Good news to the question of Homosexuality
Kevin Davis
>>It is not a cop out. It is the truth. People have very wildly
>>varying definitions of "blood bought, born again, spirit filled
>>christians". Just because you think you were one, someone else claims
>>to be one or you think someone is one does not make it true.
>Well actually at the heart of all this mess is a fallacy. In the claim
>(that you claim not to be a cop out)
>"if you where a real christian then you would not have left" is the
>not-a-true-scotsman fallacy (sory don't know its technical name).
>Consider this: A Scotsman picks up a newspaper and reads about a hideous
>crime commited by another Scotsman. In disgust he reacts - 'well he is
>not a true Scotsman'. What is being done here is a high-order
>redefinition of a Scotsman. In normal usage Scotsman refers to someone's
>ethnic origin but here the phrase 'true Scotsman' is being used to mean: a
>person with a certain of a given ethnic origin and someone who would not
>commit a hideous crime. Well clearly with such a definition - the crime
>commiting Scotsman is not a true Scotsman.
The analogy is still flawed here. You are comparing a genetic makeup,
of which the defintion is not inherently linked to such behavior. One
of the main components of the definition of Christianity (or being a
Christian) *is* behavior.
Dave Glenfield
>John Sanger wrote:
>>Sorry but your spew (the existence of God )is just not valid. Provide
the
>>absolute proof that your diety exists and is the only diety to exist or
get
>>out of this newsgroup.
>No, John. I belieeve the 'proof' is due from thee. YOU provide the proof
that
>God does not exist, and I shall never darken your doorway again. Deal?
The proof that God exists is that other people exist....
>While you're at it, perhaps you could explain some of my previous
statements.
But you said above that you'd not return didn't you? So how are you
going to read this??
>Such as:
>a) Why if the tilt of the axis were to be tilted one iota one way, we'd
all
>freeze, or why if it were to be tilted the other, that we'd all burn to
a
>crisp.
How much is an iota? It's beside the point anyway, as humans have
demonstrated an ability to thrive in freezing or ovenlike conditions.
>b) Why if there were just 3 feet more (or inches, or any fwiggin' # you
choose
>to insert) between the celestial planets, would life be impossible as
we
>know it. and.....
The earth, during its orbit, has a maximum distance of 152 million km and
a minimum distance of 147 million km from the sun. Without this movement
live as we know it wouldn't likely exist.
>c) Why if the earth wer a TAD closer to the sun, a tad FURther from the
sun,
We'd have seasons, oh, wait we do have seasons....
>just a TAD larger or smaller, or if it rotated at ANY speed other than
what we
>have, would life NOT exist as we know it.
There is some evidence that the speed at which the earth rotates today
has not been a constant. The earth is much larger today than it was 500
years ago, and any great change in the mass of the planet will have an
impact on the speed at which the planet rotates.
>
>These are PHYSICS questions, not 'deity' questions. Is the earth a pure
>example of 'CHANCE'? *I* don't think so, is THAT your explanation for
the
>creation and maintenance of the universe?
It would appear that yes, the earth is an example of chance. of all the
worlds we're aware of only the earth can sustain life. We're living on
the Shakespear-writing-monkey-type-planet. :) Also it doesn't look
like anyone is maintaining the universe.
>I have lots MORE questions, but these will do for a start. Now, *I*
don't
>believe the answers to these questions are 'coincidences'. Perhaps
(probably)
>you do. If you DO, then the burden of PROOF belongs to you!
The proof has existed for centuries, just go down to your local bookstore
and get any good astronomy - NOT astrology - text. Do your own damn
research, don't rely on others to spoon feed you.
Peter F. DeMos
post.
A) It was *mailed* to me, as well as posted publicly (like i might not SEE the
*fwiggin* thing) and
B) When I attempted to respond via e-mail, my response/follow failed, due to
the address being bogus.
God help us all, the 'net is/has gone to He*l in a handbasket.....:
You (Dave Clenfield (he of the bogus return address) ) wrote:
>>John Sanger wrote:
>>>Sorry but your spew (the existence of God )is just not valid. Provide the
>>>absolute proof that your diety exists and is the only diety to exist or get
>>>out of this newsgroup.
>>No, John. I belieeve the 'proof' is due from thee. YOU provide the proof that
>>God does not exist, and I shall never darken your doorway again. Deal?
> The proof that God exists is that other people exist....
?!?!?!?!?!
>>While you're at it, perhaps you could explain some of my previous statements.
> But you said above that you'd not return didn't you? So how are you
> going to read this??
Errrrr, Dave? Gotta reading prob? I'd suggest going BACK and reading this
again, k?
>>Such as:
>>a) Why if the tilt of the axis were to be tilted one iota one way, we'd all
>>freeze, or why if it were to be tilted the other, that we'd all burn to a
>>crisp.
> How much is an iota?
Say WHAT!?!?!?!?! This is one of the most PITIFUL examples of avoiding the
subject/question I have ever SEEN!!!!
> It's beside the point anyway, as humans have
> demonstrated an ability to thrive in freezing or ovenlike conditions.
This is utter BS. You obviously have NO astronomical knowledge, NOR are you
willing (obviously) to conSIDer the idea that this universe was NOT created
on pure chance, and deMANDS some sort of divine intervention NOR are you
willing to LEARN something about astronomy...... Oh, guhreat! What a fwiggin
draw is shaping up HERE!
>>b) Why if there were just 3 feet more (or inches, or any fwiggin' # you
>>choose to insert)
>>between the celestial planets, would life be impossible as we
>>know it. and.....
> The earth, during its orbit, has a maximum distance of 152 million km and
> a minimum distance of 147 million km from the sun. Without this movement
> life as we know it wouldn't likely exist.
Two things:
a) You are not answering, actually you are aVOIDing, answering my question,
and
b) You are affirming what I am saying. I'm sure that is by accident :-)
>>c) Why if the earth wer a TAD closer to the sun, a tad FURther from the sun,
>>just a TAD larger or smaller, or if it rotated at ANY speed other than what
>>we have, life would NOT exist as we know it.
What?!?!?! No questions about what a "TAD" might be? You're slipping, DAVE.
> We'd have seasons, oh, wait we do have seasons....
Actually, DAVE, we'd fry to a crisp, or freeze within minutes. But DAVE,
don't trust MOI, try getting an astronomy (NOT an astrology) book, and some
of the questions will get answered for you. As difficult as this subject
may BE for some, especially those with suspect IQ levels :-)
And you conTINue to avoid the BASIC premise that this universe was NOT created
by chance. Tell me, DAVE, who/whom creATED the gasses that resulted in what I'm
sure you consider the 'Big Bang' time. Zeus for Heave's sakes? Sheesh, what a
maroon.
> It would appear that yes, the earth is an example of chance. of all the
> worlds we're aware of only the earth can sustain life.
WOW!!! What a coINCIDENCE! Not.
> We're living on
> the Shakespear-writing-monkey-type-planet. :) Also it doesn't look
> like anyone is maintaining the universe.
> The proof has existed for centuries, just go down to your local bookstore
> and get any good astronomy - NOT astrology - text. Do your own damn
> research, don't rely on others to spoon feed you.
See above please, DAVE.
peterd
CHARLES JOHNSON
ni...@gate.net (Magenta!!) wrote:
>Roger Connolly <bc...@scn.org> doth speak:
>>Magenta!! wrote:
>>> Roger Connolly <bc...@scn.org> doth speak:
>>>
>>> >Mike, If God is a Myth, how come many heathens come to know the Lord, but
>>> >noone that I have ever heard of who knows the Lord ever becomes a
>>> >heathen? Interesting..
>>>
(snip)
>>>
>If you say individuals who have the extreme religious faith you have
>never leave their religion, that is probably correct. But guess what?
>There are Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, and members of any number of
>other religions who experience their beliefs to the same extent you
>do, and would never deny their faith, despite your bigoted comment.
>
(snip)
>>I pray that you and millions of others WILL
>>understand before it is eternally too late. Even if I have earned the
>>right to tell you, I don't think you are ready to listen.
>
>And I think that your religious fanaticism has blinded you to the
>beauty of the world around you, a beauty that you cannot see since you
>only see RED.
>
My $0,02
You don't see many convicted rapist and murders on death row converting to
any other religion but Christianity And it is amazing how many people
statred to attend Christian Churches during Desert Storm.
==========================================================================
cha...@mci.newscorp.com |Proverbs 3:5,6 Trust in the LORD with all thine
ch...@testla.netline.net |heart; and lean not on thine own understanding.
user7...@aol.com |In all thy ways acknowledge HIM and HE shall
|direct thy path.
==========================================================================
CHARLES JOHNSON
dglenfie.@pop.srv.ualberta.ca (Dave Glenfield) wrote:
>In article <peterdDK...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
>
>>John Sanger wrote:
>
>>>Sorry but your spew (the existence of God )is just not valid. Provide
>the
>>>absolute proof that your diety exists and is the only diety to exist or
>get
>>>out of this newsgroup.
>
>>No, John. I belieeve the 'proof' is due from thee. YOU provide the proof
>that
>>God does not exist, and I shall never darken your doorway again. Deal?
>
>The proof that God exists is that other people exist....
>
>>While you're at it, perhaps you could explain some of my previous
>statements.
>
>But you said above that you'd not return didn't you? So how are you
>going to read this??
>
>>Such as:
>>a) Why if the tilt of the axis were to be tilted one iota one way, we'd
>all
>>freeze, or why if it were to be tilted the other, that we'd all burn to
>a
>>crisp.
>
>How much is an iota? It's beside the point anyway, as humans have
>demonstrated an ability to thrive in freezing or ovenlike conditions.
>
>>b) Why if there were just 3 feet more (or inches, or any fwiggin' # you
>choose
>>to insert) between the celestial planets, would life be impossible as
>we
>>know it. and.....
>
>The earth, during its orbit, has a maximum distance of 152 million km and
>a minimum distance of 147 million km from the sun. Without this movement
>live as we know it wouldn't likely exist.
>
>>c) Why if the earth wer a TAD closer to the sun, a tad FURther from the
>sun,
>
>We'd have seasons, oh, wait we do have seasons....
>
>>just a TAD larger or smaller, or if it rotated at ANY speed other than
>what we
>>have, would life NOT exist as we know it.
>
>There is some evidence that the speed at which the earth rotates today
>has not been a constant. The earth is much larger today than it was 500
>years ago, and any great change in the mass of the planet will have an
>impact on the speed at which the planet rotates.
>
Pray tell where did this added mass come from?
>
>
>>
>>These are PHYSICS questions, not 'deity' questions. Is the earth a pure
>>example of 'CHANCE'? *I* don't think so, is THAT your explanation for
>the
>>creation and maintenance of the universe?
>
>It would appear that yes, the earth is an example of chance. of all the
>worlds we're aware of only the earth can sustain life. We're living on
>the Shakespear-writing-monkey-type-planet. :) Also it doesn't look
>like anyone is maintaining the universe.
>
>>I have lots MORE questions, but these will do for a start. Now, *I*
>don't
>>believe the answers to these questions are 'coincidences'. Perhaps
>(probably)
>>you do. If you DO, then the burden of PROOF belongs to you!
>
>The proof has existed for centuries, just go down to your local bookstore
>and get any good astronomy - NOT astrology - text. Do your own damn
>research, don't rely on others to spoon feed you.
>
There are to many things that have to happen in exact order for life to
happen by chance. And none of the happen stance follows directly from the
orher. Like the tilt of the earth's axis.
Brian Westley
...
>Let's see now. Random creation? Big bang? Coincidence? Myth? Then can those
>of you explain a couple of things for me?
Sure thing.
>a) If one were to raise, or lower, the universe's rate of expansion one
>IOTA, that would rule out the possibility of life in this universe. Don't
>belEVE me? Check your physics :-)
I don't believe you. First, show that life (any kind of life, not just
carbon-based life) would be impossible with a different expansion rate.
>b)Change the tilt of the earth's axis one iota (again that iota thing),
>and we would freeze. Change it the OTHER way, we would burn up within 12-15
>minutes. Again, don't wish to believe ME? Check your physics :-)
>c) If the earth were a tad closer, or a tad further from the sun, or just a
>TAD larger or smaller, or if it rotated at any speed different than what it
>does right now, the temp changes would be fatal. Again, don't believe moi?
It is hardly surprising that life which exists on the earth can live
on the earth and not on a planet similar to earth but closer or farther from
the sun, different tilt, etc.
For example, take some of the worms that live near deep-sea volcanic vents
and put them in your swimming pool. They don't live very long, right?
But *I* can live in a pool for quite a bit longer, because I evolved
under a very different environment.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
HazChem
"Stu T." <sto...@prairie.NoDak.edu> wrote:
> First, there is a difference between the one who follows the rituals and=20
> the ones who truely know the Lord. The "Christians" who get converted=20
> back to other religions were never truely Christians to begin with.
Therefore, by definition christians do not convert to other religions.
Why you could say something like this and then think that "hey, christians
never convert, but atheists sometimes do" is an argument, I don't know. I
could define atheist the same way to prove that atheists never convert to
christianity. (Because if they did, they wouldn't have ever been 'real
atheists') Do you see my point?
--
-HazChem <URL=http://www.geopages.com/Paris/1134/>
*********************************************************************
Seen in Time magazine: "If we lose our children to cyberporn, free speech won't matter." In my opinion, if we lose free speech our children won't matter.
*********************************************************************
Cynic,n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. (Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_)
*********************************************************************
John Sanger
>John Sanger writes, like a fwiggin' moron with:
>
>>>No, John. I belieeve the 'proof' is due from thee. YOU provide the proof that
>>>God does not exist, and I shall never darken your doorway again. Deal?
>
>>to you to provide the proof absolute that such a diety does infact
>>exist and that that diety is the only one to exist.
>>Provide the proof as requested or get out of this newsgroup.
>
>Tell you what, oh John boy. Let's play a game. You may remember it. Then again,
>I'm assuming you had any sort of normal childhood which included having
>FRIENDS.
>
>It's easy. It's called: Did too, did not, did too. I'll start, k?
