate them in God's name. You're following > >> sinners.
>
Yes, Creationists are sinners, you are a sinner, I am a sinner, all
humans, including evolutionary scientists, also including the popes
and all clergy are sinners.
> >> > That's a quick way of trying to squash all debate and > >> > further investigation.
>
> >> How does one debate liars? One exposes their lies.
>
> >> > Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for > >> > another, that you may be healed. The effectual
> >> > fervent prayer of the righteous ... availeth much.
> >> > James 5 - 16 says nothing about
> >> > confession to a priest and especially a priest of the > >> > Roman Catholic Church.
>
> >> Uh, there was no ROMAN catholic church until about the > >> 4th century. Even then it did not claim the supremacy > >> that it later came to claim.
>
That was probably after the work of Wycliff in England, who has been
said should have been given acknowledgement as the one who began the
move for reform, even though he workd and died as a member of the
Roman Catholic Church. His bones were dug up and burnt with the ashes
thrown into the River Swift, from whence they travelled down the
Thames and out into the whole world. Rome has been trying to reverse
his work ever since.
> > Was it in the 4th century that Peter was declared the first Pope?
>
> Tradition has him serving as bishop in Antioch, then
> Alexandria and finally Rome (after Paul's death). He was, > however, considered leader of the church when in all of
> those places.
>
> > I haven't found a dating on that yet, and the resources > > that declared him to be so.
> > I'm still waiting for your references that gave
> > authority for that decision.
>
> Matt 16:18.
>
And within a short time Jesus had to rebuke Peter, saying to
him, "Get you behind me, Satan: for you are an offence to me; for you
savour not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."
Matthew 16 : 23
> >> However, as long as you're throwing out the tradition
> >> that collected and preserved the Bible, don't you
> >> think you ought to throw out the Bible as well? I mean > >> it's PART of that tradition that you're so anxious to
> >> discard!
>
> > The tradition that collected and preserved the Bible is > > one thing.
> > Adding to Biblical teaching is the issue that is in
> > debate.
>
> And just where is THAT proscribed?
>
There is a verse in Revelation, I'll need to look it up, as I can't
recall from memory.
> > The Church at Rome lost its supremacy over that matter, > > and still hasn't recanted all the imposed heresies. Even > > in 2000 the Pope intended to grant indulgences for
> > refraining from excessive use of alcohol, according to > > one media announcement, and then everything went very
> > quiet. Perhaps he had been warned that might stir up the
> > Reformation issue again.
>
> Well, considering the fact that most creationist
> apologists seem to think THEY have a plenary indulgence
> for false witness, they shouldn't be too
> critical of indulgences...
>
That is a foolish statement. Creationists (scientists) are seeking to
find evidence that God did create by the power of His word rather that
by a step-by-step process of evolution, that the Universe can be
younger than what evolutionists say -
they need millions of years for the step-by-step processes.
John 1 : 1, 3, 14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word
was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were
created by Him and without Him was not anything made that was
made. .... We have seen His glory (ie at the Transfiguration when
Peter stated of Jesus that He is the Christ, the son of the Living
God) Shortly after Peter was called 'Satan' by Jesus. (But he did not
become the first Pope, because the papacy was only instituted in the
Fourth Century, as far as I know on that matter.
The Church at Rome still needs to recant from its false doctrine
(heresies).
I can see that when I began writing about the reunification of
Christendom from 1976 that I was homing in on ideas that were already
in existence. I can also see that from the early 1960's the Church at
Rome was tryng 'to cash in' on moves that had been begun by
Protestants, the Billy Graham Crusades and the World Council of
Churches that was developed from the late 1880's.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
You think I should be impressed because you pretend to be scientific.
Barry OGrady
Only in the sense that the Bible does not exist.
Since Jesus never existed you rely on the Bible to tell you what
to believe.
Barry OGrady
So? Christian beliefs are absurd and dangerous and religion is the cause
of all the strife in the Middle East.
>--
Barry OGrady
Your basic BS detector is being overloaded by the BS you put out.
>>>>>> I do not represent atheists or atheism
>>>>>
>>>>>I hope not. Most atheists have more sense.
>>>>
>>>> They ignore you?
>>>
>>>Mostly they ignore my theism unless I get it so much in their face
>>>that they need to warn me. But then I rarely worship at their
>>>churches, so it's not too likely that I'll commit any inadvertent
>>>sacrilege against their Ungod. But I do occasionally end up
>>>crossposting to alt-atheism, so I guess that's considered a sacrilege
>>>againsth the Unholy None.
