JESUS CHRIST WENT TO THE CROSS SO YOU CAN GO TO HEAVEN - The good news is that God came from Heaven to earth in the person of Jesus Christ over 2000 years ago and died for our past, present and future sins(misdeeds). He was born in the land of Israel supernaturally to a virgin Jewish woman named Mary. He lived a sinless life for thirty-three years and then sacrificed His sinless blood and died on a cross to pay the death penalty for our sins.....
Evangel...@sbcglobal.net
Do you know how simple it is to go to Heaven after this
life has ended?
The good news is that God came from Heaven to earth
in the person of Jesus Christ over 2000 years ago and
died for our past, present and future sins(misdeeds).
He was born in the land of Israel supernaturally to a
virgin Jewish woman named Mary. He lived a sinless life
for thirty-three years and then sacrificed His sinless
blood and died on a cross to pay the death penalty for
our sins.
After Jesus died He rose from the dead three days later
as He said He would. The Holy Bible also tells us that
Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven and that all who accept
Him as their Lord and Saviour will live forever with Him
in Heaven where there is no more death, sorrow, sickness
and pain.
The Holy Bible very clearly explains how simple it is
to be saved and on your way to Heaven, "For if you
confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe
in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you
WILL BE SAVED." (Romans 10:9)
You can be saved right now and on your way to Heaven if
you will open your heart to Jesus and pray the following
prayer:
Dear Jesus Christ, I want to be saved so that I can have
a home in Heaven when I die. I agree with You that I am a
sinner. I believe You love me and want to save me. I
believe that You bled and died on the cross to pay the
penalty for my sins. I believe that You rose from the dead.
Please forgive my sins and come into my heart and be my
Lord and Saviour. Thank You Lord Jesus Christ for
forgiving me and saving me through Your merciful grace.
Amen.
You are now a Christian if you said the prayer and allowed
God to save you. Welcome to the family of God.
If you decide to wait till later you may die before you get
another chance to be saved because none of us knows
exactly when we will die.
Have a great day!
Internet Evangelist R.L. Grossi
Free Online Bible
http://www.biblegateway.com
Free Online Movies
http://www.tbn.org/index.php/8/1.html
Animation
http://www.gieson.com/Library/projects/animations/walk/index.html
The Passion Of The Christ
http://www.worshipmusic.com/0310263670.html
Beware Of Cults
http://www.carm.org/cults/cultlist.htm
About Hell
http://www.equip.org/free/DH198.htm
Is Jesus God?
http://www.powertochange.com/questions/qna2.html
Kenny
You speak the truth. Maybe your inspired message would help save a few
people and drive away some of the evil that sometimes pervades these
NGs. Keep up the good work and God Bless You!
Kenny Lee
jab...@backpacker.com
turn from the evil that is trying to destroy us in the form of
idolatry, divorce, homosexuality, drugs, and rap music.
Neil Brooks
Well said.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to smoke a joint, put on my studded leather
chaps, and listen to my ex-wife's NWA CD's while kneeling before my
Cannondale.
Sheldon Brown
| The most preposterous notion that H. Sapiens has ever dreamed up |
| is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the |
| Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can |
| be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not |
| receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred |
| of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, |
| largest, and least productive industry in all history. |
| --Robert A. Heinlein |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Sheldon "Equal Time" Brown
Newtonville, Massachusetts
Sven Longren
"Sheldon Brown" <capt...@sheldonbrown.com> wrote in message
news:420E44D8...@sheldonbrown.com...
MtbRoadie
grapevine that there are bicycles in heaven. I appended the prayer with
a request for a Godspeed cyclocross which weighs in at 0 lbs yet is
durable and race legal. It climbs like you have wings and is both stiff
and compliant. The wheels are both handbuilt and boutique and all of
the components are built in the USA. Put your order in today, forever
is a long time between rides.
MtbRoadie
Werehatrack
Thanks you.
(Not that I'll even see my own reply, as I've plonked the thread, the
originator, and the cross-poster who migrated it in here by falling
for the troll's gambit.)
--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Mark Janeba
Now, boys - we have enough religious wars* on R.B.T. without stooping to
argue about actual religion, but this does remind me of an old joke:
A guy goes to heaven, and Saint Peter is showing him around. Seems the
guy was a cyclist, and so St. P. is showing him all the nice cycling
roads. After a while they come to the heavenly velodrome, which is
suitably plush. Entering, the guy sees a bearded figure on a golden
fixed-gear circling the track. "Who's that?" the guy asks. "Oh, that's
God," says Saint Peter, "he think's he's Eddy Merckx."
