Re: Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?
RedDog
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.flame.faggots/browse_thread/thread/be1f372eb33c5f08
Sniper .308
You call your forgery proof faggot, nah, this is proof:
Damn those pesky IDENTICAL NNTP's, eh Blobby? Google is not your
friend, suckboy.
Seriously Blobby we all know you love shit eating and you are just
projecting that point on to others, so why don't you tell us why you
love it so much
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.flame.faggots/msg/6f75da6958c7630e...
From: "Sniper.308" <sniper.308...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.flame.faggots
Subject: Shit on me, please.
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:44:29 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 3
Message-ID: <1190605469....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.220.233.230
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1190605469 21079 127.0.0.1 (24 Sep 2007
03:44:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 03:44:29 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.8.1.7) Gecko/20070914 Firefox/2.0.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
From: bobandcarole <bobandcarole...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.security.pgp,bc.politics
Subject: Re: Is cappy a liar or a coward? Or is he both? (I say
"both".)
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:51:40 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <1191099100.1...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
References: <1191095383.0...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
<6pctf3th101ud75h2...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.220.233.230
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1191099100 17639 127.0.0.1 (29 Sep 2007
20:51:40 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:51:40 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <6pctf3th101ud75h2prhp0lhbb97qcb...@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.8.1.7) Gecko/20070914 Firefox/2.0.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
From: bobandcarole <bobandcarole...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.security.pgp,bc.politics
Subject: Re: Hey cappy! Why did you tell me 250-613-9183 is your phone
number when it isn't? You've proven yourself to be a lying cowardly
faggot, cappy! LMAO!
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:56:59 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <1191099419.189091.242...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>
References: <1191023082.851468.178...@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
<naurf35kdftqm7o12331ejt80n12ni4...@4ax.com>
<1191094919.144216.153...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
<3nctf3dv9v1b2ld0i12rrut78s6j7b4...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.220.233.230
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1191099419 18779 127.0.0.1 (29 Sep 2007
20:56:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:56:59 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <3nctf3dv9v1b2ld0i12rrut78s6j7b4...@4ax.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.8.1.7) Gecko/20070914 Firefox/2.0.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-ab...@google.com
Robert Baer
The answer to "Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation
Of The Bible?" is:
There is *NO* "perfect translation" of *ANY* text from one language
to another; it is not possible.
Idioms get lost and/or mangled.
References to things or events that are local and/or recent AT THAT
TIME are gibberished even more.
Concepts known and understood due to the culture AT THAT TIME also get
mangled or worse.
Hell, even the Muslim concept "Allah is with me" gets mangled by the
Muslims, to the extreme that "it is OK to kill oneself for <insert
excuse>" on the "theory" that dead or alive, "Allah is with me".
Well, that statement is true, but....
In Roman Catholic terms, it is a mortal sin to kill oneself; it is
even worse than to kill another.
So, while one states that blah blah is right, and another states that
blah blah is wrong, remember: both are right and both are wrong - at the
same time and on occasion on the same exact point(s).
Therefore, when arguing, have fun at it and try not to bash...
Richard Henry
"Robert Baer" <rober...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:13nok85...@corp.supernews.com...
> In Roman Catholic terms, it is a mortal sin to kill oneself; it is
> even worse than to kill another.
In Roman Catholic tersm, what is worse than a mortal sin?
vernon O
> The answer to "Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of
> The Bible?" is:
> There is *NO* "perfect translation" of *ANY* text from one language to
> another; it is not possible.
> Idioms get lost and/or mangled.
> References to things or events that are local and/or recent AT THAT TIME
> are gibberished even more.
> Concepts known and understood due to the culture AT THAT TIME also get
> mangled or worse.
>
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
There is no way to translate modern German to modern English.
But, the KJV is the greatest piece of English literature ever Witten,
whether accurate or not.
Did God have a hand in it/
I think so.
Do very many in 2007 understand the "English"? Absolutely not.
vernon O
"Richard Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote in message
news:LpYej.33226$Rf5....@newsfe13.phx...
Ref: RCC, Who cares.
Don Bowey
Henry" <rph...@home.com> wrote:
Probably it's not putting enough cash in the collection plate.
No One
> "Robert Baer" <rober...@localnet.com> wrote in message
> news:13nok85...@corp.supernews.com...
> > What is it with all this barfy language?
> > The answer to "Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of
> > The Bible?" is:
> > There is *NO* "perfect translation" of *ANY* text from one language to
> > another; it is not possible.
> > Idioms get lost and/or mangled.
> > References to things or events that are local and/or recent AT THAT TIME
> > are gibberished even more.
> > Concepts known and understood due to the culture AT THAT TIME also get
> > mangled or worse.
> >
>
>
> ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
> There is no way to translate modern German to modern English.
Try to translate "Ich trinke". It could be rendered as "I drink"
or "I am drinking". All spoken languages are ambiguous, but not
in the same way.
>
> But, the KJV is the greatest piece of English literature ever Witten,
> whether accurate or not.
>
> Did God have a hand in it/
> I think so.
I doubt it. The translators were probably more interested in pleasing
their king.
No One
Don Bowey
<no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Well........ Windows2K and Vista for sure.
But XP runs as well on my Mac as it does on my PCs. Maybe Bill G bought
forbearance for XP.
Dionisio
> In Roman Catholic tersm, what is worse than a mortal sin?
An immortal one.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: For thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
-- Hebrews 13:2
(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)
No One
> On 1/2/08 8:24 PM, in article 878x375...@nospam.pacbell.net, "No One"
> <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> writes:
> >>> In Roman Catholic tersm, what is worse than a mortal sin?
> >>
> >> Probably it's not putting enough cash in the collection plate.
> >
> > Or using Windows. :-)
>
> Well........ Windows2K and Vista for sure.
>
> But XP runs as well on my Mac as it does on my PCs. Maybe Bill G bought
> forbearance for XP.
The RC Church should love what I'm running - Linux. When you aren't
paying Bill Gates or Apple a dime, that leaves more for the collection
plate (not that I've ever contributed to it).
sword of Baal@truthonly.com RamRod Sword of Baal
"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87d4sj5...@nospam.pacbell.net...