>
>Did too!
>
>Sheesh, what a maroon.
>
Your attempt at changing the subject will not work and is so very
childish.
Provide the proof or get out of a.p.h with such mythology.
--
Ciao!
John S. 8^{)>
tedd...@netcom.com
__
John Sanger
>In article <peterdDK...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
>
>>John Sanger wrote:
>
>>>Sorry but your spew (the existence of God )is just not valid. Provide
>the
>>>out of this newsgroup.
>
>that
>>God does not exist, and I shall never darken your doorway again. Deal?
>
>
Prove the tie if we are to accept your statement.
Patrick Rogoschewsky
But you missed my point. I was not creating an analogy but giving an
example of a not-a-true-Scotsman fallacy.
Now the fallacy does not depend on something begin genetic or based on
behaviour or whatever the case might be. At the heart of the fallacy is a
high-order redefinition of a term - in the case above it was a Scotsman.
What I was responding to was someone's claim that a "true Christian" can
never leave abandon his belief systems. So I asked the question what is a
"true Christian". If you answer is that "true Christians" are those
defined by their (good) behaviour - then I would charge even given this
definition - where is the logical ban on there being ex-Christians.
Often the "not-a-true-Christian" argument comes up when some makes a
charge against a crime or evil-doings of a 'Christian'. Well if one
defines a Christian as one who holds certain beliefs *and* behaves good -
well suprise surprise - you won't find any evil or bad things that
Christians did. In effect you defined out of existence there being
anything bad or evil being done by Christians. Using this definition of
the term 'Christian' look at a phrase like: X is a Christian and X is
good.
Is such a phrase true - of course! - given the definition it is true - the
truth of that statement is known a priori (as is the case for any analytic
statement). The statement is true in the sense that the statement: A
triangle is a three-sided figure is true. But I don't think that this
vacous tautology is what Christians want to assert when they proclaim
loudly that they are morally upstanding.
John A. Stanley
ray...@intersource.com (Ray Todd Sevens) wrote:
>In article <4c59sh$1...@globe.indirect.com> sus...@indirect.com (Susan C. Mitchell) writes:
>
>>Interesting indeed. I was a Christian for many years, and now am a
>>practicing Witch. So much for your pathetic attempt at argumentum ad
>>numerum.
>
>I firmly beleive the statement of your current status. I doubt the
>statement of your original status. The Lord has said that some Chirstians
>will fall way, but more likely you were a religious Christian, and not a true
>Christian,
A TrueChristian(TM), by definition, being those intellectually
challenged individuals who continue to believe such crap.
>>Think globally, act locally.
>
>Wouldn't it be wonderful if you just possed locally.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
--
John A. Stanley jsta...@gate.net
Barry Hofstetter
prog...@eagle.wbm.ca (Patrick Rogoschewsky) wrote:
> In article <9vOvmCBg...@netaxs.com>, neb...@netaxs.com (Barry
> Hofstetter) wrote:
>
> >In article <progosch-271...@dial196167.wbm.ca>,
> >prog...@eagle.wbm.ca (Patrick Rogoschewsky) wrote:
> > 2. Bats as birds and rabbits chewing their cud are based on
> > ancient, non-scientific categorizations - the best you can
> > say here is that this is an error against modern categories,
> > not an error in substance.
> Okay perhaps I can see this argument working against 'Bats as birds'. But
> why is calling a rabbit a cud-chewer a error against modern categories.
> Are you stating that they did not know what it meant to be a cud-shewing
> animal.
Essentially, yes. They see rabbits (at least, that's the animal we
think the Hebrew was referencing) chewing and not eating, and jump to a
natural conclusion. If you wish to consider this an error, then go
right ahead.
> But there is a larger problem here - even if I accept your apologetics.
> And that being that you are doing precisely what most Christians fight
> against - and that is a relativistic interpretation. By trying to argue
> out of this by saying in effect that 'this was correct in the limited
> framework of the time' is really to introduce a relativistic component.
Why? I simply see it as putting the text to be interpreted in the
framework in which it was meant to be interpreted.
> > 3. The Bible does not give the age of the earth, and attempts to
> > figure out the age based on the genealogies are problematic.
> Fine they may be problematic - but surely a maximum age (if not a specific
> one) - could be extracted.
I don't think so, and I'll lay my dollar against your donut that I have
studied the biblical texts more than you.
> >
> > 4. How do you know that evil spirits don't cause diseases? In
> > other words, to borrow an old scholastic distinction, there
> > might be a difference between the efficient and ultimate
> > causes.
> If you are suggesting (like I think you are) - that while
> virii/bacteria/genetics might be necessary for disease - that they might
> not be sufficient. That in fact there might be other factors like evil
> spirits as co-factors as it were.
Actually, what I am suggesting is that the scientific paradigm might not
itself be sufficient for the interpretation of all reality.
> There is probably no way to show that you are incorrect on this point.
> But Okham's razor really would favour the model currently in existence -
> over the one that you hypothesise - because 1) It covers the facts well 2)
> It is simplier.
One of the problems with old Occam is that in a real universe (and
Occam, of course, was dealing the philosophical truth, not science),
explanations might just be more complicated than one thinks.
> Your theory offers no new predictive power - unless you are suggest that
> not only can evil spirits be detected but that their causaul relation to
> disease can also be determined. In short such an extension of the theory
> is useless.
Hey, I'm a theologian (I guess), not a scientist. My theories don't
have to offer predictive power - they simply have to be in accord with
spiritual reality. All I am suggesting is that there might be more to
the universe than what can be measured in a laboratory, and that the
nature of spiritual things is such that investigating them with a test
tube might just be the wrong methodology...
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
If it were true - as conceited shrewdness, proud of not being
deceived, thinks - that one should believe nothing which he
cannot see by means of his physical eyes, then first and foremost one
ought to give up believing in love.
- S. Kierkegaard
Barry Hofstetter
> Barry Hofstetter (neb...@netaxs.com) said:
> } 1) Where in the Bible does it claim that God created 10% of the
> } population with a same "sex orientation?"
> Where does the Bible mention the creation of North America? If you don't
> get my point, the Bible doesn't mention a LOT of specific things. Are we
> supposed to ignore all the items not mentioned, simply because they're
> not mentioned? No automobiles, telephones, computers, modems, Visa or
> Mastercards for you!
North America, I assume, would be included in Gen 1:1 without being
specifically mentioned. Your other examples do not support your point,
since they are all man-made creations. In Genesis, what we do have is
the creation of Adam and Even (male and female) and the institution of
the heterosexual marriage order, with no correponding mention of the
creation a "same-sex" order. Lack of support with a positive
counter-example does not bode well for those who wish to find biblical
support for homosexuality.
> }Reread the passage. The gentlemen of the town wanted Lot's male
> }visitors, and being offered the woman only seemed to make them angrier!
> They had a right to the anger. Inviting strangers into cities sans
> approval was a "no, no". Lot wasn't even a resident of the city, which
> meant he'd committed a grave error. Those angels were just as likely to
Could you please cite a reference in support of your argument? My
understanding of the hospitality code in the ANE is a bit different than
this, but I am willing to be corrected.
> have been beaten to a bloody pulp as to have been gang raped. (And lest
> you have doubts, allow me to assure you that rape is not the same thing as
> homosexual -- not even heterosexual -- sex.) They were out to "teach a
> lesson". Can you think of a better way to punish and humiliate a straight
> man (we shall assume, for the sake of the argument, that the angels in
> question were straight) than to be raped by another man?
I can think of no historical examples in which such took place.
Rape yes - of the women. Straight men seem to find more satisfying to
beat other men to a pulp rather than rape them. Surely rape in any form
is not "normal" sex, but the sexual element still seems to be an
important factor, the object of the rape will be according to one's
sexual "preference." Again, perhaps if you could cite a few historical
examples in support of your contention...
jpet...@counsel.com
>You don't see many convicted rapist and murders on death row converting >to any other religion but Christianity And it is amazing how many people
>statred to attend Christian Churches during Desert Storm.
Charles:
Not that your point had anything to do with the topics under discussion
but it was just a little too absurd to pass up. There are active prison
"ministries" for lack of a better term among many different religions.
The Muslims being one of the major ones. There have been several court
cases regarding the right of prisoners to change their names and to have
themselves referred to by their new muslim names. There are also several
active Buddhist outreaches as well as Baha'is and others.
I didn't know that anyone was keeping numbers on the issue or that it
would mean anything if someone were. Still it is not unusual that people
in times of stress, will return to their religious institutions for
solace. Whether they are "revolving door whatevers" or not, I can't
say. However increased church attendance doesn't mean a hill of beans
under those conditions, whther it be a war, other natural disaster or a
prison term..
jpet...@counsel.com
And you conTINue to avoid the BASIC premise that this universe was NOT
created by chance. Tell me, DAVE, who/whom creATED the gasses that
resulted in what I'm sure you consider the 'Big Bang' time. Zeus for
Heave's sakes? Sheesh, what a maroon.
Ah Peter:
If Dave is maroon, what color are you? I sense a fair amount of
hostility here, what with all the SHOUTING and everything. The fact is
Peter that there is no eveidence which supports the notion that this
deity of yours exists. Nada, zilch, zip. As to chance, well I don't
suppose that you have ever considered the law of cause and effect. The
earth is where it is and life has developed within the parameters of the
conditions that exist. Those are not the same parameters which existed
say at the time of the dinosauers for example so life as we know it would
not have existed (at least very easily) under those conditions. It is
simple cause and effect. No need for deities at all. You are describing
natural phenomena which have natural reasons as to why they have come
about. You might think it took some entity to think it all up but really
I think you just being a tad anthropormorphic. You are of course,
entitled to your beliefs but please don't try to disguise them as
science. So far as I know, there are no scientific textbooks which refer
to deities starting the "Big Bang" unless the fundies have decided to
publish one of their own.
jpet...@counsel.com
>
>There are to many things that have to happen in exact order for life to
>happen by chance. And none of the happen stance follows directly from the
>orher. Like the tilt of the earth's axis.
>
As to happenstance, well I don't suppose that you have ever considered
the law of cause and effect. Your problem here is that you are looking
back and assuming some sort of "recipe" was followed. The earth is where
it is and life has developed within the parameters of the conditions that
exist on the planet. Those are not the same parameters which existed say
at the time of the dinosauers for example so life as we know it would not
have existed (at least very easily) under those conditions. As condition
have changed, life has changed. It is simple cause and effect. No need
for deities at all. You are describing natural phenomena which have
natural reasons as to why they have come about. You might think it took
some entity to think it all up but really I think you just being a tad
anthropormorphic. You are of course, entitled to your beliefs but please
don't try to disguise them as science. So far as I know, there are no
scientific textbooks which refer to deities "tilting the axis" unless the
Peter F. DeMos
>If Dave is maroon, what color are you?
Oh, guhREAT! Another fwiggin' Bugs illiterate. You weinies are hopeless. Praise
the Lord, I was raised during the period of Bugs, and not the st00pid 'Power
Rangers'. What fwiggin' quote can you provide us from *them*? 'Power on' for
goodness sakes? You poor people.
>I sense a fair amount of
>hostility here, what with all the SHOUTING and everything.
SHOUTING?!?!?!?!?! WHAT shouting ?!?!?!?!?! It's called EMPHasizing, Mr Newbie.
Tell me, did all you people come on to our beloved 'net when Windoze 95 was
introduced with msc.com? For goodness sakes, you people come up with some of
the DUMBest stuff I've ever seen.
>The fact is
>Peter that there is no eveidence which supports the notion that this
>deity of yours exists.
Nor is there any diRECT evidence that proves the fwiggin' LIGHTS will turn
on, when you flick on the switch, eh? But I don't seen any of YOU maroons
wondering whether THAT might happen, eh?
Sheesh, what a BUNCH of maroons.
Hehehehe.
peterd
Peter F. DeMos
>>It's easy. It's called: Did too, did not, did too. I'll start, k?
>>Did too!
>>Sheesh, what a maroon.
>Your attempt at changing the subject will not work and is so very
>childish.
>Provide the proof or get out of a.p.h with such mythology.
Did not!
peterd
PS Hehehehe.
PPS Listen, Mr. Angry Political Homosexual. I could not care LESS what your
sexual leaning/falling is, unlike *many* of my Christian friends. Your attempt
to fight ALL Christians is incredibly st00pid.
PPPS Did too! Hehehehe.
Magenta!!
> You said you are an atheist.
> Let me ask you a question?
> How intelligent do you have to be to build a bird house?
> Not too intelligent right?
>
> How smart do you have to be to build a house?
> Takes a little more brains right?
> Now who can build and program a super computer?
> You'll agree it will take someone very, very intelligent...
>
> OK, you may already know where I'm heading...but let me
>go thru it?
>
> What kind of intelligence will it take to create
> -- millions of suns and planets
> -- to make a human being (even we don't understand
> the complexity of ourselves
> we are just beginning to understand DNA structures ,for
> instance)
> -- to create the laws of physics, the chemicals, the
> complex rock structures...
>
> Do I have to go further???
>
> According to you, it takes more intelligence to build the bird house
> than it took to make the entire universe...
>
> does that make sense?
No, it does not. Your analysis is based on the assumption that the
universe came into being as a single creative act. You are not arguing
the existence of god, rather you are arguing that the god who created
the universe must be real smart to do so.
The universe was not created in all of it's complexity from one single
act. It was created as a gradual, step by step process, with one
simple initial creative action creating reactions which created
further reactions. The complexity that develops is a result of the
natural process of simple occurrences compounding.
(I, by the way am not an atheist, so don't ask me how an atheist
explains that initial "big bang" act of creation.)
To extend your metaphor, the grand canyon was made by a little winding
river, growing and shrinking and winding over time.
Is the water smart?
The grand canyon is definitely far more complex than a bird's nest or
a human house. Is water smarter than humans and birds?
By the way, the process of building a house is also a gradual
development of cause and effect relationships.
first, we lived in natural caves, than simple structures made from
sticks and skins, then logs, than clay, then brick, then cinder block
and concrete with electrical wiring and plumbing, and someday
synthetic materials with fiber optic cables and built-in energy
sources.