[*] Tubulists vs. clincherians, greased-taperians vs non-greased
taperians, helmet crusaders, and even echoes of the
symmetric-vs-non-symmetric spoke lacing holy wars.
Mark Janeba
Dan
Didn't Zenophon point out that it is the privilege of the gods to want
nothing?
And that it is the privilege of godly men to want little?
He was a cynic (dog) of course.
Guy F. Anderson Sr.
I think that I would enjoy riding with you.....
Guy A
Ripley, TN
Tim McNamara
Whereas greed, graft, corruption, corruption, destruction of the
environment, victimization of the poor and violations of the
Constitution as a matter of policy are OK, eh?
Of course, idolatry has been around for tens of thousands of years-
the world is not destroyed yet. Divorce is nothing new- the world is
not destroyed yet. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of
years- the world is not yet destroyed. Drugs? Ditto. Rap music-
wait a minute, I thought it was Elvis's hips that were going to
destroy us. Elvis is dead and the world is still here.
So, the right wingers have been predicting our imminent destruction
due to things such as these for- well, at least 2000 years since the
Christians were initially an end-of-the-world cult. Many of them
obviously still are.
Personally, I think that the false prophet George W. Bush and his
cronies will do a far more effective job of destroying us than
idolatry, divorce, homosexuality, drugs, and rap music ever will.
Dan
"Dan" <Banquo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:110sstt...@corp.supernews.com...
> Didn't Zenophon point out that it is the privilege of the gods to want
> nothing?
> And that it is the privilege of godly men to want little?
> He was a cynic (dog) of course.
>
>
Diogenes, the cynic, is quoted as saying "It is the privilege of the gods to
want nothing, and of godlike men to want little."
Xenophon, who wrote Anabasis, had nothing to do with this concept and my
memory banks must be scrambled.
Mark Janeba
> jab...@backpacker.com writes:
>
>>Thank you for this post. Ipray that America will heed these words
>>and turn from the evil that is trying to destroy us in the form of
>>idolatry, divorce, homosexuality, drugs, and rap music.
>
>
> Whereas greed, graft, corruption, corruption, destruction of the
> environment, victimization of the poor and violations of the
> Constitution as a matter of policy are OK, eh?
Sad part is, Tim, most of your list was at the top of Jesus' list of
evils - they were the very things he preached against most vehemently -
but you wouldn't know that listening to the "Christian" right. It was
Jesus, after all, who said "Blessed are the poor" and "Woe unto you who
are rich." I expect non-Christians listening to the Gospel of GWBush
would be astonished to know this, and perhaps many of those of the
christian right as well.
> Personally, I think that the false prophet George W. Bush and his
> cronies will do a far more effective job of destroying us than
> idolatry, divorce, homosexuality, drugs, and rap music ever will.
Agreed.
Mark Janeba
RonSonic
wrote:
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
The most arrogant notion of H. Sapiens is that it might ignore the fact of its
own creation and the consequences of that status as a creation. It is scarcely
imaginable that such a creature could ever find any happiness without gaining
some communication with its creator. The impedance mismatch is such that man can
scarcely imagine his creator much less know him well enough to communicate
fully. The attempt and will to do so are nontheless important.
What is truly preposterous is to take some childish caricature of religious
faith and hold it up as a straw man to denounce all religion. Sadly, humanity is
such that many of its religions are childish and silly. Yet nearly all have
improved the condition of their adherents - that is more important than the
self-flattery of those who "know better."
Ron
Tim McNamara
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> jab...@backpacker.com writes:
>>
>>>Thank you for this post. Ipray that America will heed these words
>>>and turn from the evil that is trying to destroy us in the form of
>>>idolatry, divorce, homosexuality, drugs, and rap music.
>
>> Whereas greed, graft, corruption, corruption, destruction of the
>> environment, victimization of the poor and violations of the
>> Constitution as a matter of policy are OK, eh?