>>
>> You claim knowledge you don't posses then you are critical of people
>> who do the same.
>
>Wrong. I claim knowledge YOU don't possess. And that's what's got your
>"omnscient" shirt in a knot.
Like all Christians you claim knowledge that nobody has and like most
Christians you are intolerant of anything other than what they been
programmed to believe.
>> You are all wrong.
>
>Still wrong.
Christianity was always wrong.
>--
>Dave Oldridge+
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry OGrady
>On May 21, 2:40 pm, Barry OGrady <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> If one believes they have the truth, there's no room to move.
>> That applies to all Christians since Christianity is a confidence trick.
>>
>Barry,
>You are convinced that Christianity is a confidence trick,
>but during the past almost two thousand years many Christians have
>found that not to be so.
The trick with confidence tricks is to play them on naive people so they
never discover they have been conned.
>The problem for you is that you have never personally experienced the
>Christian faith so you are incorrectly applying your own reactions to
>those who have, without really understanding what the Christian faith is.
You seem confident about that.
>However, this topic is about 'Creationism'.
>Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
You have never shown anyone to be wrong. You want people
to replace their wrong ideas with your wrong ideas.
>You just keep pounding on the same
>fallacy of argument by assertion of the consequent.
Did you say something?
Barry OGrady
>Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in
How long did it take you to discover that all Christians are emotionally
and mentally disturbed?
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On 21 May 2007 16:24:37 -0700, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >On May 21, 2:40 pm, Barry OGrady <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> If one believes they have the truth, there's no room > >> to move.
Why would those who believe they have the truth want to move??
You don't move from your opinion which you believe to be correct. What
those of us who have reasoned with you has been 'thrown back at us',
you are so certain that you have it 'all sewn up'. So, it is just
stalemate.
But when you come to the end of this life and finally meet your Maker,
God Almighty, I am of the opinion you will not be so glib then.
> >> That applies to all Christians since Christianity is a confidence trick.
>
What makes you think that 'Christianity is a confidence trick'???
> >Barry,
> >You are convinced that Christianity is a confidence
> >trick, but during the past almost two thousand years
> >many Christians have found that not to be so.
>
> The trick with confidence tricks is to play them on
> naive people so they never discover they have been
> conned.
>
There is no conning. I have no desire to trick you into anything.
Jesus Christ will not trick you. The fact is that God loves you so
much that He 'gave His only begotten Son for you so that as you
believe (put your trust in Jesus) you will know assuredly that you
will have Eternal Life. (John 3 : 16)
> >The problem for you is that you have never personally
> >experienced the Christian faith so you are incorrectly > >applying your own reactions to those who have, without > >really understanding what the Christian faith is.
>
> You seem confident about that.
>
Up to the present you have never given me cause to think differently.
And up to the present you have seemed very determined not to think any
differently to what you have posted on so many occasions.
Only God Almighty through Jesus Christ can give you the most wonderful
gift of all gifts. By grace (the unmerited favour of God - you can't
earn it - through faith we are saved. It is then that the good that we
do for others counts as a reward in Eternity.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On May 24, 4:50 pm, Barry OGrady <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 21 May 2007 16:24:37 -0700, "s...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >On May 21, 2:40 pm, Barry OGrady <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >> If one believes they have the truth, there's no room > >> to move.
>
>Why would those who believe they have the truth want to move??
They might want to reconsider.
>You don't move from your opinion which you believe to be correct. What
>those of us who have reasoned with you has been 'thrown back at us',
>you are so certain that you have it 'all sewn up'. So, it is just
>stalemate.
It need not be, if you would tell me why I should be irrational like you
rather than just telling what you have been programmed with.
>But when you come to the end of this life and finally meet your Maker,
>God Almighty, I am of the opinion you will not be so glib then.
You have had it explained to you several times that after death there
is only nothingness. I know you can't grasp the idea of nothingness
but when your brain stops working there will be no you to go anywhere.
Also, I have shown you how God has no right to judge us.
>> >> That applies to all Christians since Christianity is a confidence trick.
>>
>What makes you think that 'Christianity is a confidence trick'???
>
>> >Barry,
>> >You are convinced that Christianity is a confidence
>> >trick, but during the past almost two thousand years
>> >many Christians have found that not to be so.
>>
>> The trick with confidence tricks is to play them on
>> naive people so they never discover they have been
>> conned.
>>
>There is no conning. I have no desire to trick you into anything.
>Jesus Christ will not trick you. The fact is that God loves you so
>much that He 'gave His only begotten Son for you so that as you
>believe (put your trust in Jesus) you will know assuredly that you
>will have Eternal Life. (John 3 : 16)
That's the sort of thing Christians quote without any thought.