Were the architects of the renaissance dumb because they did not build
high-tech futuristic houses back then?
Are we dumb for not doing them now?
Peace & Love, "Pray look better, Sir...
/| /| _ _ _ ___ those things yonder are no giants,
/ |/ ||_|/_ |_ |\ | | |\ but windmills." --Miguel de Cervantes
/ || |\_>|_ | \| | |-\ (Sancho Panza to Don Quixote)
Harassing E-Mail to my address may be posted to Usenet.
Magenta!!
>In article <4c59sh$1...@globe.indirect.com> sus...@indirect.com (Susan C. Mitchell) writes:
>
>>Interesting indeed. I was a Christian for many years, and now am a
>>practicing Witch. So much for your pathetic attempt at argumentum ad
>>numerum.
>
>I firmly beleive the statement of your current status. I doubt the
>statement of your original status. The Lord has said that some Chirstians
>will fall way, but more likely you were a religious Christian, and not a true
>Christian,
That is entirely your perspective as someone who does not understand
the Wiccan religion. I'm sure you do not know the wiccan religion as
fully and deeply as she does, because if you did you would abandon
christianity to be a witch.
>>Think globally, act locally.
>
>Wouldn't it be wonderful if you just possed locally.
If she did that, then you would forever live in ignorance, and
continue to practice your silly superstitions instead of learning of
the wonders of wicca.
Peace & Love,
/| /| _ _ _ ___ "There are none so blind as
/ |/ ||_|/_ |_ |\ | | |\ they that will not see..."
/ || |\_>|_ | \| | |-\ --Jonathan Swift
Magenta!!
>Mike, God is not a myth, as much as those of you who wish to belIEVE so
>spew that idea.
>
>Let's see now. Random creation? Big bang? Coincidence? Myth? Then can those
>of you explain a couple of things for me?
>
>a) If one were to raise, or lower, the universe's rate of expansion one
>IOTA, that would rule out the possibility of life in this universe. Don't
>belEVE me? Check your physics :-)
[snip more bad science]
> Everything
>is random, expcept the things we need to have life? Come on.......
>Need I go on?
Incorrect. All of the situations you describe
would rule out LIFE AS WE KNOW IT, not LIFE.
We ARE life as we know it because of all of the occurrences that you
describe which occurred before our creation, and the cause and effect
relationships that led to our creation, not the other way around.
example: on Jupiter two creatures are looking up at the sky,
and they are looking at the earth.
The first says to the second, "is there life on that world?"
The second says to the first, "Of course not. the gravity is way too
low and the atmosphere is way too thin."
on Pluto two creatures are looking up at the sky,
and they are looking at the earth.
The first says to the second, "is there life on that world?"
The second says to the first, "Of course not. the gravity is way too
high and the atmosphere is way too thick."
>BUT, God also loves all. He does not prejudice against those that don't do
>what certain people think others ought to. Those that spout this, are just as
>guilty as any sinner/blasphemer/etc, etc, etc that they can, can't, or won't
>quote.
Thank you, I agree completely.
>Remember, God loves *you* JUST as much as He loves me. Perhaps more.
In my belief, god is love, so god does not love anyone more or less
than anyone else. God loves everyone equally.
>He will CERtainly rejoice and open the Heavens for a GREAT big party, if and
>when you accept Him. He already KNOWS I love Him. What he wishes, is for YOU
>to be saved :-)
In my belief, there is no *place* called heaven, and since god loves
us all, there is no need to be *saved*.
>Take care,
>peterd
Peace & Love,
/| /| _ _ _ ___
/ |/ ||_|/_ |_ |\ | | |\
/ || |\_>|_ | \| | |-\
Thomas Klem
>
>>Since God is a myth, you can make him spout any hate filled prejudice
your
>>heart desires, can't you?
>
>Mike, God is not a myth, as much as those of you who wish to belIEVE so
>spew that idea.
>
>Let's see now. Random creation? Big bang? Coincidence? Myth? Then can
>those of you explain a couple of things for me?
>
>a) If one were to raise, or lower, the universe's rate of expansion one
>IOTA, that would rule out the possibility of life in this universe.
I love it when people use vague terms like "one IOTA" to try to prove a
"scientific" point.
>c) If the earth were a tad closer, or a tad further from the sun, or
>just a TAD larger or smaller, or if it rotated at any speed different
>than what it does right now, the temp changes would be fatal. Again,
>don't believe moi?
Anyone know how many millions of miles make up one of these "TAD's"?
Before one makes "scientific" arguments about the probability of life for
a planet like our's to exist, one would need lots of information. Some
of this would include the percentage of solar systems with planets, the
total number of stars in the universe, and the percentage of solar
systems with stars that could generate temperature conditions conducive
to the kind of life which exists on this planet. Since we have no idea
what percentage of solar systems have planets, no genuinely scientific
argument can be made on the matter.
--
---
Thomas Klem tk...@lainet.com http://lainet3.lainet.com/~tklem
If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he ever send me flowers?
Thomas Klem
>You are the one insisting that this mythical creature exists. It is up
>to you to provide the proof absolute that such a diety does infact
>exist and that that diety is the only one to exist.
He hasn't even provided a coherent argument to the effect.
>Provide the proof as requested or get out of this newsgroup.
If those rules were applied, Christians would never be able to do their
proselytizing on alt.atheism ever again.
Thomas Klem
dglenfie.@pop.srv.ualberta.ca says...
>The proof that God exists is that other people exist....
This is a completely incoherent statement. Have you been reading
Berkeley or something?
Thomas Klem
>Nor is there any diRECT evidence that proves the fwiggin' LIGHTS will
>turn on, when you flick on the switch, eh? But I don't seen any of YOU
>maroons wondering whether THAT might happen, eh?
When one has flicked light switches in the past, light has appeared.
There are no general and reproducible experiences that correspond to
support the view that there is a diety.
There are scientific explanations developed by people without pre-set
agendas to explain the electrical and other phenomena involved. This
does not apply to the deity proposed in Christianity or any other deities
in other religions.
Your analogy has no validity whatsoever.
>Sheesh, what a BUNCH of maroons.
Funny, I always thought maroon was a nice color.
Thomas Klem
> 4. How do you know that evil spirits don't cause diseases? In
> other words, to borrow an old scholastic distinction, there
> might be a difference between the efficient and ultimate
> causes.
Since there is no evidence to suggest that "evil spirits' actually exist,
it makes no sense to even discuss them in terms of causes. It would be
no different than doing the following.
Zingons cause disease. This is true because it is written in the book of
Zoron. The book of Zoron must be true because it is the word of the Stay
Puff Marshmallow Man---the being which created the Universe and gives us
all life.
Thomas Klem
>} -- to make a human being (even we don't understand
>} the complexity of ourselves
>} we are just beginning to understand DNA structures ,for
>} instance)
Interestingly enough, what we have learned about gene structure in all
classes of organisms except for eubacteria suggests strongly that
evolution has happened. Most genes in these organisms are segmented into
what are known as "exons" and "introns." Exons are DNA that code for the
amino acid sequences of proteins, and introns are the segnments of DNA
between the exons. After RNA polymerization, the RNA is "spliced,"
removing the intron RNA.
Exons often correspond to functional domains of proteins. The introns
make it more likely that mutational events involving crossing over will
lead to the formation of novel proteins with two intact functional
domains. This makes it possible for evolution to work at a much faster
pace.
If you use the alternative creationist hypothesis, the introns would
merely be wasted space that would not correspond to the intelligent
design proposed by creationists to explain life on this planet.
ASCII Visual AID
-------************/\/\/\/\/\/\/************/\/\/\/\/\/\********
EXON INTRON EXON INTRON EXON
Thomas Klem
says...
>You don't see many convicted rapist and murders on death row converting
to
>any other religion but Christianity And it is amazing how many people
>statred to attend Christian Churches during Desert Storm.
The reason why convicted rapists, murders, and other criminals "get
religion" in prison is that they are more likely to get lenient treatment
if they do.
Also, in times of crisis, many people will use religion as a crutch.
This is hardly limited to Christianity in the United States.
>========================================================================
==
>cha...@mci.newscorp.com |Proverbs 3:5,6 Trust in the LORD with all
thine
>ch...@testla.netline.net |heart; and lean not on thine own understanding.
>user7...@aol.com |In all thy ways acknowledge HIM and HE shall
> |direct thy path.
>========================================================================
==
>
>
--
Daniel Philip Knauss
: ray...@intersource.com (Ray Todd Sevens) doth speak:
: >In article <4c59sh$1...@globe.indirect.com> sus...@indirect.com (Susan C. Mitchell) writes:
: >
: >>Interesting indeed. I was a Christian for many years, and now am a
: >>practicing Witch. So much for your pathetic attempt at argumentum ad
: >>numerum.
: >
: >I firmly beleive the statement of your current status. I doubt the
: >statement of your original status. The Lord has said that some Chirstians
: >will fall way, but more likely you were a religious Christian, and not a true
: >Christian,
Nice speculation. But maybe the following proposal is true--or perhaps
"ex-Christians" are backsliders who know internally the truth and verbally
deny it. That could be true of every human in some sense. Where do you
draw lines for the mystery of grace? Maybe we'd be better of not trying...
: That is entirely your perspective as someone who does not understand
: the Wiccan religion. I'm sure you do not know the wiccan religion as
: fully and deeply as she does, because if you did you would abandon
: christianity to be a witch.
: >>Think globally, act locally.
: >
: >Wouldn't it be wonderful if you just possed locally.
: If she did that, then you would forever live in ignorance, and
: continue to practice your silly superstitions instead of learning of
: the wonders of wicca.
This got a laugh out of me. What a historical reversal! "Paganism"
calling Religion superstition. Wicca is a religion even though some
people may deny it. What's the difference in designation?
Christianity--Wicca: they're both religions. Wicca is a syncretic
construct of Celtic and Egyptian religious rites plus some modern
thought. Wicca undoubtedly has common sources with/in Christianity as
Christianity has some roots in "Paganism" as well.
: Peace & Love,
: /| /| _ _ _ ___ "There are none so blind as
: / |/ ||_|/_ |_ |\ | | |\ they that will not see..."
: / || |\_>|_ | \| | |-\ --Jonathan Swift
: Harassing E-Mail to my address may be posted to Usenet.
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
"You're just one microscopic cog in his catastrophic plan,
Designed and directed by his red right hand." -Nick Cave
______d...@unity.ncsu.edu_______________________________w.a.s.t.e________
dion...@infinet.com
}Obiously a moral lesson that it is better to give Give GIVE than
}to receive, and that you better give it all, baby.
<sigh> Somebody didn't read that last book of the Old Testament. Therein
one will clearly find that it is possible to buy your way into Our
Father's good graces.
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
"Part of our cultural heritage as Texans is that at some point in our
rearing, each one of us has decide whether we really are as crazy as other
people think we are, or if this is just our little joke."
-- Gary N. Reese
dion...@infinet.com
}No. No more than I believe that your deity parted the waters of the Red
}Sea or that Jesus was born of a virgin. It is a religious tract, not a
}historical account.
Actually, that bit about the Red Sea has been experimentally demonstrated
as being possible. (Which is different than saying that it actually
happened.) An actual staging of this event would be a little hard, even
with today's technology, but it could be done. What's more interesting
though is that, according to the model, the weather situation which would
allow for the parting of the water is actually possible for that area.
(Though we need to determine if it was equally possible back then too.
Weather dynamics can change drastically over a few thousand years... )
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
I loathe people who keep dogs -- they're cowards who don't have
the courage to bite people themselves
Vortex
>John Sanger wrote:
>>Sorry but your spew (the existence of God )is just not valid. Provide the
>>absolute proof that your diety exists and is the only diety to exist or get
>>out of this newsgroup.
>No, John. I belieeve the 'proof' is due from thee. YOU provide the proof that
>God does not exist, and I shall never darken your doorway again. Deal?
No, the burden of proof is upon those who claim that god exists,
because god is not evident nor readily accessible to confirm his
existence. If god exists, show him to us. What you have is faith, not
proof.
>While you're at it, perhaps you could explain some of my previous statements.
>Such as:
>a) Why if the tilt of the axis were to be tilted one iota one way, we'd all
>freeze, or why if it were to be tilted the other, that we'd all burn to a
>crisp.
>b) Why if there were just 3 feet more (or inches, or any fwiggin' # you choose
>to insert) between the celestial planets, would life be impossible as we
>know it. and.....
>c) Why if the earth wer a TAD closer to the sun, a tad FURther from the sun,
>just a TAD larger or smaller, or if it rotated at ANY speed other than what we
>have, would life NOT exist as we know it.
>These are PHYSICS questions, not 'deity' questions. Is the earth a pure
>example of 'CHANCE'? *I* don't think so, is THAT your explanation for the
>creation and maintenance of the universe?
No, life grows where conditions are favorable, and even then they take
centuries to develop. If the conditions you describe were true, life
would not have developed in the same way, or at all. You obviously
don't have a great amount of education when it comes to science, and
reject Darwin completely. You're trying to put the cart before the
horse.
>I have lots MORE questions, but these will do for a start. Now, *I* don't
>believe the answers to these questions are 'coincidences'. Perhaps (probably)
>you do. If you DO, then the burden of PROOF belongs to you!
>I'm waiting.......
>peterd
I'm sure you have a lot more questions, because if you're trying to
use the bible to explain complex scientific problems and theories you
undoubtedly have arrived at very few answers for yourself.
######
####
### vor...@in.net
##
#
Bruce Garrett
B> The bible doesn't say I won't get killed if I jump off a cliff so I guess
B> I can do it right?
Sounds like a good experiment to me...go ahead and give it a try,
bud...
B> Be honest with yourself, GOD made man, then made a woman, he said very
B> plainly that a woman is the reason that a man leaves his house. What do
B> you think he is talking about?