>
> Sad part is, Tim, most of your list was at the top of Jesus' list of
> evils - they were the very things he preached against most
> vehemently - but you wouldn't know that listening to the "Christian"
> right. It was Jesus, after all, who said "Blessed are the poor" and
> "Woe unto you who are rich." I expect non-Christians listening to
> the Gospel of GWBush would be astonished to know this, and perhaps
> many of those of the christian right as well.
I've noticed this and have been baffled by it ever since the rise of
the Moral Majority (which seemed to be neither). It's obvious that
the teachings of Jesus that I studied in Sunday School came from a
different Bible than the one that the Moral Majority uses to justify
rather than to guide its actions.
Tim McNamara
> The most arrogant notion of H. Sapiens is that it might ignore the
> fact of its own creation and the consequences of that status as a
> creation. It is scarcely imaginable that such a creature could ever
> find any happiness without gaining some communication with its
> creator.
Only if you believe- without a shred of evidence, which of course is a
necessary precondition of faith- that "man" was created. Without that
belief, it's not all that hard to be happy. Like many, though, you
have confused "faith" and "fact."
That being said, I believe that you have the right to believe whatever
you think is true. I disagree with it, but I will not question your
right to your faith. I will resist those who try to impose their
faith on me, though, especially through the bully pulpit of public
policy.
Tom Sherman
> RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>The most arrogant notion of H. Sapiens is that it might ignore the
>>fact of its own creation and the consequences of that status as a
>>creation. It is scarcely imaginable that such a creature could ever
>>find any happiness without gaining some communication with its
>>creator.
>
>
> Only if you believe- without a shred of evidence, which of course is a
> necessary precondition of faith- that "man" was created. Without that
> belief, it's not all that hard to be happy. Like many, though, you
> have confused "faith" and "fact."...
I am a strong believer in the theory of "Incompetent Design" - the
evidence supporting it is overwhelming. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Earth
Pat
.
:
: I've noticed this and have been baffled by it ever since the rise of
: the Moral Majority (which seemed to be neither). It's obvious that
: the teachings of Jesus that I studied in Sunday School came from a
: different Bible than the one that the Moral Majority uses to justify
: rather than to guide its actions.
It's all about power. That's the bottom line. Power over the lives of other
people, and the desire to achieve that power at any cost.
Pat in TX
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
OFF TOPIC as occurred when the Bush administration was criticized
before the presidential election. I think it shows where the Bushmen
are hiding. Somewhere in creation no doubt.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
Frank
<jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:WMBPd.6559$m31....@typhoon.sonic.net...
It is OFF TOPIC, but that seems to matter little in the RB forums
Jim Smith
A Muzi
t'isn't
RonSonic wrote:
-snip-
'tis
As we say to the missionaries who walk in, "Eventually it
all comes down to 'let's kill the heathens'. But that's _us_!"
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
carl...@comcast.net
<a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:03:04 -0500, Sheldon Brown <capt...@sheldonbrown.com>
>> wrote:
>-snip-
>t'isn't
>
>
>RonSonic wrote:
>-snip-
>'tis
>
>
>As we say to the missionaries who walk in, "Eventually it
>all comes down to 'let's kill the heathens'. But that's _us_!"
Dear Andrew,
You could always invite them to dinner:
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/stevenson/robert_louis/s848so/sseas11.html
R.L. Stevenson
Velo Psycho
fact of its
> own creation and the consequences of that status as a creation. It is
scarcely
> imaginable that such a creature could ever find any happiness without
gaining
> some communication with its creator. The impedance mismatch is such
that man can
> scarcely imagine his creator much less know him well enough to
communicate
> fully. The attempt and will to do so are nontheless important.
>
> What is truly preposterous is to take some childish caricature of
religious
> faith and hold it up as a straw man to denounce all religion. Sadly,
humanity is
> such that many of its religions are childish and silly. Yet nearly
all have
> improved the condition of their adherents - that is more important
than the
> self-flattery of those who "know better."
>
> Ron
Christianity has improved the condition of its adherents? It's given
its adherents and those who resist it 2000 years of superstition,
hypocrisy, greed, corruption, and suffering.
I used to believe that I just had no use for Christianity. I've come
to realize that resistance of Christianity is necessary for mankind to
move forward.
Any religion that needs missionaries can't be something worth following.
Mark Hickey
>Only if you believe- without a shred of evidence, which of course is a
>necessary precondition of faith- that "man" was created. Without that
>belief, it's not all that hard to be happy. Like many, though, you
>have confused "faith" and "fact."