====================
Of course king James the first was gay.................
Meltdarok
I think one of the most important concepts that has slipped by modern
translators are the two words translated as *meat* in the KJV- spoken by
the resurrected Christ, as recorded in Luke and John. In each case, that
verse is the *only* place those particular words appear in the *entire*
New Testament.
Luke 24
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto
them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled
fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you,
while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were
written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms,
concerning me.
bró̄simos(G1034); gen. brosímou, masc.–fem., neut. bró̄simon, adj. from
bró̄sis (1035), food. Edible (Luke 24:41, “Have ye here any meat?”)
--Zodhiates, S.
John 21
4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the
disciples knew not that it was Jesus. 5 Then Jesus saith unto them,
Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No.
prosphágion(G4371); gen. prosphagíou, neut. noun from prós (4314),
besides, and phágō (5315), to eat. That which is eaten along with bread;
hence, meat or fish (John 21:5, "Children, have ye any meat?").
--Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary
: New Testament (electronic ed.) (G4371). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
http://www.mediafire.com/?9bmgyggtlx7
Richard Henry
Rich Grise
> Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> writes:
>> On 1/2/08 8:24 PM, in article 878x375...@nospam.pacbell.net, "No
>> One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> writes:
>> >>> In Roman Catholic tersm, what is worse than a mortal sin?
>> >>
>> >> Probably it's not putting enough cash in the collection plate.
>> >
>> > Or using Windows. :-)
>>
>> Well........ Windows2K and Vista for sure.
>>
>> But XP runs as well on my Mac as it does on my PCs. Maybe Bill G
>> bought forbearance for XP.
>
> The RC Church should love what I'm running - Linux. When you aren't
> paying Bill Gates or Apple a dime, that leaves more for the collection
> plate (not that I've ever contributed to it).
The religious nuts are HORRIFIED of Linux, since the permissions
are 666 for owner, user, and world readable and writable. (They
don't notice that the '666' is octal. ;-) )
Albeit, there might be a grain of truth there - making your files
world-writable is an invitation to who knows what all manner of
evil? ;-D
Cheers!
Rich
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
Well, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" seems pretty clear to me.
The problem is, there's no prohibition against sending the sons
and daughters of your "loyal" subjects to go and do your killing
for you, which seems to be a way for the Chinos (xtians in name
only) to weasel out of that particular prohibition.
Thanks,
Rich
vernon O
Oh, goody. So God is impotent rather than omnipotent.
Go to the Atheist news group.
vernon O
It remains the greatest piece of English literature ever written.
vernon O
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <rt...@example.net> wrote in message
news:9t9fj.18417$oh5.9031@trndny08...
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 20:18:55 -0700, vernon O wrote:
>> "Robert Baer" <rober...@localnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:13nok85...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> What is it with all this barfy language? The answer to "Is The King
>>> James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of
>>> The Bible?" is:
>>> There is *NO* "perfect translation" of *ANY* text from one language
>>> to
>>> another; it is not possible.
>>> Idioms get lost and/or mangled.
>>> References to things or events that are local and/or recent AT THAT
>>> TIME
>>> are gibberished even more.
>>> Concepts known and understood due to the culture AT THAT TIME also get
>>> mangled or worse.
>>
>> ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
>> There is no way to translate modern German to modern English.
>>
>> But, the KJV is the greatest piece of English literature ever Witten,
>> whether accurate or not.
>>
>> Did God have a hand in it/
>> I think so.
>> Do very many in 2007 understand the "English"? Absolutely not.
>
> Well, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" seems pretty clear to me.
>
So you don't know the Commandments and also don't know the instructions to
obey the government.
If you were a Christian, you would know.
vernon O
"Richard the Dreaded Libertarian" <rt...@example.net> wrote in message
news:9t9fj.18417$oh5.9031@trndny08...
Disgrace to Christian AND disgrace to Libertarian.
No One
According to your theology, is it the case that a god, who could not
be bothered to send even a small lightening bolt to zap Hitler in
order to stop the Holocaust, would personally oversee a translation
of a book from Latin or Greek (plus verious original sources) into
English? If so (i.e., that is what your religious beliefs are),
produce some evidence to justify those beliefs, explaining why your
god is so concerned about a book so as to intervene while not lifting
a finger to help his "chosen people".
No One
You mean you think the king got what he paid for? Of course, any
number of people might disagree with your literary criticism. We can
start with Shakespeare fanatics and then throw in any number of
aspiring authors whose exalted views of their writings are not shared
by their critics, leading to the authors drinking to excess. :-)
vernon O
Dozens of translations, all with the same GOSPEL.
Oh yes Judas had a purpose also, as did Caesar.
DUUUHHH
Andy Peters
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 21:56:05 -0800, No One wrote:
> > Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> writes:
> >> One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> > Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> writes:
> >> >>> In Roman Catholic tersm, what is worse than a mortal sin?
>
> >> >> Probably it's not putting enough cash in the collection plate.
>
> >> > Or using Windows. :-)
>
> >> Well........ Windows2K and Vista for sure.
>
> >> But XP runs as well on my Mac as it does on my PCs. Maybe Bill G
> >> bought forbearance for XP.
>
> > The RC Church should love what I'm running - Linux. When you aren't
> > paying Bill Gates or Apple a dime, that leaves more for the collection
> > plate (not that I've ever contributed to it).
>
> The religious nuts are HORRIFIED of Linux, since the permissions
> are 666 for owner, user, and world readable and writable. (They
> don't notice that the '666' is octal. ;-) )
Don't forget about all of those daemons running around in the
background ...
-a
vernon O
I'm just repeating what every English professor, no matter their religion
have said.
Also, the largest number printed.
No One
I'll note your inability to answer the question.
No One
So now you've claimed to have heard what "every English professor" has
said? You can't be serious. There is no way that you could have gotten
a statement from each and every one, or even a reasonably sized
representative sample.
No One
I'd be in real trouble for that! I've written some daemons and
made sure they'd kill the zombies. :-)
Martin Griffith
<no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
Snowcrash?
martin
Rich Grise
Oh - yeah. Daemons. Heh, heh, heh. >:->
Cheers!
Rich
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
>>
> So you don't know the Commandments ...