Going to the town beer joint to swill beer so cheap even Price Club
won't stock it, while bellyaching to the drunkard next to him that his "old
lady" isn't giving him any...isn't that it? I suppose the question is why
would God want so many men to live such a disgusting lifestyle...
--
-Bruce Garrett \ finger bru...@access.digex.net
Cockeysville, MD. / \ Final: Kinsey 6 Skinner 0
CHARLES JOHNSON
tk...@lainet.com (Thomas Klem) wrote:
>In article <4c917j$j...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
>dglenfie.@pop.srv.ualberta.ca says...
>
>>The proof that God exists is that other people exist....
>
>This is a completely incoherent statement. Have you been reading
>Berkeley or something?
>
>--
>---
>Thomas Klem tk...@lainet.com http://lainet3.lainet.com/~tklem
> If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he ever send me flowers?
>
Where do you think the flowers come from. He also sends you fruits.
==========================================================================
CHARLES JOHNSON
tk...@lainet.com (Thomas Klem) wrote:
>In article <9vOvmCBg...@netaxs.com>, neb...@netaxs.com says...
>
>
>> 4. How do you know that evil spirits don't cause diseases? In
>> other words, to borrow an old scholastic distinction, there
>> might be a difference between the efficient and ultimate
>> causes.
>
>Since there is no evidence to suggest that "evil spirits' actually exist,
>it makes no sense to even discuss them in terms of causes. It would be
>no different than doing the following.
>
>Zingons cause disease. This is true because it is written in the book of
>Zoron. The book of Zoron must be true because it is the word of the Stay
>Puff Marshmallow Man---the being which created the Universe and gives us
>all life.
Try telling this to Parapsychologists.
Brian Henderson
>In article <4bq7qv$5...@nntp208.reach.com> jpet...@counsel.com writes:
>>As for the Bible, I have read it. It is an interesting book. Much like
>>the Illiad and the Odessey, it has one foot in fact and the other in
>>fiction. I don't doubt that it has some moral value to you but it is of
>>no interest to me. Have you read the Lotus Sutra? It contradicts a lot
>>of what you seem to believe.
>Fiction my foot. Try looking again. If you really want to look into the
>trueth and believeablity of the Bible then get Josh McDowell's book evidence
>that demands a verdict. He covers the subject a lot better than I can, but
>the bottom line is that the Bible is externally a well documented book for
>being true.
You have *GOT* to be kidding! McDowell? That old hack? His two
"Evidence" books have been completely demolished and have absolutely
no rational or factual backing. I know there is a web-page that
demonstrates just how ridiculous McDowell's claims are on the
freethought.tamu.edu server, but I don't have the URL handy at the
moment.
The only person who could fall for something as cheesy as McDowell's
so-called apologetics is a "true-believer" who wouldn't know an
intelligent argument if it came up and hit them in the face.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==========================================
+ Brian Henderson == Internet: BHen...@kirk.microsys.net ==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++== BHen...@microsys.net ==
+ Furry Fan, Babylon 5, == ==
+ MST3K, Atheist, Skeptic, ==========================================
+ Sliders, RPG Gamer, INWO, == I'm not saying what I'm thinking, so ==
+ Herpetophile, Gargoyles == I don't think anyone agrees with me! ==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==========================================
Barry O'Grady
:specifically calls for the execution of anyone caught in a homosexual act. I
:am certainly not calling for this, but they should be banned from membership
:in a Christian Church, and I certainly don't want them around children. If
:they are around me they had better keep their hands off me. The last one who
:tried to put his hands in my pants was in bed for a week. Next time it will
:be two weeks.
With you?
H.P. Skaliks
neb...@netaxs.com (Barry Hofstetter) wrote:
> > Okay perhaps I can see this argument working against 'Bats as birds'. But
> > why is calling a rabbit a cud-chewer a error against modern categories.
> > Are you stating that they did not know what it meant to be a cud-shewing
> > animal.
>
> Essentially, yes. They see rabbits (at least, that's the animal we
> think the Hebrew was referencing) chewing and not eating, and jump to a
> natural conclusion. If you wish to consider this an error, then go
> right ahead.
This doesn't wash Barry. You, and other fundies, argue that the
scriptures are divinely inspired and inerrant, essentially dictated,
if you will, by the creator of the universe.
Since the creator of the rabbit wouldn't make this kind of mistake,
it follows that either creationism is a false paradigm and there is
no creator, or the scriptures are not inerrant and are the work of
people working within the knowledge base of the period in which they
lived.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterNet: h...@skaliks.mail.net ac...@torfree.net l0n...@io.org
FidoNet: HP Skaliks (1:229/15)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Rocabado
> the Bible. You certainly have missed the point
>
> a. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. What is the Hebrew word for
> Homosexual? Is there one? There may not be one as they were not to be
> allowed to live long enough to be tallked about. The Old Testament
> specifically calls for the execution of anyone caught in a homosexual act.
just because one had sex with another of the same sex. Modern thinking
is more logical, and human than of those of the bible deity.
I
> am certainly not calling for this, but they should be banned from membership
> in a Christian Church, belive me i don't even want to be a christian, and even be close to
christian like yourself
>>and I certainly don't want them around children.
See!!! your ignorance, you don't know how many homos are allready near
your children, perhaps your minister in church is a closeted homo, one
of your children teachers may be a homo, o maybe your own brother is a
homo but you poor ignorant dont't know .
>>If
> they are around me they had better keep their hands off me.
Ha ha ha, do you think you are a hot sheat , and homos will try to tuch
your ass?
> The last one who
> tried to put his hands in my pants was in bed for a week. Next time it will
> be two weeks.You must be a really hot sheat, to be in bed one week!, i can inagine
all the sex you guys had in one week in bed.
>
> b. Is partually covered in point a. The Bible refers frequently to male-male
> and female-female relationships of a sexual nature as being sin. Even if the
> Bible doesn't use the word, it uses the concept and strickly and totally
> aligns it with sin and seperation from God.
I use the bible to wipe my ass, I don't fucking care what the bibles
says
Homofobia is a decease you can be cured.
พบส
Javier Rocabado
Dave Glenfield
this
>post.
>A) It was *mailed* to me, as well as posted publicly (like i might not
SEE the
>*fwiggin* thing) and
That's the way that my newsreading software works the followup, I didn't
know you don't like e-mail so I didn't delete your name from the cc. I
have deleted it this time.
>B) When I attempted to respond via e-mail, my response/follow failed,
due to
>the address being bogus.
>God help us all, the 'net is/has gone to He*l in a handbasket.....:
Bogus, hey man it shouldn't be bogus. Nope, I'm at the u of a, so
please try again and send a copy to the postmaster at the u of a saying
when you tried to get a letter through to me and what happened. I've
been wondering why I've not gotten any mail lately....
>
>You (Dave Clenfield (he of the bogus return address) ) wrote:
Nay that name is Dave Glenfield, you must've changed the G to a C by
mistake. Don't ask me how you did it either, cause I haven't any
idea...
>
>>>While you're at it, perhaps you could explain some of my previous
statements.
>
>
>Errrrr, Dave? Gotta reading prob? I'd suggest going BACK and reading
this
>again, k?
Yah yah yah, t'was the day after the Christmas festivities, He says as he
deletes what he's written. :)
>
>>>Such as:
>>>a) Why if the tilt of the axis were to be tilted one iota one way,
we'd all
>>>freeze, or why if it were to be tilted the other, that we'd all burn
to a
>>>crisp.
>
>> How much is an iota?
>
>Say WHAT!?!?!?!?! This is one of the most PITIFUL examples of avoiding
the
>subject/question I have ever SEEN!!!!
The reason I asked that was that there is some evidence that a few
billion years ago the earth was hit by a very large object. As a result
of that impact part of the matter was thrown back into orbit forming our
moon, an incident like that would have tilted our axis at least an iota.
>
>> It's beside the point anyway, as humans have
>> demonstrated an ability to thrive in freezing or ovenlike conditions.
>
>This is utter BS. You obviously have NO astronomical knowledge,
Wow, I'm always amazed that people whom I've not met can say what they do
or do not know about me. Were the conditions of the planet different
then they were a billion or so years ago, we'd have evolved differently.
NOR are you
>willing (obviously) to conSIDer the idea that this universe was NOT
created
>on pure chance,
Obviously you're wrong, I have considered the idea that there was a
creator type god - but I don't believe that there is any evidence that
one did. Nor have I seen any. BTW neither did my grandfather, who was a
C of E Vicar when he lived.
and deMANDS some sort of divine intervention
Who is it who's demands a divine intervention here, the universe or
yourself? As I see it the universe has a lot of gas and no brain, so I
don't see how the universe can demand any sort of intervention.
NOR are you
>willing to LEARN something about astronomy...... Oh, guhreat! What a
fwiggin
>draw is shaping up HERE!
Pray tell what is it that you have to teach about astronomy? That there
is some sort of clockmaker up there somewhere? Who made the clockmaker?
>
>>>b) Why if there were just 3 feet more (or inches, or any fwiggin' #
you
>>>choose to insert)
>>>between the celestial planets, would life be impossible as we
>>>know it. and.....
>
>> The earth, during its orbit, has a maximum distance of 152 million km
and
>> a minimum distance of 147 million km from the sun. Without this
movement
>> life as we know it wouldn't likely exist.
>
>Two things:
>a) You are not answering, actually you are aVOIDing, answering my
question,
You said that if the earth was a foot closer to the sun we'd fry and if
it was further away we'd freeze, I just pointed out that that's what's
happening every year. Hadn't you noticed the snow outside?
>and
>b) You are affirming what I am saying. I'm sure that is by accident :-)
How so? The people in Australia are not frying, neither are the people
of my city blocks of ice - getting close, but we wont actually freeze.:)
>
>>>c) Why if the earth wer a TAD closer to the sun, a tad FURther from
the sun,
>>>just a TAD larger or smaller, or if it rotated at ANY speed other than
what
>>>we have, life would NOT exist as we know it.
>
>What?!?!?! No questions about what a "TAD" might be? You're slipping,
DAVE.
Why would I bother, I know how much a tad is. As the earth revolves
around the sun we're getting a tad larger every mile we travel.
>
>> We'd have seasons, oh, wait we do have seasons....
>
>Actually, DAVE, we'd fry to a crisp, or freeze within minutes. But DAVE,
>don't trust MOI, try getting an astronomy (NOT an astrology) book, and
some
>of the questions will get answered for you. [ad hominum deleted]
No, although the mass of our planet has increased for quite some time, we
still have yet to fry or freeze. As the mass increases the orbit will
change/ has changed.
>
>And you conTINue to avoid the BASIC premise that this universe was NOT
created
>by chance.
I haven't avoided it, it's not a valid premise. Much as you don't like
the idea that this universe was created by chance, that's what is most
likely. Could a god have created the universe, sure if one existed and
wanted a universe one would have been created. But there is no evidence
that any such god exists.
Tell me, DAVE, who/whom creATED the gasses that resulted in what I'm
>sure you consider the 'Big Bang' time. Zeus for Heave's sakes? [ad
hominum deleted]
Check out Hawkin's _A_Brief_History_of_Time_. It does a much better job
then I could in this forum.
>
>> It would appear that yes, the earth is an example of chance. of all
the
>> worlds we're aware of only the earth can sustain life.
>
>WOW!!! What a coINCIDENCE! Not.
Yep, a coincidence. Nothing more, nothing less. Why does that seem to
upset you so? Please take note that I've not said that I don't believe
in God, I've said there is no evidence that one exists.
Dave Glenfield
says...
>dglenfie.@pop.srv.ualberta.ca (Dave Glenfield) wrote:
>>There is some evidence that the speed at which the earth rotates today
>>has not been a constant. The earth is much larger today than it was
500
>>years ago,
>Pray tell where did this added mass come from?
Never seen a shooting star eh? Every day tons and tons of dust and rock
fall to earth from orbit. The rock and dust have been orbiting the sun
for as long as the earth has, indeed the earth formed as a result of
gravitational forces acting on the dust and rock.
John A. Stanley
CHARLES JOHNSON <cha...@mci.newscorp.com> wrote:
>
>
>ni...@gate.net (Magenta!!) wrote:
>>Roger Connolly <bc...@scn.org> doth speak:
>>>Magenta!! wrote:
>>>> Roger Connolly <bc...@scn.org> doth speak:
>>>>
>>>> >Mike, If God is a Myth, how come many heathens come to know the Lord, but
>>>> >noone that I have ever heard of who knows the Lord ever becomes a
>>>> >heathen? Interesting..
>>>>
>(snip)
>>>>
>>If you say individuals who have the extreme religious faith you have
>>never leave their religion, that is probably correct. But guess what?
>>There are Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, and members of any number of
>>other religions who experience their beliefs to the same extent you
>>do, and would never deny their faith, despite your bigoted comment.
>>
>(snip)
>
>>>I pray that you and millions of others WILL
>>>understand before it is eternally too late. Even if I have earned the
>>>right to tell you, I don't think you are ready to listen.
>>
>>And I think that your religious fanaticism has blinded you to the
>>beauty of the world around you, a beauty that you cannot see since you
>>only see RED.
>>
>My $0,02
>
>You don't see many convicted rapist and murders on death row converting to
>any other religion but Christianity And it is amazing how many people
>statred to attend Christian Churches during Desert Storm.
You conveniently ignored the many convicts who join The Nation
of Islam.
--
John A. Stanley jsta...@gate.net
Dave Glenfield
>
>In article <4c917j$j...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
>dglenfie.@pop.srv.ualberta.ca says...
>
>>The proof that God exists is that other people exist....
>
>This is a completely incoherent statement. Have you been reading
>Berkeley or something?
No no, I'd been reading Hunter S. Thompson, and was flying on way too
much Xmas cheer. Gimme a break guys, everyone's entitled to a blond
moment now and then....
CHARLES JOHNSON
tk...@lainet.com (Thomas Klem) wrote:
>In article <peterdDK...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
>
>>Nor is there any diRECT evidence that proves the fwiggin' LIGHTS will
>>turn on, when you flick on the switch, eh? But I don't seen any of YOU
>>maroons wondering whether THAT might happen, eh?