>
>That being said, I believe that you have the right to believe whatever
>you think is true. I disagree with it, but I will not question your
>right to your faith. I will resist those who try to impose their
>faith on me, though, especially through the bully pulpit of public
>policy.
It might surprise you, but I agree with you... I'd point out that
currently the "faith" required to believe in spontaneous generation of
life and undirected random evolution is at least as great as that to
believe in the concept of a creator directing the process (greater,
actually... but I won't quibble).
The current "policy bully pulpit" seems to be manifesting itself in
the refusal to tell students that evolution and the theories about the
origin of life are theories that have gaping holes (even Darwin said
so). I'd be happy if the politics were removed from the whole thing,
and all the facts and various opinions were presented to the students
to let them make up their own minds.
That way, no one is "imposing their faith", whether that faith is in
Darwin or a Creator.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Mark Hickey
I'm trying to figure out who's the official representative of "the
right wing" on r.b.t - or should that be the "drive side wing"?...
;-)
Pat
:
: It might surprise you, but I agree with you... I'd point out that
: currently the "faith" required to believe in spontaneous generation of
: life and undirected random evolution is at least as great as that to
: believe in the concept of a creator directing the process (greater,
: actually... but I won't quibble).
:
: The current "policy bully pulpit" seems to be manifesting itself in
: the refusal to tell students that evolution and the theories about the
: origin of life are theories that have gaping holes (even Darwin said
: so). I'd be happy if the politics were removed from the whole thing,
: and all the facts and various opinions were presented to the students
: to let them make up their own minds.
:
: That way, no one is "imposing their faith", whether that faith is in
: Darwin or a Creator.
:
: Mark Hickey
The problem with the inclusion of Directed Design or whatever version of the
name that the religious right is using these days is that there is no way to
use the scientific method to test it. The ones hereabouts who want to put
it into the public schools just say, "Well, we believe a higher power did
it." and when you ask about ways to test that opinion, they just say, "God
can do anything." and that is NOT a scientific position that can be
evaluated and tested. The second thing I have noticed is that proponents of
the religious positions ALWAYS endeavor to show that science is just another
religion when it isn't. Instead of proving that their view of creationism
is NOT religious, they try to make everything--every thought, opinion, or
fact--religious. It just ain't so. As a last thought, isn't it odd that no
other country has this problem with evolution?
Pat in TX
Tim McNamara
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>>Only if you believe- without a shred of evidence, which of course is
>>a necessary precondition of faith- that "man" was created. Without
>>that belief, it's not all that hard to be happy. Like many, though,
>>you have confused "faith" and "fact."
>>
>>That being said, I believe that you have the right to believe
>>whatever you think is true. I disagree with it, but I will not
>>question your right to your faith. I will resist those who try to
>>impose their faith on me, though, especially through the bully
>>pulpit of public policy.
>
> It might surprise you, but I agree with you... I'd point out that
> currently the "faith" required to believe in spontaneous generation
> of life and undirected random evolution is at least as great as that
> to believe in the concept of a creator directing the process
> (greater, actually... but I won't quibble).
There's little to no faith involved in science; this is the
difference. Science of necessity ackowledges the holes in its data
and analysis; faith of necessity denies that there are holes, gaps or
lacunae in its beliefs. By definition, faith cannot accept any
suggestion that it is wrong on any point; science on the other hand is
predicated on the possibility that it may be wrong, pending the
discovery of contradictory information.
The issues you raise, such as parthenogenesis and evolution, are
problematic primarily as distorted and reframed by the conservative
religious right, who see science as anathema and as competition for
their own beliefs. Science is very clear on the matter- it is not
known how the first organisms developed despite a plurality of
theories. The information is not yet available to explain this. Of
course, parthenogenesis comes from the Greek meaning "virgin birth,"
which is a central belief in Christianity. ;-) Parthenogenesis is
well-known and documented in many species, by the way, but not in
humans.
The reclassification of archaea has perhaps helped clarify the issue
of the development of life somewhat:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/archaea/archaea.html
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=life_on_earth
http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/VikingCD/Puzzle/EvoLife.htm
> The current "policy bully pulpit" seems to be manifesting itself in
> the refusal to tell students that evolution and the theories about
> the origin of life are theories that have gaping holes (even Darwin
> said so). I'd be happy if the politics were removed from the whole
> thing, and all the facts and various opinions were presented to the
> students to let them make up their own minds.