Are you saying that "Thou shalt not kill" isn't one of the commandments?
You must have a different bible than the one I was taught.
> ... and also don't know the instructions
> to obey the government.
Oh, I know them all to well, and my mission in life to resist them
and anyone else who demands obedience.
But, if you want to surrender your Humanity, and be someone's
willess little toady, you're welcome to - after all, it's YOU
who decides of your own free will just whom you're going to
install over you in place of God.
> If you were a Christian, you would know.
Well, I'm not a Christian, and see above.
Good Luck!
Rich
vernon O
You asked a dumb question about something YOU imagine to be "Chosen People".
God did this to the Jews every 80 years.
That's in every version of the bible, but you speak out of ignorance.
God maintains scripture.
God chooses.
Your aren't.
Bye bye Atheist.
Definition of Atheist : uneducated.
vernon O
AND you don't know the ten commandments.
There will always be a governing body.
Don't confuse anarchy with libertarian, dummy
>
> Good Luck!
> Rich
>
No One
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:87ejcyr...@nospam.pacbell.net...
> > "vernon O" <vernono@hereandthere> writes:
> >
> >> > According to your theology, is it the case that a god, who could not
> >> > be bothered to send even a small lightening bolt to zap Hitler in
> >> > order to stop the Holocaust, would personally oversee a translation
> >> > of a book from Latin or Greek (plus verious original sources) into
> >> > English? If so (i.e., that is what your religious beliefs are),
> >> > produce some evidence to justify those beliefs, explaining why your
> >> > god is so concerned about a book so as to intervene while not lifting
> >> > a finger to help his "chosen people".
> >>
> >> Dozens of translations, all with the same GOSPEL.
> >>
> >> Oh yes Judas had a purpose also, as did Caesar.
> >> DUUUHHH
> >
> > I'll note your inability to answer the question.
>
> You asked a dumb question about something YOU imagine to be "Chosen People".
<http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9082363/chosen-people> in case
you really are that dumb instead of merely playing dumb. It is not
my terminology but rather terminology that has been around for something
like 4000 years.
> God did this to the Jews every 80 years.
> That's in every version of the bible, but you speak out of ignorance.
There was not a holocaust ever 80 years, and that is not in any
version of the Bible. There was a lot of fighting with ups and downs
over the years, and the religious nuts of the time would blame the
downs on whatever hot button issue they were marketing as pissing off
"the Lord." It's not so different today - we have the televangalist
nuts who blamed the Loma Prieta earthquake on San Francisco's "sinful
ways" even though the earthquake spared the heavily gay Castro
district, caused a fair bit of damage in the very wealthy Marina
district, and damaged double-decked freeways and bridges. Most of the
deaths were in Oakland when a double-decked freeway collapsed (one was
on the Bay Bridge when a section fell down.) Meanwhile, the death
toll would have been a lot higher except that traffic was light due to
people wanting to watch the World Series. So, it's "The God Who Can't
Shoot Straight" theology.
> God maintains scripture.
> God chooses.
God does not maintain scripture. Otherwise we'd have frequent
updates. You know, the "service packs" you probably get from
Microsoft, allegedly to fix more bugs than they introduce.
> Your aren't.
>
> Bye bye Atheist.
>
> Definition of Atheist : uneducated.
You really are a moron, aren't you!
Dionisio
> It remains the greatest piece of English literature ever written.
I take it that we're tossing the fact that it was written in Hebrew and Greek right out
the window?
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
Life is a great big canvas, and you should throw all the paint on it you can.
--Danny Kaye
Terry Given
IMNSHO there should only be two commandments:
Thou Shalt Not Worship
Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You
>
> Don't confuse anarchy with libertarian, dummy
>
>
>>Good Luck!
>>Rich
I want a T-shirt that says this:
I deny God the Father
I deny God the Son
I deny God the Holy Spirit
(oops, thats me damned for all eternity. But I wouldnt want to spend one
second with the evil, psychopathic scumbag that is the abrahamic god, so
Im OK with that ;)
Rich, see if you can track down an australian cult movie, Bad Boy Bubby.
I think you will really like it. Its about a boy who has never left his
house - and he's 35. There is a very memorable line:
"it is the moral imperative of every human being to think god out of
existence"
And, as far as the bible goes, Rachard Dawkins makes a pretty good point
re. the bible being the literal word of god - there are several thousand
antiquarian bibles in existence, and they are ALL DIFFERENT. Of course
having read the old & new testaments, I could simply attribute this to
god being a paranoid schizophrenic, but Ockhams razor suggests that the
bible is an entirely man-made creation. Google Mithras :)
Cheers
Terry
No One
> And, as far as the bible goes, Rachard Dawkins makes a pretty good
> point re. the bible being the literal word of god - there are several
> thousand antiquarian bibles in existence, and they are ALL
> DIFFERENT. Of course having read the old & new testaments, I could
> simply attribute this to god being a paranoid schizophrenic, but
> Ockhams razor suggests that the bible is an entirely man-made
> creation. Google Mithras :)
Some ancient civilizations may have had an explanation for that, which
is why they made scuptures of gods that had so many heads. Here's one
for reference:
<http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/tstories/richardandlisa/images/3HampiMultiheadedGodSmall.JPG>.
It's just a case of one head not saying exactly the same thing as
another head. Sometimes they get mad at each other and aren't on
speaking terms for a while, so things start to get a bit garbled.
Or, if you want a one-headed god, there's the classic
William Blake painting of an obviously geriatric God creating the
world. So there's another explanation fof why all those "divinely
dictated" Bibles are all different: like many old guys, God was having
a senior moment!
(My fundie neighbor just read this and told me that they're adding
another 100,000 years to my sentence.) :-)
vernon O
"Terry Given" <my_...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:1199417144.685026@ftpsrv1...
Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
Dionisio
> It's just a case of one head not saying exactly the same thing as
> another head.
Just so we're clear... You do realize that this is being posted on a.p.h., yes?
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
No kingdom has ever had as many civil wars as the Kingdom of Christ.
-- L. de Montesquieu
No One
> "Terry Given" <my_...@ieee.org> wrote in message
> news:1199417144.685026@ftpsrv1...