>
>When one has flicked light switches in the past, light has appeared.
>There are no general and reproducible experiences that correspond to
>support the view that there is a diety.
Maybe not for you but when talking about faith(I am guessing) it is an
indivual thing. A chair that you have sat on for months or years has
developed your faith that it will support your weight. But if I sit in it
and it crashes then I have no faith in it. NOw is it the chair's fault?
NO, I expected to much form the chair.
>
>There are scientific explanations developed by people without pre-set
>agendas to explain the electrical and other phenomena involved. This
>does not apply to the deity proposed in Christianity or any other deities
>in other religions.
>
To make a battery you have to have certian things. A peice of magniesum, a
peice of copper and prefurably an strong acid solution. These things are
prerequisitets. With out them no battery. Did you fulfill the
prerequisites to find God. And there are very deffinate prerequisites.
>Sheesh, what a BUNCH of maroons.
>
>Funny, I always thought maroon was a nice color.
Is that a cocanut maroon?
>Thomas Klem tk...@lainet.com http://lainet3.lainet.com/~tklem
> If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he ever send me flowers?
Where do you think the flowers come from?.
HE also gives us fruits and nuts.
==========================================================================
Peter F. DeMos
>Never seen a shooting star eh? Every day tons and tons of dust and rock
>fall to earth from orbit. The rock and dust have been orbiting the sun
>for as long as the earth has, indeed the earth formed as a result of
>gravitational forces acting on the dust and rock.
You sir, need DRAStic, immediate help. You seem to have developed not only
the ability to dodge questions with BS answere, but to expound as fact maniacal
solutions.
The point WAS (no, not the top of your head) that there is NO WAY on God's
green earth that the development of life as we know could have been an
accident. Of course, YOU sir, seem to be able to dodge and dip all questions
regarding how does one exPLAIN the exACT situation/s necessary to sustain
life as we know it on earth, NOT Mars. There may be men on Mars, THAT is not
the ISsue. We exist in a very preCISE ordered universe. *MY* question is; HOW
did this come about? Dost thou TRULY believe it is all random?
Spare me, puhleeze.....
peterd
CHARLES JOHNSON
The last paragraph is a false assumption. Here you are acusing God of
doing something or not doing something when I sure you can't even tell me
how complex chemical structures are supposed to have just happened but yet
we cant reproduce them in the lab.
CHARLES JOHNSON
tk...@lainet.com (Thomas Klem) wrote:
>In article <4c98rl$e...@merlin.delphi.com>, cha...@mci.newscorp.com
>says...
>
>>You don't see many convicted rapist and murders on death row converting
>to
>>any other religion but Christianity And it is amazing how many people
>>statred to attend Christian Churches during Desert Storm.
>
>The reason why convicted rapists, murders, and other criminals "get
>religion" in prison is that they are more likely to get lenient treatment
>if they do.
Some maybe; would you be more lenient? I think not. And why not other
religions?
>Also, in times of crisis, many people will use religion as a crutch.
>This is hardly limited to Christianity in the United States.
>
True, but in the US, Christian Churches had more of an influx than any
other religion during Desert Storm.
Peter F. DeMos
wrote:
>>>The proof that God exists is that other people exist....
>>This is a completely incoherent statement. Have you been reading
>>Berkeley or something?
>No no, I'd been reading Hunter S. Thompson, and was flying on way too
>much Xmas cheer. Gimme a break guys, everyone's entitled to a blond
>moment now and then....
Gee, DAVE, how did I know you would end up backtracking and trying to refute
your statement. We all KNOW what you said, and FURTHERmore, 99% of us agree with
you in SOME fashion or other :-) God bless,
peter
Roger Connolly
> >Why not? Homosexuals have a better track record requarding the ability to
> >refrain from playing with children in a sexual fashion than the hetero
> >community does.
>
Duhhh... Really? Split the population into Heterosexual and Homsexual,
and then compare the numbers proportionately. Lord have mercy.
Barry O'Grady
:ray...@intersource.com (Ray Todd Sevens) wrote:
::It condems and call a sin MANY TIMES men having sex with men and women with
::women. If this is not the definition of homesexuality what is your
::definition.
:
:NO it doesn't. It condems the terrible heterosexual acts of pederasty and
:what is unnatural. For a gay it would be against nature to have sex wtih a
:women, just as for you and I it would be wrong to have sex with man. I
:happen to be hetero. Can't help it , I didn't choose it, thats how God
:created me. Just as he naturally created about 10% with same sex
:orientation. Always has, back to cave days see it in the drawings, as well
:as in other animals and even plants.
Does the same apply to those with interspecies desires?
:The sin is the false teaching making life a living hell for those whose only
:problem is YOU. And being born as God created them to be.
Royce Buehler
In article <WR8wmCBg...@netaxs.com>, neb...@netaxs.com (Barry Hofstetter) writes:
> since they are all man-made creations. In Genesis, what we do have is
> the creation of Adam and Even (male and female) and the institution of
> the heterosexual marriage order, with no correponding mention of the
> creation a "same-sex" order. Lack of support with a positive
> counter-example does not bode well for those who wish to find biblical
> support for homosexuality.
Ho-hum. Two chestnuts: the argument from silence, and our old
buddies "Adam and Steve".
Nowhere does the bible give a single example of a loving,
committed homosexual couple of whom it disapproves. The only
examples extant are of rapists (Genesis), male temple prostitutes
(1 and 2 Kings), and rutting idolaters (Romans). If God wanted to
condemn ordinary, pleasant homosexual couples, why on earth didn't
He come out and say so?
Lack of support with a negative example of *any* homosexual act,
other than those that would also have been forbidden for heteros,
does not bode well for those who wish to find biblical condemnation
for homosexuality.
As to Adam and Eve being a heterosexual couple: let us suppose
you are God. Let us suppose it is your intention to make a
bunch of heterosexual human beings and (maybe because you're
fond of good interior decoration?) a bunch of homosexual ones.
Now, which kind of couple are you going to start out with?
The pair that is capable of reproducing, right?
So whether God approves or disapproves of homosexuality, the
first couple would have been straight. The sexes of Adam and
Eve prove exactly zip about God's long-range intentions.
Better luck with the next supposedly biblical rationalization
for a sorry old prejudice.
--
Royce Buehler bue...@space.mit.edu (617)-253-9766
"He'd been with the force so long, he looked like a fifty-year-old
potato in a trick suit."
Barry Hofstetter
prog...@eagle.wbm.ca (Patrick Rogoschewsky) wrote:
> In article <25PvmCBg...@netaxs.com>, neb...@netaxs.com (Barry
> Hofstetter) wrote:
> >In article <progosch-271...@dial196206.wbm.ca>,
> >prog...@eagle.wbm.ca (Patrick Rogoschewsky) wrote:
> >> In article <4bsa6j$l...@netaxs.com>, neb...@netaxs.com (Barry
> Hofstetter) wrote:
[snip, snip here, snip, snip, there...]
> >> >An argumentum ex silentio never stands by itself, but isn't it sad that
> >> >God said nothing about that poor 10%, other than leave some passages
> >> >which are very clear except to those with a pro "same-sex" agenda?
> >> One could turn this around and say that these passages are very clear
> >> except to those with an anti-gay bias.
> >But then one would have to prove it, wouldn't one?
> Isn't that exactly what Hans has been doing for - well as long as I have
> been reading ths newsgroup.
Hans has been around since I started in this newsgroup, which is shortly
after it was created. However, I think it would be more accurate to say
that he has been arguing it, not that he has been proving it. Hi, Hans!
> >Simply because one thing is not clear does not mean that something else
> >also isn't. If you care to discuss any of those passages, I'd be glad to.
> This is true. But irrelevant. What I criticizing was using the concept
> of clarity to judge passages.
When people disagree on a particular passage, then the arguments in
support of one position or the other must be examined. Often, what is
at stake is the the theoretical agenda brought to the passage. Although
it is something of a cliche in hermeneutics, it is nonetheless true that
the hermeneutical goal tends to control the exegetical conclusions.
> While certain people claim that the codes against homosexuality are clear
> in Leviticus - others can also claim the same clarity in passages like
> Mark 9:1 or Mark 13:30. Why then is it appropriate to engage in
I personally have no problem at all with these passages - perfectly
clear when understood in the overall purposes Mark is trying to
communicate. What problem do you see?
> apologetic hermeneutics for one (Jesus's claiming the world would end in
> his generation) and inappropriate for the other (Leviticus regulations
> against homosexuality) - when on the the surface of things both passages
> are quite clear in what is being said.
Jesus didn't claim that the world would end in his generation. In the
case of the Levitical sexual codes, these are not part of the ceremonial
law but the moral. Somewhat artificial distinctions, but still
defensible.
> >To borrow something you said in another response: "10 points, redeemable
> >at the shop of your choice, for anyone who can identify the fallacy" in
> >Pat's argument above.
> Well if you read what you wrote above 'one thing being unclear doesn't
> mean that something else is unclear' is of course a fallcy - but that
> wasn't the point I was making. I was critiquing the concept of using 'on
> the surface of things - clarity'. But you seemed to have missed this.
Well, now that you've clarified it... However, all joking aside,
interpretation is not always as easy a thing as we would like. Often
times, people can't even interpret the messages they exchange properly.
How much harder do we have to work to interpret an ancient document such
as the Bible?
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
If it were true - as conceited shrewdness, proud of not being
deceived, thinks - that one should believe nothing which he
cannot see by means of his physical eyes, then first and foremost one
ought to give up believing in love.
- S. Kierkegaard
Barry Hofstetter
ha...@teleport.com (Hans-Michael Vermeersch) wrote:
> Barry Hofstetter (neb...@netaxs.com) wrote:
> : With regards to human sexuality, the overall teaching of the
> : Bible is clearly heterosexual and monogamous (the former is obvious, the
> : latter somewhat problematical).
> The "monogamous" assertion is more that problematic, it is outright
> false. You also ignore that the first generations of humans after Adam
> had to engage in incest in order to fulfill God's command, "Be fruitful."
That polygamy occurred among the patriarchs and certain royal families
of Judah and Israel does not mean that the entire biblical tradition
treats polygamy positively. Rather the opposite.
> : What statements there are concerning
> : same sex activity are hardly supportive of a positive view
> I know you don't accept David and Jonathan, but for the benefit of
> others, check out their story. (1 Sam 18:1ff, I Sam. 20:41, II Sam.
> 1:26) It was love at first sight. Intense. "Better than the love of
> women." Each loved the other as their own soul.
I see that someone else has answered this in fair amount of detail. Let
me add that ANE cultures had a tendency to use rather flowery and
hyperbolic language to describe relationships, including what we would
consider simply friendship in our rather emotionally impoverished
culture. Therefore, there is no need to understand the David and
Jonathan accounts of a homosexual relationship, and in fact no
interpreter until modern times has so understood it.
Barry Hofstetter
> Ray Todd sez:
> > Yes that includes me too, but I have the Lord in my
> >life, and am covered by the Lambs Blood.
> I do hope you are planning on taking a shower soon as that stuff starts
> to stink after a while. I didn't know that the Mithras cult was still as
> popular as it used to be. You do know that is where the reference comes
> from don't you?
And you do know, jpetrynn, that Mithraism was not even popular in the
West until the second century A.D., long after Christianity was well
established in the Roman Empire (see, for example Pliny's letter to
Trajan *On the Punishment of Christians*, c. 110/111 A.D.)? And that
the sacrifice symbolism of the NT is far better explained by the OT
background than by any long discredited attempt to find analogues in the
mystery religions? Don't worry, fellah. I have lots of references to
back up these assertions.
Magenta!!
>Some maybe; would you be more lenient? I think not. And why not other
>religions?
They do. Especially african-americans who turn to Islam.
>>Also, in times of crisis, many people will use religion as a crutch.
>>This is hardly limited to Christianity in the United States.
>True, but in the US, Christian Churches had more of an influx than any
>other religion during Desert Storm.
In the US, christianity is the dominant religion.
This does not indicate anything superior about christianity,
just the fact that the religion of an individual is greatly determined
by geography.
Peace & Love,
/| /| _ _ _ ___ "There are none so blind as
/ |/ ||_|/_ |_ |\ | | |\ they that will not see..."
/ || |\_>|_ | \| | |-\ --Jonathan Swift
Harassing E-Mail to my address may be posted to Usenet.
Magenta!!
>John Sanger writes, like a fwiggin' moron with:
>
>>>No, John. I belieeve the 'proof' is due from thee. YOU provide the proof that
>>>God does not exist, and I shall never darken your doorway again. Deal?
>
>>You are the one insisting that this mythical creature exists. It is up
>>to you to provide the proof absolute that such a diety does infact
>>exist and that that diety is the only one to exist.
>>Provide the proof as requested or get out of this newsgroup.
>
>Tell you what, oh John boy. Let's play a game. You may remember it. Then again,
>I'm assuming you had any sort of normal childhood which included having
>FRIENDS.
>
>It's easy. It's called: Did too, did not, did too. I'll start, k?
>
>Did too!
>
>Sheesh, what a maroon.
>
>peterd
Get a clue Peter. As one making the assertion that an entity exists,
the burden of proof lies entirely with you, not the one denying its
existence.
Here is an example:
Prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the one-eyed, one-horned,
flying purple eater does not exist.
You cannot, but by NOT proving it does NOT exist,
that does NOT prove that it DOES exist.
Peace & Love,
/| /| _ _ _ ___
/ |/ ||_|/_ |_ |\ | | |\
/ || |\_>|_ | \| | |-\
CHARLES JOHNSON
Javier Rocabado <J...@UVSG.com> wrote:
>> I will take your word for went the greek word for homosexual first appears in
>> the Bible. You certainly have missed the point
>>
>> a. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. What is the Hebrew word for
>> Homosexual? Is there one? There may not be one as they were not to be
>> allowed to live long enough to be tallked about. The Old Testament
>> specifically calls for the execution of anyone caught in a homosexual act.
>See how primitive an irrational thinking, to punish with a dead sentence
>just because one had sex with another of the same sex. Modern thinking
>is more logical, and human than of those of the bible deity.