Let's analyse it. You think it is an expression of love to have your
son murdered. You think an all-powerful being requires a ritual
before it can start to clean up the mess it made. You think a
being that does not use its power to give all creation trouble
free lives is going to change after we die. You think you are
going to exist after your brain stops working.
>> >The problem for you is that you have never personally
>> >experienced the Christian faith so you are incorrectly
>>applying your own reactions to those who have, without
>>really understanding what the Christian faith is.
>>
>> You seem confident about that.
>>
>Up to the present you have never given me cause to think differently.
>And up to the present you have seemed very determined not to think any
>differently to what you have posted on so many occasions.
I am willing to reconsider if you give me reason to rather than just
tell me what you think I should believe.
>Only God Almighty through Jesus Christ can give you the most wonderful
>gift of all gifts. By grace (the unmerited favour of God - you can't
>earn it - through faith we are saved.
Let's analyse that. We are saved from what by what? God created everything
so we must be saved from God, and only God can save us so we are saved
from God by God. We can't earn God's favour but we can earn God's favour
by faith. God will not force his will on us in order to save us but he did force
his will on us when he created.
We don't deserve anything because we can only be the way we are made,
but because we have feelings and thoughts we deserve the best of everything.
All God has to do is to use his almighty power to change creation so that
everything works together in harmony. Then everybody, including God, would
be happy.
If your God can't do that he is not all-mighty. If he can he is not good.
>It is then that the good that we do for others counts as a reward in Eternity.
God could have made us so we only desire to do good, but instead he
chose to give us a nature we must fight. God is all-knowing so he knows
how well he made us but he still feels the need to test his ability as creator.
Does that make sense to you or have you never thought about it?
Dave Oldridge
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:33:44 GMT, Dave Oldridge
> <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:sei153h1lvrj4oitr...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:55:18 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>>> <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>>>That's the real
>>>>>>problem the fundies have. Their hierarchy is all wrong and their
>>>>>>faith is so weak they feel they need scientific justification for
>>>>>>it, even if they have to manufacture it from whole cloth.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I see your point though it seems to me that science
>>>>> refutes the very basis of Christianity.
>>>>
>>>>Except it doesn't. The bibliolaters think the basis of Christianity
>>>>is the Bible, interpreted literally. CHRISTIANS think it's Jesus
>>>>Christ.
>>>>
>>>>They are not the same thing.
>>>
>>> Definitely. The Bible exists.
>>
>>Perhaps. But Jesus Christ always existed.
>
> Only in the sense that the Bible does not exist.
> Since Jesus never existed you rely on the Bible to tell you what
> to believe.
Wrong again. But then you LIKE being wrong.
And of course you know the Jesus never existed because your omniscience
tells you so, right?
Dave Oldridge
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 23:36:32 GMT, Dave Oldridge
> <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>Barry OGrady <god_fre...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:h8i153pd7mi30urjm...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 18 May 2007 09:54:07 GMT, Dave Oldridge
>>> <dold...@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>>>> If one believes they have the truth, there's no room to move.
>>>>
>>>>So that's why you're so immobile!
>>>
>>> There is also the fact that you are wrong.
>>
>>According to you, speaking from your claimed omniscience again.
>>
>>You've NEVER shown me to be wrong.
>
> You have never shown anyone to be wrong. You want people
> to replace their wrong ideas with your wrong ideas.
>
>>You just keep pounding on the same
>>fallacy of argument by assertion of the consequent.
>
> Did you say something?
Yes, but it was clearly for the benefit of the INTELLIGENT members of the
newsgroup, not for YOU.
Dave Oldridge
I don't pretend to be scientific. I just don't pretend, as you do, that
science can answer all questions. But then you expect ME to be impressed
when YOU pretend to be scientific. So, one might ask, why are you
offended?
Dave Oldridge
How long did it take you to become so emotionally and mentally disturbed?
Was it just an instantaneous thing when you were dropped on the head as a
child, or did you take lessons in stupidity?
Dave Oldridge
You're liar.
>
>>> You are all wrong.
>>
>>Still wrong.
>
> Christianity was always wrong.
Not that you know, though. This is just your religious belief that you
hold on faith.
> I do not represent atheists or atheism
For sure. You're a much better representative of fundy narcissim. The
only thing different is that most of your opponents are theist fundies
whereas you're an antitheist fundy.
You're not an atheist. You're not skeptical about the divine. You're
mind is made up and set in stone.