> > And, as far as the bible goes, Rachard Dawkins makes a pretty good point
> > re. the bible being the literal word of god - there are several thousand
> > antiquarian bibles in existence, and they are ALL DIFFERENT. Of course
> > having read the old & new testaments, I could simply attribute this to god
> > being a paranoid schizophrenic, but Ockhams razor suggests that the bible
> > is an entirely man-made creation. Google Mithras :)
> >
> > Cheers
> > Terry
>
> Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
This "vernon" character seems to think that being "educated" means
accepting his church's dogma and not being able to think for yourself.
What's really funny is the complete denial of reality.
Here are some of the facts. The part of the U.S. with the highest
teenage pregnancy rate is the Bible Belt. Then there is divorce,
described at <http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm>:
Variation in divorce rates by religion:
Religion % have been divorced
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%
"But don't take the US government's word for it. Take a look
at the findings from the George Barna Research Group. George
Barna, a born-again Christian whose company is in Ventura,
Calif., found that Massachusetts does indeed have the lowest
divorce rate among all 50 states. More disturbing was the
finding that born-again Christians have among the highest
divorce rates."
<http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats00/slides/stdinadolya/sld006.htm> will
give some indication of how the Bible belt does in the STD department.
For a real hit piece, see
<http://www.stopthereligiousright.org/biblebelt.htm>.
I'll stay with the "sinners" in San Francisco any day - its safer. :-)
Terry Given
> "vernon O" <vernono@hereandthere> writes:
>
>
>>"Terry Given" <my_...@ieee.org> wrote in message
>>news:1199417144.685026@ftpsrv1...
>>
>>>And, as far as the bible goes, Rachard Dawkins makes a pretty good point
>>>re. the bible being the literal word of god - there are several thousand
>>>antiquarian bibles in existence, and they are ALL DIFFERENT. Of course
>>>having read the old & new testaments, I could simply attribute this to god
>>>being a paranoid schizophrenic, but Ockhams razor suggests that the bible
>>>is an entirely man-made creation. Google Mithras :)
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>Terry
>>
>>Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
Dogma != education
there are some moderately useful bits in the bibles, to do with running
successful agrarian communities. But its couched in so much textual
diarrhoea (and outright evil) that its all but swamped.
I especially liked the book of Job. That God character is insecure, and
a complete cunt.
Leviticus is great too. The penalty for fucking your uncles wife is
hilarious.
lol :)
Cheers
Terry
Meltdarok
> "vernon O" <vernono@hereandthere> writes:
>
>> "Terry Given" <my_...@ieee.org> wrote in message
>> news:1199417144.685026@ftpsrv1...
>>> And, as far as the bible goes, Rachard Dawkins makes a pretty good point
>>> re. the bible being the literal word of god - there are several thousand
>>> antiquarian bibles in existence, and they are ALL DIFFERENT. Of course
>>> having read the old & new testaments, I could simply attribute this to god
>>> being a paranoid schizophrenic, but Ockhams razor suggests that the bible
>>> is an entirely man-made creation. Google Mithras :)
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Terry
>> Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
>
> This "vernon" character seems to think that being "educated" means
> accepting his church's dogma and not being able to think for yourself.
> What's really funny is the complete denial of reality.
>
I notice the bashing is limited to imperfect Christian "men" and
Jehovah, what about say-- Dharmakaya Buddha?
>
> I'll stay with the "sinners" in San Francisco any day - its safer. :-)
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
http://www.mediafire.com/?9bmgyggtlx7
No One
> No One wrote:
> > It's just a case of one head not saying exactly the same thing as
> > another head.
>
> Just so we're clear... You do realize that this is being posted on
> a.p.h., yes?
So? And why do you always quote so much out of context?
No One
> No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 AM:
> > "vernon O" <vernono@hereandthere> writes:
> >>> Cheers
> >>> Terry
> >> Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
> > This "vernon" character seems to think that being "educated" means
> > accepting his church's dogma and not being able to think for yourself.
> > What's really funny is the complete denial of reality.
>
> I notice the bashing is limited to imperfect Christian "men" and
> Jehovah, what about say-- Dharmakaya Buddha?
"Imperfect Christian 'men'" seem to do a lot of bashing (e.g., Vernon's
"Atheist = uneducated always" garbage). It's that bashing that leads
to web sites like the one I cited that I called a "hit piece" - these
so-called Christians piss everyone else off and some people bash back.
The Buddhists don't tend to bash people, so they don't generate the
same sort of negative reaction.
I'm curious, though. Do you consider CDC data on disease rates broken
down by state to be bashing when all that is stated is the data or a
citation to it? I'm sure some Christians don't like it because it
makes their hypocrisy all too clear. When you take a "holier than
thou" attitude, it sort of helps to have all the objective measures
of "sinfulness" in your favor. :-)
> > I'll stay with the "sinners" in San Francisco any day - its
> > safer. :-)
It's still safer. :-)
Meltdarok
> Meltdarok <melt...@aol.com> writes:
>
>> No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 AM:
>>> "vernon O" <vernono@hereandthere> writes:
>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Terry
>>>> Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
>>> This "vernon" character seems to think that being "educated" means
>>> accepting his church's dogma and not being able to think for yourself.
>>> What's really funny is the complete denial of reality.
>> I notice the bashing is limited to imperfect Christian "men" and
>> Jehovah, what about say-- Dharmakaya Buddha?
>
> "Imperfect Christian 'men'" seem to do a lot of bashing (e.g., Vernon's
> "Atheist = uneducated always" garbage). It's that bashing that leads
> to web sites like the one I cited that I called a "hit piece" - these
> so-called Christians piss everyone else off and some people bash back.
>
> The Buddhists don't tend to bash people, so they don't generate the
> same sort of negative reaction.
>
You misunderstand me. I'm writing of the living field that is our
objective reality.
> I'm curious, though. Do you consider CDC data on disease rates broken
> down by state to be bashing when all that is stated is the data or a
> citation to it?
It's not important when trying to conceptualize the *Big* picture.