>
>
> I
>> am certainly not calling for this, but they should be banned from membership
>> in a Christian Church,
>
>>>and I certainly don't want them around children.
>
>
>I use the bible to wipe my ass, I don't fucking care what the bibles
>says
>
>
>
>Homofobia is a decease you can be cured.
>
>
HOMOSEXUAL IS DESEASE AND YOU CAN BE CURED!
Hugh Young
>Mike Maddux wrote:
>> Since God is a myth, you can make him spout any hate filled
prejudice your
>> heart desires, can't you?
>>
>> Mike
>
>
>Mike, If God is a Myth, how come many heathens come to know the
Lord, but
>noone that I have ever heard of who knows the Lord ever becomes a
>heathen? Interesting..
I forget who it was said that monotheism is a better religion than
polytheism because 1 is the closest integer to 0, but once those
heathens were on the way, they wouldn't want to slip back, now, would
they?
--
Hugh Young ***************************
Pukerua Bay * Your overnight editor *
Nuclear-free * Text clarified *
Aotearoa / New Zealand * in the Antipodes *
* while you sleep: *
It's just under *5* years to the 21st century: * e-mail me for details *
I,II,III...MM: It isn't over till it's over. ***************************
Michael Fisher
In article <4cbv8o$7...@merlin.delphi.com> CHARLES JOHNSON wrote:
> I sure you can't even tell me
>how complex chemical structures are supposed to have just happened but yet
>we cant reproduce them in the lab.
Give the poor lab guys a break. It took nature 2.5 billion years to get a critter
tough enough to form a simple stromatolite, I suspect it will take a few years for
the lab guys to solve a problem that took nature a couple of billion years.
Michael Fisher
USING WHAT IS NOT
Thirty spokes converge at one hub;
What is not there makes the wheel useful.
Clay is shaped to form a vessel;
What is not there makes the vessel useful.
Doors and windows are cut to form a room;
What is not there makes the room useful.
Therfore, take advantage of what is there,
By making use of what is not.
Evan Kaiser
>
> jpet...@counsel.com wrote:
> >
> > Ah Peter,
> >
> > I can't see your deity, I can't smell it, I can't taste it, I can't feel
> > iot. It cannot be observed or measured in any known fashion. There is
> > no known test by which it can be said to exist. Any and all actions
> > attributed to it have been shown to have natural causes or explanations.
> > The factors you refer to with regard to the earth and the forms of life
> > that exist on it are exactly that. The conditions that existed and the
> > forms of life that developed under those conditions. We have yet to
> > examine other planets in any detail from which we can conclude that life
> > cannot form under any other conditions. We have had laboratory
> > experiments performed that would indicate that some forms of our life
> > could exist on some other planetary surfaces, namely Mars.
>
> You are so smart.
Too bad you aren't.
> Do think that if you can't smell or touch or see
> something that it doesn't exist?
No, but many theists claim that their deity can be "felt," so his
comments were appropriate.
> Apart from the fact that the chances of
> an unbelievably complex human being occuring by "accident" are comparable
> to the chances of a tornado coming through a junkyard and leaving a shiny
> new Boeing 777 behind,
Hey, that was in my high school statistics book too. However, it is a misleading
statistic. I just read a rather interesting book called The Physics of Star
Trek, and one of the chapters dealt with the possiblity of life on other
planets. Despite the fact that many conditions must be satisfied, it is actually
likely that there is life on other planets. The main conditions the author listed
are as follows:
1. the planet must orbit a star about the size of our sun;
2. it must be about as big as Earth;
3. it must have an atmosphere (if intelligent life is to form, oxygen in the
atmosphere is also required);
4. it obviously must have the elements required for life available on the
surface (carbon, nitrogen, etc.);
5. the planet must have a moon or other satellite which is massive enough
or close enough so that it creates tidal waves big enough to make tidal
pools for life to form, but the satellite can't be so big that it makes
huge tidal waves all the time or the tidal pools won't ever develop life;
6. the planet must be relatively free from big disasters long enough for life
to form.
Those are the main ones I can remember off the bat; there may be a few others
which I've overlooked. It's thought that there are around 400 billion stars
in our galaxy alone. Assuming that stars with planets are about as common
as we think they are, the author mentioned that about 1 billion of the stars
in our galaxy would have planets meeting the above conditions. Of those, isn't
it rather likely that more than one would develop life, especially since nature
rarely displays a phenomenon once? It is thought that, under ideal conditions,
intelligent life could evolve on a planet in about a billion years (it took
around 4.3 billion years on Earth due to a lack of oxygen in the atmosphere
for much of that time). Even though such a society would probably be far more
technologically advanced than we could imagine (assuming they survived), we
would probably never be able to meet them anyway due to relativity and the
impossiblity of warp drive due to prohibitive fuel constraints. Oh well.
Any thoughts?
> here is what someone smarter than you or I said:
>
> "My Religion consists of a humble admiration for the illimitable superior
> spirit who reveals himself to us in the slight details that we are able
> to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."
> This person obviously isn't as good at philosophical issues as you think.
> I guess Albert Einstein knew something you dont.
He wasn't very good at religion, though. Besides, he wasn't ALWAYS right.
You can't say that because he was a brilliant physicist that his answers
are law. For example, he didn't believe in the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle or chaos theory or one of those things ("God does not play dice."),
yet they are true.
Evan
Barry Hofstetter
> In article <Bk9wmCBg...@netaxs.com>,
> neb...@netaxs.com (Barry Hofstetter) wrote:
> > > Okay perhaps I can see this argument working against 'Bats as birds'. But
> > > why is calling a rabbit a cud-chewer a error against modern categories.
> > > Are you stating that they did not know what it meant to be a cud-shewing
> > > animal.
> > Essentially, yes. They see rabbits (at least, that's the animal we
> > think the Hebrew was referencing) chewing and not eating, and jump to a
> > natural conclusion. If you wish to consider this an error, then go
> > right ahead.
> This doesn't wash Barry. You, and other fundies, argue that the
> scriptures are divinely inspired and inerrant, essentially dictated,
> if you will, by the creator of the universe.
In the first place, you might want to be careful before labeling somebody.
Simply because one holds a position similar to a fundy does not mean
that one is a fundy. I personally hold to a dynamic theory of
inspiration, not a dictation theory.
> Since the creator of the rabbit wouldn't make this kind of mistake,
> it follows that either creationism is a false paradigm and there is
> no creator, or the scriptures are not inerrant and are the work of
> people working within the knowledge base of the period in which they
> lived.
Secondly, you have not answered my argument - you have only repeated
your own. You have an a priori understanding of what inerrency means
according to modern scientific categories. If the Bible does not fit
that mold, then poof! You have disproved the Bible. Wrong! All you
have proven is that the Bible does not fit your misconception of what an
inspired document should be, according to current cultural paradigms.
Magenta!!
>You don't see many convicted rapist and murders on death row converting to
>any other religion but Christianity
I find it rather odd that you consider prisoners a measure of your
faith, but your statement is incorrect.
Obviously you have never heard of Islam.
Many inmates, especially african-american ones,
convert to Islam in american prisons.
And of course, you forget prisons in the rest of the world,
where christianity is not the dominant religion.
>And it is amazing how many people
>statred to attend Christian Churches during Desert Storm.
And many, especially in Desert Storm, adopted Islam.
For many of those soldiers it was there first exposure to a religion
different from the one in which they were raised, not unlike the
numerous Korean and Vietnam war vets who converted to Buddhism.
Peace & Love,
Vortex
>ni...@gate.net (Magenta!!) wrote:
>>Roger Connolly <bc...@scn.org> doth speak:
>>>Magenta!! wrote:
>>>> Roger Connolly <bc...@scn.org> doth speak:
>>>>
>>>> >Mike, If God is a Myth, how come many heathens come to know the Lord, but
>>>> >noone that I have ever heard of who knows the Lord ever becomes a
>>>> >heathen? Interesting..
>>>>
>(snip)
>>>>
>>If you say individuals who have the extreme religious faith you have
>>never leave their religion, that is probably correct. But guess what?
>>There are Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, and members of any number of
>>other religions who experience their beliefs to the same extent you
>>do, and would never deny their faith, despite your bigoted comment.
>>
>(snip)
>>>I pray that you and millions of others WILL
>>>understand before it is eternally too late. Even if I have earned the
>>>right to tell you, I don't think you are ready to listen.
>>
>>And I think that your religious fanaticism has blinded you to the
>>beauty of the world around you, a beauty that you cannot see since you
>>only see RED.
>>
>My $0,02
>You don't see many convicted rapist and murders on death row converting to
>any other religion but Christianity And it is amazing how many people
>statred to attend Christian Churches during Desert Storm.
And it's just as amazing (actually, predictable, but you fundies seem
to like your exclamatory phrases) how fast church attendence fell off
after the war was over. People need reassurance during times of
crisis, and the socially acceptable place to go for that reassurance
is the Church. The world is full of Crisis Christians. As far as death
row, I consider it the same thing as a deathbed conversion. More
Crisis Christianity. If they really had any faith, they would have
been there every Sunday.
As a Wiccan High Priest, I have had to turn away several people for
apprenticeship or initiation into the coven because of this. Religion
should not become a haven for the insecure.
The reason that many Christians are so eager to see people scared into
their church and belief system is that when people are scared, they
are also vulnerable. Makes snatching those $$$ away so much easier.
Nearer thy checkbook to me, and all that...
>
>==========================================================================
>cha...@mci.newscorp.com |Proverbs 3:5,6 Trust in the LORD with all thine
>ch...@testla.netline.net |heart; and lean not on thine own understanding.
>user7...@aol.com |In all thy ways acknowledge HIM and HE shall
> |direct thy path.
>==========================================================================
######
#### The Goddess is
### vor...@in.net here,and She
## is organizing.
#
Ordinary Mind
>In article <4c3v6b$r...@maureen.teleport.com>,
>ha...@teleport.com (Hans-Michael Vermeersch) wrote:
>> Barry Hofstetter (neb...@netaxs.com) wrote:
>> : With regards to human sexuality, the overall teaching of the
>> : Bible is clearly heterosexual and monogamous (the former is obvious, the
>> : latter somewhat problematical).
>
>> The "monogamous" assertion is more that problematic, it is outright
>> false. You also ignore that the first generations of humans after Adam
>> had to engage in incest in order to fulfill God's command, "Be fruitful."
>
>That polygamy occurred among the patriarchs and certain royal families
>of Judah and Israel does not mean that the entire biblical tradition
>treats polygamy positively. Rather the opposite.
The "entire biblical tradition treats" slavery positively. BTW, what was
the function of alowing polygamy?
--
-Nguyen Tri Duc
A finger is needed to point at the moon,
but once the moon is recognized,
the finger is no longer necessary.
Ordinary Mind
[....]
>So whether God approves or disapproves of homosexuality, the
>first couple would have been straight. The sexes of Adam and
>Eve prove exactly zip about God's long-range intentions.
Early patriarchs practiced polygamy. What would have been the
"long range intention" of polygamy at that time? (Forgive me
for being rhetorical). Matrimony evolved into a couple (2 people)
relationship as these pastoral tribes evolved into an agriarian
society. Now with the advent of post industrial society (in the
west) and massive overpopulation, what might be the function of
alowing same-sex partnerships? (Or should we play in the
literalists'/legalists' ballpark forever?)
We have a significant precident for change/evolution in the NT example
of the Gentiles, the dietary codes, circumcision, and the very observance
of the law by Gentiles. The significance of Peter's Vision (cf Acts) was
not that there was scriptural authority for the change - although SOME
prophesy certainly could be found, given the propincity for relying on OT
prophesy as epistemological basis for establishing Jesus as the Jewish
Messiah. No, the direct experience of God by a person of authority was
all that was necessary to effect the change. My point is that we are
certainly NOT CONFINED in our efforts to establish the legitamacy of
same-sex relationships through a method wholely dependant on extant
Pauline Leters ("inspired" or otherwise).
We certainly did not rely upon NT documents in outlawing slavery. If we
have become bogged in a legalist frame of reference concerning that issue
than all christians would certainly have migrated to the South. As it is,
we have the liberal thinking Quakers to thank for their activism in
supporting the emancipation of America's Black people. I dare suggest
asking the Quakers (or someone like them in the way of relying upon
"The Spirit" for direction in these matters) what they now think of
gay/lesbian relationships.........but wait until John Paul II croaks
before asking the Pope....Jeze, they are just now getting around to
apologizing over the Galelio affair.
Barry O'Grady
:In article <4bq7qv$5...@nntp208.reach.com: jpet...@counsel.com writes:
:
::As for the Bible, I have read it. It is an interesting book. Much like
::the Illiad and the Odessey, it has one foot in fact and the other in
::fiction. I don't doubt that it has some moral value to you but it is of
::no interest to me. Have you read the Lotus Sutra? It contradicts a lot
::of what you seem to believe.
:
:Fiction my foot. Try looking again. If you really want to look into the
:trueth and believeablity of the Bible then get Josh McDowell's book evidence
:that demands a verdict. He covers the subject a lot better than I can, but
:the bottom line is that the Bible is externally a well documented book for
:being true.
How can you use a book of fiction to prove another book of fiction?
Barry
Barry O'Grady
:In article <4bq71i$5...@nntp208.reach.com: jpet...@counsel.com writes:
::From: jpet...@counsel.com
::Subject: Re: Good news to the question of Homosexuality
::Date: 27 Dec 1995 01:20:50 GMT
:
::Ray Todd sez:
::: Yes that includes me too, but I have the Lord in my
:::life, and am covered by the Lambs Blood.
:
::I do hope you are planning on taking a shower soon as that stuff starts
::to stink after a while. I didn't know that the Mithras cult was still as
::popular as it used to be. You do know that is where the reference comes
::from don't you?
:
:I know the term is not directly from the Bible, but as usual you are majoring
:in the minors. The point is that everyone is a sinner according to the
:scritures. (or are you going to argue this too) As a Christian I have been
:saved from going to hell by Jesus's sacrifice.