> I'm sure some Christians don't like it because it
> makes their hypocrisy all too clear. When you take a "holier than
> thou" attitude, it sort of helps to have all the objective measures
> of "sinfulness" in your favor. :-)
>
>>> I'll stay with the "sinners" in San Francisco any day - its
>>> safer. :-)
>
> It's still safer. :-)
I've thought of making the Bay area my home. I don't tend to reject
"sinners" when they're not "pushy" about it. 0[;)
Don Bowey
<melt...@aol.com> wrote:
Do you mean pushy as in what you twisted religious freaks appear to be?
Tom
It's a joke, son! You're too short! They're goin' over your head, boy!
No One
> No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 1:00 PM:
> > Meltdarok <melt...@aol.com> writes:
> >
> >> No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 AM:
> >>> "vernon O" <vernono@hereandthere> writes:
> >
> >>>>> Cheers
> >>>>> Terry
> >>>> Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
> >>> This "vernon" character seems to think that being "educated" means
> >>> accepting his church's dogma and not being able to think for yourself.
> >>> What's really funny is the complete denial of reality.
> >> I notice the bashing is limited to imperfect Christian "men" and
> >> Jehovah, what about say-- Dharmakaya Buddha?
> > "Imperfect Christian 'men'" seem to do a lot of bashing (e.g.,
> > Vernon's
> > "Atheist = uneducated always" garbage). It's that bashing that leads
> > to web sites like the one I cited that I called a "hit piece" - these
> > so-called Christians piss everyone else off and some people bash back.
> > The Buddhists don't tend to bash people, so they don't generate the
> > same sort of negative reaction.
> >
>
> You misunderstand me. I'm writing of the living field that is our
> objective reality.
Odd - I thought the electromagnetic field, and various other quantum
fields, is what constitutes our "objective reality".
>
> > I'm curious, though. Do you consider CDC data on disease rates broken
> > down by state to be bashing when all that is stated is the data or a
> > citation to it?
>
> It's not important when trying to conceptualize the *Big* picture.
Trying to evade an inconvenient truth? :-)
> >>> I'll stay with the "sinners" in San Francisco any day - its
> >>> safer. :-)
> > It's still safer. :-)
>
> I've thought of making the Bay area my home. I don't tend to reject
> "sinners" when they're not "pushy" about it. 0[;)
Nobody will "push" you to sin, with a possible exception if you are a
real hottie, but the "sinners" *will* expect you to return the favor.
You can, however, expect some smirks if you turn up at the corner of
18th and Castro and loudly tell your wife Malphasia, "Did you see that?
Is it a man or a woman? Now Ah've seen *everything*!"
Rich the Philosophizer
> Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You
This is wrong - the True Commandment is "Do unto others
just what you feel like doing to them."
>
(OOps! Somebody else wrote this:)
>> Don't confuse anarchy with libertarian, dummy
>
> I want a T-shirt that says this:
>
> I deny God the Father
> I deny God the Son
> I deny God the Holy Spirit
>
> (oops, thats me damned for all eternity. But I wouldnt want to spend one
> second with the evil, psychopathic scumbag that is the abrahamic god, so
> Im OK with that ;)
Yeah - the real God just figured out after all of these long
millennia, that everyone's been worshipping either Ahriman, the
god of power, AKA Satan, or Lucifer, the prince of lies.
http://www.godchannel.com/superdevils.html
Cheers!
Rich
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
...
> (My fundie neighbor just read this and told me that they're adding
> another 100,000 years to my sentence.) :-)
Did you tell them that it's not their call? ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Rich the Philosophizer
>
> Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
Nah, it's just that they're as dogmatic as the fundies.
I claimed to be an agnostic, until I actually felt the Mother
herself inside me.
But nobody wants to look at her hiding place, because it's at
the Root Chakra.
And when my root chakra opened, there was no longer any doubt
in my mind - kind of like an epiphany, but I did find out that
the "god" that everybody's been worshiping and cowtowing to for
all of these millenia has been Satan all along.
I also discovered what the word "ineffable" means. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
vernon O
So you don't know what educated means and assume somehow that it is linked
to a deist or theist religion.
Yep
Atheist = uneducated.
Uneducated in the earth, universe, feild systems
EVERY TIME
ALL of the time.
YOUR interpretation is oriented around your penis.
EVERY one of your references above states such.
You can't even figure out what "translation" means.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
he he he he he he he.
donald
>
> Yeah - the real God just figured out after all of these long
> millennia, that everyone's been worshipping either Ahriman, the
> god of power, AKA Satan, or Lucifer, the prince of lies.
> http://www.godchannel.com/superdevils.html
>
> Cheers!
> Rich
>
Hi Rich,
To complete the discussion, there is NO god. Just those delusional ideas
of mad men. ( or power hungry )
Pick your favorite of over 2,850 deities
donald
No One
No, it is just Dionisio acting like he usually does. It's not the first
post from him that I've seen.
Richard Henry
"Rich the Philosophizer" <r...@example.net> wrote in message
news:zSxfj.7192$8Z1.5585@trnddc05...
Now you should work on the words "root" and "chakra".
vernon O
"Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Ilvfj.11$Z61.4@trnddc07...
Yep, the point, "When they are not pushy about it."
People can do what they want (as long as it doesn't "touch" me or mine.)
Don't tell me I have to like it.
I'm one of those nitwits who would be perfectly happy if all drug "control"
was removed.
Even prescription drugs.
vernon O
"Don Bowey" <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C3A3C377.AB8D0%dbo...@comcast.net...
So, your imagination and self image is running away again.
No One
They think that God talks to them on a regular basis. When you let
Jesus into your life, you get to hear all the heavenly gossip. :-)
They'd be horrified if they heard a San Francisco troupe of singers/
commedians called _The Kinsey Sicks_.
[One says something about hoping that Jesus would come into
his life, using the Spanish pronunciation for Jesus.]
"You mean Jesus our Lord and Savior?"
(Looking coy) "No, I mean Jesus from Lord and Taylor."
Their Xmas program "Oy Vey in a Manger" is hillarious, but very
offensive in spots if you are seriously religious to the point of not
having any humor about it. The joke about "30 years old, never
married, hangs out with 12 guys, friends with prostitutes but never
has sex with them" has, for its punch line, not "gay", but something a
lot more specific. So as to not offend the Christians too much, the
word starts with 'b' and ends with 'm'. Let's leave it at that. :-)
Don Bowey
"vernon O" <vernono@hereandthere> wrote:
Well, at least state it with good grammar..... It should be "are running,"
not "is running." And the answer is .......ummmm (giving it lots of
thought) mmmm; nope.