I am not a sinner. Sin is a religious concept and I am not religious.
I have been saved from hell by the fact that hell does not exist.
Barry
Ray Todd Sevens
>Homofobia is a decease you can be cured.
Homosexuality is a disease that can be cured.
>พบส
Dave Glenfield
>
>>Never seen a shooting star eh? Every day tons and tons of dust and
rock
>>fall to earth from orbit.
>You sir, need DRAStic, immediate help. You seem to have developed not
only
>the ability to dodge questions with BS answere, but to expound as fact
maniacal
>solutions.
Ahhh, I see the problem I'm having in trying to argue with you. What I
see as reasonable you view as maniacal, well that's not too surprising
comming from someone who seems to think that the bible is the word of
god. It is kinda disapointing to find that yet again a brain dead
fundie spews and spews and spews.... I didn't react to your use of
personal insults at first, but don't you have the brains to realize that
that only weakens your own arguements.
>Spare me, puhleeze.....
I will, continue to live in your cave dear boy.
Roger Connolly
>
> Ah Peter,
>
> I can't see your deity, I can't smell it, I can't taste it, I can't feel
> iot. It cannot be observed or measured in any known fashion. There is
> no known test by which it can be said to exist. Any and all actions
> attributed to it have been shown to have natural causes or explanations.
> The factors you refer to with regard to the earth and the forms of life
> that exist on it are exactly that. The conditions that existed and the
> forms of life that developed under those conditions. We have yet to
> examine other planets in any detail from which we can conclude that life
> cannot form under any other conditions. We have had laboratory
> experiments performed that would indicate that some forms of our life
> could exist on some other planetary surfaces, namely Mars.
You are so smart. Do think that if you can't smell or touch or see
something that it doesn't exist? Apart from the fact that the chances of
an unbelievably complex human being occuring by "accident" are comparable
to the chances of a tornado coming through a junkyard and leaving a shiny
new Boeing 777 behind, here is what someone smarter than you or I said:
"My Religion consists of a humble admiration for the illimitable superior
spirit who reveals himself to us in the slight details that we are able
to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."
I guess Albert Einstein knew something you dont.
Nathan Hand
: jpet...@counsel.com wrote:
: >
: > I can't see your deity, I can't smell it, I can't taste it, I can't feel
: > iot. It cannot be observed or measured in any known fashion. There is
: > no known test by which it can be said to exist. Any and all actions
: > attributed to it have been shown to have natural causes or explanations.
: > The factors you refer to with regard to the earth and the forms of life
: > that exist on it are exactly that. The conditions that existed and the
: > forms of life that developed under those conditions. We have yet to
: > examine other planets in any detail from which we can conclude that life
: > cannot form under any other conditions. We have had laboratory
: > experiments performed that would indicate that some forms of our life
: > could exist on some other planetary surfaces, namely Mars.
: You are so smart. Do think that if you can't smell or touch or see
: something that it doesn't exist? Apart from the fact that the chances of
: an unbelievably complex human being occuring by "accident" are comparable
: to the chances of a tornado coming through a junkyard and leaving a shiny
: new Boeing 777 behind, here is what someone smarter than you or I said:
This argument is so mind-bogglingly stupid that I will not even
lower myself with a response. I'll simply recommend you to read
talk.origins where you can be well and truly toasted for saying
something so totally devoid of any intelligent thought.
: "My Religion consists of a humble admiration for the illimitable superior
: spirit who reveals himself to us in the slight details that we are able
: to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."
:
: I guess Albert Einstein knew something you dont.
----------<quoting Chris Ho-Stuart>----------
Einstein himself was understandably angry at those who dishonestly
cite his beliefs as support of theism. Einstein's own words on this
subject (as quoted from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", Eds
H. Dukas and B. Hoffman, Princeton University Press) are as follows:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied
this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in
me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded
admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it.
-----------------<end quote>-----------------
Of course, I couldn't give two squats what Albert Einstein said
regarding theism anyway. My theistic beliefs are not controlled
by the opinions of a physicist. Authority in one field does not
make you an expert in other fields.
--
Make a contribution and you'll get a better seat /-----------------
Bow to Leper Messiah /--------------------------/ If you don't like
--------------------/ what I have to say then pay me & I'll go away
Barry Hofstetter
prog...@eagle.wbm.ca (Patrick Rogoschewsky) wrote:
> In article <30E011...@scn.org>, Roger Connolly <bc...@scn.org> wrote:
> Oh but you really must not have looked too hard. Of the top of my head:
> Joseph McCabe (Monk and priest) later saw the light and became an ardent
> critic of theism and Christianity, J F Till (was a minister with the
> church of christ I believe) but he now publishes the magazine Skeptical
> Review exposing many errors contained in the bible, Dan Barker
> (fundamentalist preacher) - but saw the light of reason - now works for
> FFRF and has a book published outlining the various problems with
> Christianity and theism - and by the way he is Mensa member. These are
> of course are just some notable figures.
Oh, this is a wonderful argument. Should I start a counter-list of all
the atheists and agnostics of note who have converted to Christianity?
Might I suggest that such lists prove nothing, accept that intelligence
and education might have less to do with conversion than other factors?
Evan Kaiser
>
> Evan Kaiser <core...@nwu.edu> wrote:
> >Roger Connolly wrote:
> >>
> >> jpet...@counsel.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Ah Peter,
> >> >
> >
> there is only 1 that has the charactists needed to have a solar system
> that we have found and that solar system does not have a planet that
> closely resembles earth. I think that kncks your 1 in 400 theory out of
> the ball park.
> Uh, no it doesn't. The only reason we can't tell if all those stars have planets
or not is because our sensor technology isn't nearly good enough. In the history
of the universe, there must have been plenty of stars that went supernova, which
would make planets common. Please don't try to shoot down theories because you don't
know the limits of our present technology.
Evan
Barry Hofstetter
tk...@lainet.com (Thomas Klem) wrote:
> In article <9vOvmCBg...@netaxs.com>, neb...@netaxs.com says...
> Since there is no evidence to suggest that "evil spirits' actually exist,
> it makes no sense to even discuss them in terms of causes. It would be
> no different than doing the following.
And what might you suggest as evidence to prove that non-corporeal
entities exist?
Brian Westley
...
>This is utter BS. You obviously have NO astronomical knowledge,
Hee, hee! This from someone who apparently doesn't know that
the earth's orbit is an ellipse (since he claims life couldn't
exist on earth if the distance to the sun was changed by even a
little bit; it changes by millions of miles through the year).
---
Merlyn LeRoy
rwhi...@ix.netcom.com
>> First, there is a difference between the one who follows the rituals and
>> the ones who truely know the Lord. The "Christians" who get converted
>> back to other religions were never truely Christians to begin with.
False. I was a born-again, blood-bought, spirit-baptized,
tongue-talking, lay-hands-and-heal-them, hyperPentecostal to make
Falwell and Robertson look like liberal freethinkers... you seem to
base your comment on some sort of Calvinist "once-saved-always saved"
that says if you REALLLLLLLy know the Lord you'll never go away, but
IF you DO go away, you "probably" didn't get the real thing to begin
with. You're talking from a textbook. I'm talking from
experience.
Ray Whiting
******************************************************************
* Rev. Ray Whiting // rwhi...@ix.netcom.com *
* New Thought Metaphysical minister/practitioner *
* Unity not Uniformity; Diversity not Division *
******************************************************************
Magenta!!
>The point WAS (no, not the top of your head) that there is NO WAY on God's
>green earth that the development of life as we know could have been an
>accident. Of course, YOU sir, seem to be able to dodge and dip all questions
>regarding how does one exPLAIN the exACT situation/s necessary to sustain
>life as we know it on earth, NOT Mars. There may be men on Mars, THAT is not
>the ISsue. We exist in a very preCISE ordered universe. *MY* question is; HOW
>did this come about? Dost thou TRULY believe it is all random?
IS your USE of THE shift KEY random?
You ARE thinking BACKWARDS. Life AS we KNOW it IS life AS we KNOW it
BEcause of THE way THE universe DEVELOPED. The UNIVERSE developed IN a
preCISE orderly MANNER because IT was A gradual BUILD up OVER time,
NOT all CREATED at ONCE from SOME divine PLAN.
>Spare me, puhleeze...
You certainly have been spared from the burden of logical thought.
CHARLES JOHNSON
Evan Kaiser <core...@nwu.edu> wrote:
>Roger Connolly wrote:
>>
>> jpet...@counsel.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Ah Peter,
>> >
>
I don't know how many stars can be seen from earth but of all of the stars
there is only 1 that has the charactists needed to have a solar system
that we have found and that solar system does not have a planet that
closely resembles earth. I think that kncks your 1 in 400 theory out of
the ball park.
rwhi...@ix.netcom.com
>>พบส
No matter how you spell it, you're wrong!
Religion and medicine are two separate schools.
Religion can't invent new disease based on doctrine, nor can it
intelligently insist upon calling something a disease when it has been
shown by those who know (Medicine) that it isn't a disease. The
minds that would call homosexuality a disease are the same minds that
call epilepsy "demon-possession".
Medicine finally realized that homosexuality is specifically NOT a
disease and that Religion was incorrect about this issue.
No one skilled in the medical profession today would attempt to make
the outlandish claim made here.... at least not from a medical
perspective. (Granted, some doctors are funda-gelical Christians and
they have personal convictions about the matter, but NOT from a
medical viewpoint.)
Apuleius
alt.politics.homosexuality:
换That polygamy occurred among the patriarchs and certain royal families
换of Judah and Israel does not mean that the entire biblical tradition
换treats polygamy positively. Rather the opposite.
换> I know you don't accept David and Jonathan, but for the benefit of
换culture. Therefore, there is no need to understand the David and
换Jonathan accounts of a homosexual relationship, and in fact no
换interpreter until modern times has so understood it.
There's no need to read homosexuality into the David and Johnathan
account, to be sure. But I note that if the "dogs" passage mentioned
here from Kings does indeed refer to male temple prostitutes, then it
would seem the ancient Jews were as heavily involved in at least some
aspects of homosexual relations as their heathen neighbors.
I wouldn't doubt that Solomon had his little boys as well as his
little girls, and David likewise. They being heterosexual would have
sought immature or otherwise effeminate partners.
I think the male temple prostitutes catered to the heterosexual
population who wanted variety, or whatever, or who resorted to
effeminate males because of a shortage of females.
I don't know the ages of David and Johathan, but if they did have a
sexual relationship, I wouldn't describe it as homosexual unless they
were both quite mature and masculine.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Pink Swastika may be ordered from
Interviews & Speaking Engagements
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Vladimir Shahidjanjan
The worst place for a gay to live in is Russia. They can get fired,be
picked on at the university. To make a gay's life better and easier, to
make the society accept them, I am writing a book on gay and lesbian
sexuality,talk about these issues on radio and TV. I am a Moscow State
University professor.
I am looking for advice on the best way to write this book, which will be
called "Me+Me". This stands for "looking for one of my kind".
I want to have answers for the following questions:
What is the best way to illustrate it: with comics or color photographs?
Do you think there are any people outside Russia who would be willing to
translate and publish this book?
Will it be interesting for you to read about peculiarities of the Russian
gay community?
When you read such a book, are you looking for answers on questions such
as: how to find a lover, how to be faithful, how to support the
relationship with the one you love?
Are you comfortable with being gay? What do you need to feel comfortable?
Have you discussed gay issues with your friends/relative? Did they
understand you?
Many people feel lonely and think that nobody needs them. HAve you
thought about trying to understand other people better?
Do your way of living, your profession, your interests, etc. match your
sexual orientation? Were they determined by it?
Shortly about myself. I'm in mature age. I have a dog. I love circus,
movies, music. I have many students. I'm well known among gays in Moscow
and Russia.
My address is Russia 107014, Moscow, P.O.B. 1001, Vladimir Shahidjanjan.
The phone is +7(095) 269-4180.
dion...@infinet.com
Thomas Klem (tk...@lainet.com) said:
}In article <4c6f7m$7...@horus.infinet.com>, dion...@infinet.com says...
}>} -- to make a human being (even we don't understand
}>} the complexity of ourselves
}>} we are just beginning to understand DNA structures ,for
}>} instance)
}Interestingly enough, what we have learned about gene structure in all
}classes of organisms except for eubacteria suggests strongly that
[snip]
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
"Beware the fury of the patient man" -- John Dryden
John A. Stanley
CHARLES JOHNSON <cha...@mci.newscorp.com> wrote:
>HOMOSEXUAL IS DESEASE AND YOU CAN BE CURED!
There is no evidence to support this.
--
John A. Stanley jsta...@gate.net
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>>Sorry but your spew (the existence of God )is just not valid. Provide the
>>absolute proof that your diety exists and is the only diety to exist or get
>>out of this newsgroup.
>No, John. I belieeve the 'proof' is due from thee. YOU provide the proof that
>God does not exist, and I shall never darken your doorway again. Deal?
Occam's Law suggests that the burden of proof rests on you, Peter.
Should you disagree, kindly provide the proof that Shiva, Kali et al do
not exist, or turn Hindu.
Oh, and the answer to your questions is "self selection". Were the
factors you mention not suitable for life, no one would be here to remark
on them. The fact that we are here is implicitly predicated on the conditions
for life being met, and therefore we cannot make any reasonable statements
on the apparent probability or improbability of those predicates.
- Tony Q.
---
Tony Quirke, Journeyman Semiotician at Arms, Wellington, New Zealand.
"And when women do not need to live through their husbands and children,
men will not fear the love and strength of women, nor need another's
weakness to prove their own masculinity."
- Betty Friedan, _The Feminine Mystique_
Jim Steingrobe
> The only person who could fall for something as cheesy as McDowell's
> so-called apologetics is a "true-believer" who wouldn't know an
> intelligent argument if it came up and hit them in the face.
The beauty of your foolish ways is that you speak the truth, at least
here in this paragraph. You tell me, what is worse, a true believer who
would not know an arguement if it hit them in the face or a mocking non
believer who when he sees Jesus face to face will realize just how foolish he
is. For some of us it is an easy choice.