Beyond that, you are a narrow-minded mean spirited person.
Dionisio
I presume -- perhaps incorrectly in some cases -- that folks are following the
conversation, can keep it in their heads, and don't need to be bothered re-reading things
over and over and over. So, I snip things to the relevant points I'm replying to. If
someone gets confused or wants to check something out, they can always recall the previous
message.
Call it a character flaw, if you like.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
"In Germany, the Nazis first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."
-- Martin Niemoeller, Berlin Lutheran pastor arrested by the Gestapo and sent to Dachau
concentration camp in 1938. The Allied forces freed him seven years later.
Dionisio
> It's a joke, son! You're too short! They're goin' over your head, boy!
--Foghorn Leghorn, Writers Block Bar and Grill, 1962.
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
My imaginary friend thinks you have serious mental problems.
Dionisio
> No, it is just Dionisio acting like he usually does. It's not the first
> post from him that I've seen.
Well, that's a bit of an understatement...
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
There has never been enough religion in the world to make everybody love one another.
There has, however, always been just enough to make people hate one another.
Dionisio
> Their Xmas program "Oy Vey in a Manger" is hillarious, but very
> offensive in spots if you are seriously religious to the point of not
> having any humor about it. The joke about "30 years old, never
> married, hangs out with 12 guys, friends with prostitutes but never
> has sex with them" has, for its punch line, not "gay", but something a
> lot more specific. So as to not offend the Christians too much, the
> word starts with 'b' and ends with 'm'. Let's leave it at that. :-)
Aww... It isn't in the video. (http://www.kinseysicks.com)
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
May bloody piles torment you.
May corns grow on your feet.
May crabs as big as turtles,
Crawl up your ass and eat.
And when you're old and feeble,
And become a nervous wreck,
I hope your head falls through your ass,
And breaks your f**king neck.
-- McLean and McLean
Don Bowey
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 14:59:35 -0700, "vernon O" <vernono@hereandthere>
> wrote:
> Š 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Baloney.
>>
>> "Don Bowey" <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:C3A3C377.AB8D0%dbo...@comcast.net...
(snip)
No One
> No One wrote:
> > Dionisio <moc-rr-...@5ellimd.com> writes:
> >>No One wrote:
> >>>It's just a case of one head not saying exactly the same thing as
> >>>another head.
> >>Just so we're clear... You do realize that this is being posted on
> >>a.p.h., yes?
> > So? And why do you always quote so much out of context?
>
> I presume -- perhaps incorrectly in some cases -- that folks are
> following the conversation, can keep it in their heads, and don't need
> to be bothered re-reading things over and over and over.
Very bad assumption. People do not read every post on a newsgroup
and may start reading a thread after there have been a number of
exchanges between various individuals. Of the posts they do read,
many are simply skimmed - the ones that get read more carefully are
the ones they are interested in that day.
You should quote enough of a post to show the context of the text you
are replying to. You should not blindly quote the whole post.
Dionisio
> You should quote enough of a post to show the context of the text you
> are replying to. You should not blindly quote the whole post.
Done. So why the issue?
(Caution viewers: Bitchfight brewing. Please be sure to place your bets before the window
closes. Thank you.)
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:
"I'm not really fond of children. I think they're really cute for a little while, say 15
minutes. I like seeing them dance around in commercials for Welch's grape juice, but I
don't think everyone has to get one."
--RuPaul
Robert Baer
> No One wrote:
>
>> It's just a case of one head not saying exactly the same thing as
>> another head.
>
>
> Just so we're clear... You do realize that this is being posted on
> a.p.h., yes?
>
>
Meltdarok
When you call me a "religious freak" I guess the words Panentheistic
Monist doesn't occur to you.
ScottyFLL
> "vernon O" <vernono@hereandthere> writes:
> >news:13nok85...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > What is it with all this barfy language?
> > > The answer to "Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of
> > > The Bible?" is:
> > > There is *NO* "perfect translation" of *ANY* text from one language to
> > > another; it is not possible.
> > > Idioms get lost and/or mangled.
> > > References to things or events that are local and/or recent AT THAT TIME
> > > are gibberished even more.
> > > Concepts known and understood due to the culture AT THAT TIME also get
> > > mangled or worse.
>
> > ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
> > There is no way to translate modern German to modern English.
>
> Try to translate "Ich trinke". It could be rendered as "I drink"
> or "I am drinking". All spoken languages are ambiguous, but not
> in the same way.
>
>
>
> > But, the KJV is the greatest piece of English literature ever Witten,
> > whether accurate or not.
>
> > Did God have a hand in it/
> > I think so.
>
> I doubt it. The translators were probably more interested in pleasing
> their king.-
King James being, of course, the gay king.
Meltdarok
These fields are produced in our local space-time environment we like
to call the universe. I'm speaking of the much, much, much larger
Field within which our local universe is manifested.
>>> I'm curious, though. Do you consider CDC data on disease rates broken
>>> down by state to be bashing when all that is stated is the data or a
>>> citation to it?
>> It's not important when trying to conceptualize the *Big* picture.
>
> Trying to evade an inconvenient truth? :-)
>
I say stop commenting about the people, and start to comment
on the concept of the living entity field please.
>>>>> I'll stay with the "sinners" in San Francisco any day - its
>>>>> safer. :-)
>>> It's still safer. :-)
>> I've thought of making the Bay area my home. I don't tend to reject
>> "sinners" when they're not "pushy" about it. 0[;)
>
> Nobody will "push" you to sin, with a possible exception if you are a
> real hottie,
Which definition is always at an individual's discretion.
> but the "sinners" *will* expect you to return the favor.
> You can, however, expect some smirks if you turn up at the corner of
> 18th and Castro and loudly tell your wife Malphasia, "Did you see that?
> Is it a man or a woman? Now Ah've seen *everything*!"