Bill Pursell
Joe Burke <joe...@zeus.jersey.net> wrote:
> How intelligent do you have to be to build a bird house?
> How smart do you have to be to build a house?
> Now who can build and program a super computer?
>
> You'll agree it will take someone very, very intelligent...
No, I wouldn't agree. All it takes is a few years of
school. It's education that's key, not intelligence.
Most people have enough intelligence to be able
to build and program a computer, they just lack the
knowledge.
> What kind of intelligence will it take to create
> -- millions of suns and planets
> -- to make a human being
> -- to create the laws of physics, the chemicals, the
> complex rock structures...
> Do I have to go further???
Yes. You have to show that the things you describe were
actually created. That they currently exist does not
imply that they were created, and certainly not that
they were created by a conscious entity of any sort.
> According to you, it takes more intelligence to build the bird house
> than it took to make the entire universe...
> does that make sense?
Not really. But then, only the straw man atheist who
exists in your head believes that.
Bill Pursell
Will Christie
gay politics, not verbal battles between striaght and gay religious fundamentalists, straight fundamentalists and 'liberal' gay christians,
all the above and athiests...I must have certainly missed some possible
combinations!
The bottom line for me is that I was born gay, knew it when I was 4,
KNOW it is a beautiful way to love another person, and dont let some
verses in an ancient book destroy MY LIFE! But I realize most folks
seem to need a recipe to live their lives, have to feel "saved", etc.
Enjoy your little battles. I suggest, though, that words won't change a
thing. My fundamentalist christian parents only changed dramatically
when they discovered I was gay, and found this more "real" than some
ranting moron like Pat Robertson on TV or a local version. They werent
so buried within a religious paradigm that they had lost their
sight. I don't see that often here, where the fundies proclaim the
same glib message (just a coverup for prejudice...) about
following the rules and being saved (of course, this is easy for them
being hetero, while conveniently we serve as a wonderful scapegoat
and spiritual "project" for reclamation). To the gay readers, do you really
want to be their "project", making points with their concept of god,
like a good bird dog, breaking your gay neck and bringing you to
this barbaric conceptual being in their mouth?
Well, time to move on....when you live in San Francisco, who has
time for these pious idiots.
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>You don't see many convicted rapist and murders on death row converting to
>any other religion but Christianity
In America. In Saudi Arabia and the like, they become fervantly Muslim.
Strange that...
>And it is amazing how many people statred to attend Christian Churches
>during Desert Storm.
Or synagogues in Israel. Or mosques in Saudi Arabia.
Strange that...
- Tony Q. (It's not the ethnocentricism I mind, it's the blind aggressive
belief in the power of ignorance...)
Ray Todd Sevens
>From: ni...@gate.net (Magenta!!)
>Subject: Re: Good news to the question of Homosexuality
>pet...@netcom.com (Peter F. DeMos) doth speak:
>>The point WAS (no, not the top of your head) that there is NO WAY on God's
>>green earth that the development of life as we know could have been an
>>accident. Of course, YOU sir, seem to be able to dodge and dip all questions
>>regarding how does one exPLAIN the exACT situation/s necessary to sustain
>>life as we know it on earth, NOT Mars. There may be men on Mars, THAT is not
>>the ISsue. We exist in a very preCISE ordered universe. *MY* question is; HOW
>>did this come about? Dost thou TRULY believe it is all random?
>IS your USE of THE shift KEY random?
>You ARE thinking BACKWARDS. Life AS we KNOW it IS life AS we KNOW it
>BEcause of THE way THE universe DEVELOPED. The UNIVERSE developed IN a
>preCISE orderly MANNER because IT was A gradual BUILD up OVER time,
>NOT all CREATED at ONCE from SOME divine PLAN.
Talk about a man with faith. This guy actually has faith in the concept of
the Universe happening at random. This takes more faith to believe that any
Christian I know has ;-)
Dave Glenfield
ray...@intersource.com says...
>
>In article <30E9BD...@UVSG.com> Javier Rocabado <J...@UVSG.com>
writes:
>
>>Homofobia is a decease you can be cured.
>
>Homosexuality is a disease that can be cured.
>
In spite of all the evidence against such a possibility.
>>พบส
>
Apuleius
alt.politics.homosexuality:
»» 1) As I have argued elsewhere (without citing any support, since
»» I don't have any, but I invite anyone to give
»» counter-evidence), rape seems to run along the lines of sexual
»» preference. This would suggest that the men of the town in
»» Genesis were indeed homosexuals when they were not intent on
»» violating the hospitality code by abusing strangers.
So you think there were no women or children in Sodom except for Lot's
family? If you read the story, it says every man, from the oldest to
the youngest, participated. I can't quite comprehend the intent of
your sentence. Germans I know often use "when" when they speak and
are translating "wenn = if". Did you intend "if they were not intent
on violating the hospitality"?
And if you read the story of Gibeah, you'll find it says that your
"homosexuals" wanted to "know" the Levite but settled for his
concubine enstead.
It would seem that the ancient Jews and Sodomites were, if not
heterosexual, bisexual in their interests.
»» 2) Please cite the references from 1 and 2nd Kings. I have most
»» often seen the discussion centering on the terminology in
»» Leviticus. A quick check of Boswell's *Christianity, Social
»» Tolerance, and Homosexuality* reveals that he doesn't even
»» have a discussion on Kings worthy of citation in the indices.
I've given the chapters and verses here before, but not the Hebrew or
Greek.
»» 3) Pay attention to Paul's flow of discourse leading up to Rom
»» 1:25-26. He is listing sins which result from the denial of
»» of the true God (Rom 1:18), and which are symptomatic not only
»» of that denial but of God's judgment on those who deny.
»» Idolatry is a primary example, quite relevant in the ancient
Apparently you consider philosophy one of your "sins"? Read Romans
1:21 "they stultified themselves through speculating to no purpose..."
"Stultifying themselves" is in the category of "mutual degradation of
their bodies".
»» world, but sins of a sexual and social nature are also listed
»» by Paul.
Where is "stultifying" defined as a sin in the bible?
Peter F. DeMos
>Get a clue Peter. As one making the assertion....
blah, blah, fwiggin blah....
Get a CLUE, magenta?!?!?!?!?! Spare me, maGENta!!!!!! Go swallow icycles,
and THEN tell me about one-eyed, purple eaters, or what ever.
You freaks from alt.atheism, or whatEVER, always slay me. Goodness GRACious,
goofball. Do us all a favor, and go get a life. Sheesh, what a maroon.
Peace & Love (ain't THAT a rich one from a fwiggin atheist goofball)
peterd
PS Pat Robertson for Prez! I *was* gonna write in Nixon, until you goofballs
really ticked me off. And let's see, how about Jim Dobson for VP. Sheesh,
what a maroon.
H.P. Skaliks
wfc...@sylvester.srv.pacbell.com (Will Christie) wrote:
>
> The bottom line for me is that I was born gay, knew it when I was 4,
While I don't dispute your statement, Will, that really _is_
uncommonly young for this realization. At age 4, I don't think I
knew that there were two kinds of people, let alone such nuances as
possible sexual combinations. <g>
> Well, time to move on....when you live in San Francisco, who has
> time for these pious idiots.
People in Toronto don't have time for the fundamentalist crackpot
element either, but they seem to have hijacked this newsgroup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
InterNet: h...@skaliks.mail.net ac...@torfree.net l0n...@io.org
FidoNet: HP Skaliks (1:229/15)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
>There are to many things that have to happen in exact order for life to
>happen by chance. And none of the happen stance follows directly from the
>orher. Like the tilt of the earth's axis.
*sigh*
It's been covered exhaustively, but there are three major flaws with this
"the conditions of life are too improbable to be an accident" argument.
Let us state the argument as the following statements:
i, A if and only if B and C and D and E... where A is life, and B, C, D
etc arbitrary astronomical conditions.
ii, P(B), P(C) and P(D) are low.
iii, THEREFORE (from i and ii) P(A) is also low, being *less than* P(B) x
P(C) x P(D)
iv, A
v, THEREFORE (from iii and iv) choice is implied rather than random
selection because of the low probability of A.
The three major flaws are as follows:
1, Statement (i) above is unproven, and quite possibly unprovable. One
can only make this comment about life as we know it, rather than life per se.
2, Statement (ii) above is an invalid assumption, given that it attempts
to isolate P(B), P(C) etc from the only available evidence, that of statement
(iv). If A then P(A) = 1, and therefore P(B) = 1, P(C) = 1, P(D) = 1 etc.
Stating that these are "objectively" improbable is incorrect. We have only
one fact, that we exist, and this fact implicitly makes the statement that
the conditions necessary for our form of life already exist. Only if we have
a chance to make comparisons between actual outcomes can we make assumptions
about P(B), P(C), P(D) etc.
If they did not exist, we would not here to raise the question.
3, Statement (v) above is invalid in that it confuses P(A), the supposed
probability of A in one "trial", with the supposed probability of A in N
trials, where N is indeterminate. Whereas P(A) might be very low, we cannot
state that A is improbable until we are aware of the *number* of trials P(A)
applies to. If, for example, P(A) was 1 in 10**12, but there were 10**13
universes, A would be highly probable. Given that we have no way to judge
how many universes exist without life, we cannot state A is improbable
(where "exist" includes possible universes outside our knowledge due to
limits of space and time).
- Tony Q.
dion...@infinet.com
}*MY* question is; HOW
}did this come about? Dost thou TRULY believe it is all random?
Why not? Ever looked at the numbers? How many stars are there? (Too many
to count.) How many have planets? (Three are known to. We've detected
them. But, its rather likely that those aren't the only three.) And how
many have the right conditions for life? Why are we on Earth? With all
those other locations... Seems like a random choice to me. (Especially
considering the much nicer star-scape available on 15-98355574beta II.)
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
An effective way to deal with predators is to taste terrible.
Ray Todd Sevens
> Nowhere does the bible give a single example of a loving,
> committed homosexual couple of whom it disapproves. The only
> examples extant are of rapists (Genesis), male temple prostitutes
> (1 and 2 Kings), and rutting idolaters (Romans). If God wanted to
> condemn ordinary, pleasant homosexual couples, why on earth didn't
> He come out and say so?
He called for all homosexuals to be put to death. This includes "loving
commited homosexuals" I can't see of a much worse comdemnation.
dion...@infinet.com
}North America, I assume, would be included in Gen 1:1 without being
}specifically mentioned. Your other examples do not support your point,
}since they are all man-made creations.
All right, get technical. <g> So where does Jupiter get it's mention?
Ditto Mars. (Mars being the more pressing as its the 2nd candidate of
off-Earth colonization.)
}In Genesis, what we do have is
}the creation of Adam and Even (male and female) and the institution of
}the heterosexual marriage order, with no correponding mention of the
}creation a "same-sex" order. Lack of support with a positive
}counter-example does not bode well for those who wish to find biblical
}support for homosexuality.
Considering our low numbers, I fail to see why we'd be given the fair
shake publicity-wise. Simply because something isn't specifically
mentioned in the Bible, doesn't mean it didn't exist back then. Case in
point: I posit that Eve was a brunette. Your task: Prove that she really
had red hair.
}> They had a right to the anger. Inviting strangers into cities sans
}> approval was a "no, no". Lot wasn't even a resident of the city, which
}> meant he'd committed a grave error. Those angels were just as likely to
}Could you please cite a reference in support of your argument? My
}understanding of the hospitality code in the ANE is a bit different than
}this, but I am willing to be corrected.
Try Genesis 13. Lot went to the city after an argument. He did not live
there.
}I can think of no historical examples in which such took place.
}Rape yes - of the women. Straight men seem to find more satisfying to
}beat other men to a pulp rather than rape them.
That was a supposition on my part. But, it does happen today. I agree that
the "Juiceman Judgement" (apologies to Mr. Crodich) would be more in
keeping with the primal urges as reguards punishment.
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
Lizzie Bordon took an axe,
And plunged it deep into the VAX.
When she saw what she had done,
She turned and hacked apart the Sun.
dion...@infinet.com
I wrote:
}>Why not? Homosexuals have a better track record requarding the ability to
}>refrain from playing with children in a sexual fashion than the hetero
}>community does.
}Duhhh... Really? Split the population into Heterosexual and Homsexual,
}and then compare the numbers proportionately. Lord have mercy.
And after you get the numbers, take a look at the percentages.
--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key
And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...
Ever stop to think and forget to start again?
Peter F. DeMos
>This is false. Go to an astronomy textbook can look up nutation.
>Nutation is the process where the tidal forces change the tilt of
>the Earth's axis. The tilt varies from 21 to 24 degrees. This process
>is cyclic with a period 41,000 years.
etc, etc, etc.....
and....
>>b) Why if there were just 3 feet more (or inches, or any fwiggin' # you
>>choose to insert) between the celestial planets, would life be impossible
>>as we know it. and.....
>Again, this is false. This distances between the planets vary all
>the time.
Puhleese.... NEED I explain I am addressing variations from the NORM, and not
any momentary situation? I guess I DO with atheists, angry political
homosexals, etal.....
Otay, I'm addressin the *NORM*/*AVERAGE*, which might change DRAStically
on a daily, or momentary basis. Does this help? What? No? Why am I not
surprised? Hehehehe.
>Your 'physics' questions demonstrate that you have very little knowledge
>of astronomy. You seem to have some confusion over the causes of
>the Ice Ages, nutation, procession, and the changes in the Earth's
>orbit. You believe that their effect on life on Earth is orders of
>magnitude greater than it actually is.
etc, etc, etc.....
Puhleeze, see above......
>All your premises are false, you have not shown in away way that
>the orbits of planets and the tilt of the Earth's axis effected the
>development of life on Earth. Your 'coincidences' do not exist.
>Observations clearly demonstrate that the restrictions you give on
>the development of life on Earth are false.
etc, etc, etc....
You are just one more atheist in DESperate need of help. I will pray for you.
Tonight, and every night for two weeks. No, really. No need to thank me :-)
peterd