What makes you think that Id have to be in San Fran for that to happen--
again? If that person chooses to appear in an "outrageous" manner by my
definition, I may quietly chuckle it's true. It would have it be more
than a blue spiked mohawk with generously tattooed and pierced body as well.
Don Bowey
<melt...@aol.com> wrote:
No, it didn't, but when I consider that you are offering the terms monism
and pantheistic to explain the lineage of your process, it alters nothing.
The terms don't justify your smug ugly view of what God wants.
God may be in everything, who knows? Not anyone who ever lived. Imagine
what you will of what He wants. In my view generous is better than stingy.
What we do know is that, for whatever reason, we have free will and we do
not appear to have received divine programming for applying it. So you
don't like the way I think and I don't like the way you think.
Meltdarok
Tell me what my smug ugly view of what God wants is please.
> God may be in everything, who knows? Not anyone who ever lived. Imagine
> what you will of what He wants. In my view generous is better than stingy.
>
> What we do know is that, for whatever reason, we have free will and we do
> not appear to have received divine programming for applying it. So you
> don't like the way I think and I don't like the way you think.
What prompts you to say that I don't like the way you think; and
what is it that I am thinking that you don't like, and how did
you reach that conclusion?
Rich the Philosophizer
> To complete the discussion, there is NO god. Just those delusional ideas
> of mad men. ( or power hungry )
That's OK - He doesn't believe in you either. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
donald
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because
I notice it always coincides with their own desires."
-- Susan B. Anthony
So, whats your true goal ??
donald
Don Bowey
<melt...@aol.com> wrote:
I can only extrapolate from what you say. Re read some of what you have
said.
>
>> God may be in everything, who knows? Not anyone who ever lived. Imagine
>> what you will of what He wants. In my view generous is better than stingy.
>>
>> What we do know is that, for whatever reason, we have free will and we do
>> not appear to have received divine programming for applying it. So you
>> don't like the way I think and I don't like the way you think.
>
> What prompts you to say that I don't like the way you think; and
> what is it that I am thinking that you don't like, and how did
> you reach that conclusion?
You said of yourself: ...I don't tend to reject "sinners" when they're not
"pushy" about it....
Does God want you to be judgmental about people? How do you know?
>
>>
>>
>>
>
Tom
>
> When you call me a "religious freak" I guess the words Panentheistic
> Monist doesn't occur to you.
The term "oxymoron" does, though.
No One
> No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 4:01 PM:
> > Meltdarok <melt...@aol.com> writes:
> >
> >> No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 1:00 PM:
> >>> Meltdarok <melt...@aol.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> You misunderstand me. I'm writing of the living field that is our
> >> objective reality.
> > Odd - I thought the electromagnetic field, and various other quantum
> > fields, is what constitutes our "objective reality".
> >
>
> These fields are produced in our local space-time environment we like
> to call the universe. I'm speaking of the much, much, much larger
> Field within which our local universe is manifested.
You mean string theory? I was trying to keep it simple for you.
>
> >>> I'm curious, though. Do you consider CDC data on disease rates broken
> >>> down by state to be bashing when all that is stated is the data or a
> >>> citation to it?
> >> It's not important when trying to conceptualize the *Big* picture.
> > Trying to evade an inconvenient truth? :-)
> >
>
> I say stop commenting about the people, and start to comment
> on the concept of the living entity field please.
A "living entity field" is a figment of your imagination, and apparently
an attempt to avoid dealing with the data we have.
> >>> It's still safer. :-)
> >> I've thought of making the Bay area my home. I don't tend to reject
> >> "sinners" when they're not "pushy" about it. 0[;)
> > Nobody will "push" you to sin, with a possible exception if you are a
> > real hottie,
>
> Which definition is always at an individual's discretion.
My guess is that you don't have anything to worry about. :-) Someone
that into religion is rarely a hottie.
>
> > but the "sinners" *will* expect you to return the favor.
> > You can, however, expect some smirks if you turn up at the corner of
> > 18th and Castro and loudly tell your wife Malphasia, "Did you see that?
> > Is it a man or a woman? Now Ah've seen *everything*!"
>
> What makes you think that Id have to be in San Fran for that to happen--
> again? If that person chooses to appear in an "outrageous" manner by my
> definition, I may quietly chuckle it's true. It would have it be more
> than a blue spiked mohawk with generously tattooed and pierced body as
> well.
Wait till someone from the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence walks by. :-)
Melkor
Meltdarok
Hmmm, I said, "I guess the words Panentheistic Monist doesn't occur to you."
>>> God may be in everything, who knows? Not anyone who ever lived. Imagine
>>> what you will of what He wants. In my view generous is better than stingy.
>>>
>>> What we do know is that, for whatever reason, we have free will and we do
>>> not appear to have received divine programming for applying it. So you
>>> don't like the way I think and I don't like the way you think.
>> What prompts you to say that I don't like the way you think; and
>> what is it that I am thinking that you don't like, and how did
>> you reach that conclusion?
>
> You said of yourself: ...I don't tend to reject "sinners" when they're not
> "pushy" about it....
>
> Does God want you to be judgmental about people?
Naw.
> How do you know?
She told me.
Meltdarok
Hi Tom.
Hi Tom.
Meltdarok
>
> A "living entity field" is a figment of your imagination,
It may well be.
> and apparently
> an attempt to avoid dealing with the data we have.
>
But you want to avoid the fact that the data we have
covers *thousands* of years.
Don Bowey
<melt...@aol.com> wrote:
> Don Bowey wrote, On 1/5/2008 2:27 PM:
>> On 1/5/08 10:07 AM, in article dHPfj.26308$8Z1.12626@trnddc05, "Meltdarok"
>> <melt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
(snip)
>>> Tell me what my smug ugly view of what God wants is please.
>>
>> I can only extrapolate from what you say. Re read some of what you have
>> said.
>>
>
> Hmmm, I said, "I guess the words Panentheistic Monist doesn't occur to you."
Already asked and answered.
(snip)
Don Bowey
<melt...@aol.com> wrote:
> No One wrote, On 1/5/2008 3:53 PM:
>
>>
>> A "living entity field" is a figment of your imagination,
>
> It may well be.
>
>> and apparently
>> an attempt to avoid dealing with the data we have.
>>
>
> But you want to avoid the fact that the data we have
> covers *thousands* of years.
What "data?"
Meltdarok
The records of the ancients as they tried to describe cosmology
in terms that they could understand, without the equipment that
we tend to take for granted today.
vernon O
> Don Bowey wrote, On 1/5/2008 2:27 PM:
>> On 1/5/08 10:07 AM, in article dHPfj.26308$8Z1.12626@trnddc05,
>> "Meltdarok"
>> <melt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Bowey wrote, On 1/5/2008 11:07 AM:
>>>> On 1/4/08 11:41 PM, in article lwGfj.17018$8Z1.8562@trnddc05,
>>>> "Meltdarok"
>>>> <melt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don Bowey wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 PM:
>>>>>> On 1/4/08 10:58 AM, in article Ilvfj.11$Z61.4@trnddc07, "Meltdarok"
>>>>>> <melt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 1:00 PM:
>>>>>>>> Meltdarok <melt...@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No One wrote, On 1/4/2008 2:05 AM:
>>>>>>>>>> "vernon O" <vernono@hereandthere> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>>>>>>> Terry
>>>>>>>>>>> Yep Atheist = uneducated always.
>>>>>>>>>> This "vernon" character seems to think that being "educated"
>>>>>>>>>> means
>>>>>>>>>> accepting his church's dogma and not being able to think for
>>>>>>>>>> yourself.
It means not knowing the complexity of the universe from space to atomic to
field level.
Yes many Christians don't know 2+2, but it is for certain atheists are not
educated.
Don Bowey
<melt...@aol.com> wrote:
> Don Bowey wrote, On 1/6/2008 11:29 AM:
>> On 1/6/08 6:59 AM, in article M16gj.77857$TO.59372@trnddc01, "Meltdarok"
>> <melt...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> No One wrote, On 1/5/2008 3:53 PM:
>>>
>>>> A "living entity field" is a figment of your imagination,
>>> It may well be.
>>>
>>>> and apparently
>>>> an attempt to avoid dealing with the data we have.
>>>>
>>> But you want to avoid the fact that the data we have
>>> covers *thousands* of years.
>>
>>
>> What "data?"
>>
>
> The records of the ancients as they tried to describe cosmology
> in terms that they could understand, without the equipment that
> we tend to take for granted today.
>
Probably good reading, but not relevant to anything, in contrast to modern
science insight.
Don Bowey
"vernon O" <vernono@hereandthere> wrote:
I think we've reached the point where you should think about wearing an
aluminum hat.
fin.
Tom
> Tom wrote, On 1/5/2008 2:56 PM:
>> "Meltdarok" <melt...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:lwGfj.17018$8Z1.8562@trnddc05...
>>> When you call me a "religious freak" I guess the words Panentheistic
>>> Monist doesn't occur to you.
>>
>> The term "oxymoron" does, though.
>
> Hi Tom.
> Hi Tom.
And hi to both of you, too.
Tom
Relevance is, as one might expect, relative.
Those "ancient" folks focussed mainly on what went on inside their heads and
regarded what went on outside them as an expression of some inward process.
We "modern science" folks focus on what's going on outside our heads and, on
the rare occasions when we do pay attention to the inside of our heads, we
use it mainly to express some external process. Same phenomena, different
approaches.
Whatever we believe seems right to us.
No One
> No One wrote, On 1/5/2008 3:53 PM:
>
> > A "living entity field" is a figment of your imagination,
>
> It may well be.
>
> > and apparently
> > an attempt to avoid dealing with the data we have.
> >
>
> But you want to avoid the fact that the data we have
> covers *thousands* of years.
ROTFLMAO. We have data about the structure of the universe that
covers *billions* of years, and not at all consistent with your
opinions.
Meltdarok
One scientist was quoted in Astronomy magazine (May 1987) as saying that
in the future, the scientists will probably consider today's ideas the
same way we do now of ancient Egypt's cosmology.
Meltdarok
The research is ongoing. Heh.
No One
Except that we test our beliefs with measurements and experiments that
in some cases are accurate to over 10 significant figures (e.g., the
value of the fine structure constant, gyromagnetic ratio, etc.). It's
kind of hard to argue with 10 significant figures when the alternative
is some touchy-feelly subjective experience.
Meltdarok
You don't seem to mind that the data hasn't been collected for
*billions* of years though.
vernon O
Argue with Einstein.
vernon O
With wonderment?
Many many scientists today are amazed at ancient Egypt.
donald
> No One wrote, On 1/6/2008 1:23 PM:
>
>> Meltdarok <melt...@aol.com> writes:
>>
>>> No One wrote, On 1/5/2008 3:53 PM:
>>>
>>>> A "living entity field" is a figment of your imagination,
>>>
>>> It may well be.
>>>
>>>> and apparently
>>>> an attempt to avoid dealing with the data we have.
>>>>
>>> But you want to avoid the fact that the data we have
>>> covers *thousands* of years.
>>
>>
>> ROTFLMAO. We have data about the structure of the universe that
>> covers *billions* of years, and not at all consistent with your
>> opinions.
>>
>
> You don't seem to mind that the data hasn't been collected for
> *billions* of years though.
>
The records of carbon dating, the chemical remnants of past events.
You have the word of someone that was written just a few hundred years ago.
Make believe is make believe no matter how much time passes.
But the Gnostic bibles are not in your vocabulary.
Just in case you wish to expand your mind:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/gnostics.html
But I doubt it.
donald
No One
> No One wrote, On 1/6/2008 1:23 PM:
> > Meltdarok <melt...@aol.com> writes:
> >
> >> No One wrote, On 1/5/2008 3:53 PM:
> >>
> >>> A "living entity field" is a figment of your imagination,
> >> It may well be.
> >>
> >>> and apparently
> >>> an attempt to avoid dealing with the data we have.
> >>>
> >> But you want to avoid the fact that the data we have
> >> covers *thousands* of years.
> > ROTFLMAO. We have data about the structure of the universe that
> > covers *billions* of years, and not at all consistent with your
> > opinions.
>
> The research is ongoing. Heh.
Being "ongoing" (which means researchers are actively trying to
disprove their theories and hypotheses) is why we've made so much
progress.