The problem with that being that there are no facts supporting the
creationist viewpoint of Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythology.
> That way, no one is "imposing their faith", whether that faith is in
> Darwin or a Creator.
The problem I have with teaching creationism, or whatever the current
politically astute marketing term might be, is that it treats the
situation has having two possible truths: Judeo-Christian-Islamic
creationism and Darwinism. The Right Wing would take to the streets
with pitchforks and torches if public schools attempted to teach the
creation myths of Hinduism, the Navajos, the Hopi, Buddhism, Taoism or
any other religion. But if we are going to teach one version of
creationism, we have to teach them all and this is not going to be
accceptable to the Right. They only want their religion taught, and
they want ot taught on the taxpayer's dollar through vouchers and
classes in public schools.
Politics is not, has not and never will be removed from education on
any topic, but this one most of all because it strikes at the heart of
the problems of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths, and the faithful
will not gladly suffer any challenge to their beliefs. They are
convinced of their rightness, and protecting that conviction is the
core motivator of attempts to rewrite science in His image. In an odd
way, it seems to me that this indicates a real lack of faith! If the
True Religion is really true, nothing can threaten it. These folks
fighting to make the True Religion into the overt state religion-
believing that anything else is the denigration of and attack upon
their faith- lack a true faith in their God and Savior.
Of course, with the changing demographics in the US, Christianity may
find itself not in the majority position in another 50 years. It will
be interesting to see what happens as Islamists, for example, gain a
greater presence in the US. It will also be interesting to see what
happens on the world stage as India and China become the preeminent
economies in the next half-century. If we live that long.
RonSonic
Ignore the entirety of western history and you're free to "realize" anything you
want. It will be as absurd as this realization but ignorance is liberating as
well as blissful.
>Any religion that needs missionaries can't be something worth following.
Great, so if they can't introduce others to their faith using what, telepathy,
it doesn't count.
Ron
Jay S. Hill
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:03:04 -0500, Sheldon Brown <capt...@sheldonbrown.com>
> wrote:
No he didn't. He quoted.
RonSonic
All good points.
IMAO unless you've got the word "biology" in your job description, the fact of
evolution has absolutely no importance in your daily life. But, what one
believes about the origins of his fellow hairless bipedal apes has logical and
moral consequences that are vital.
The debate is really not whether we are the product of a divine creation instead
of some aimless biochemical reactions, but whether we should treat one another
as one.
I will expose myself to Godwin's Law, we know who in the last century was the
most ardent believer in Darwinism as applied to human interaction. Having seen
the pit at the end of that particular slippery slope Darwin is a little less
welcome than he once was.
Ron
RonSonic
>Mark Hickey <ma...@habcycles.com> writes:
>
>> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Only if you believe- without a shred of evidence, which of course is
>>>a necessary precondition of faith- that "man" was created. Without
>>>that belief, it's not all that hard to be happy. Like many, though,
>>>you have confused "faith" and "fact."
>>>
>>>That being said, I believe that you have the right to believe
>>>whatever you think is true. I disagree with it, but I will not
>>>question your right to your faith. I will resist those who try to
>>>impose their faith on me, though, especially through the bully
>>>pulpit of public policy.
>>
>> It might surprise you, but I agree with you... I'd point out that
>> currently the "faith" required to believe in spontaneous generation
>> of life and undirected random evolution is at least as great as that
>> to believe in the concept of a creator directing the process
>> (greater, actually... but I won't quibble).
>
>There's little to no faith involved in science; this is the
>difference. Science of necessity ackowledges the holes in its data
>and analysis; faith of necessity denies that there are holes, gaps or
>lacunae in its beliefs. By definition, faith cannot accept any
>suggestion that it is wrong on any point; science on the other hand is
>predicated on the possibility that it may be wrong, pending the
>discovery of contradictory information.
Oh bullshit. You redefine "faith" as blind adherence based upon nothing and then
proclaim what it can and cannot accept.
There are serious problems with our understanding of evolution - you understand
that yet prefer somehow to believe all is mere fortune of chemistry. We all have
problems understanding all of His works.
Faith can acknowledge imperfect knowledge and survive as well.
Ron
Tim McNamara
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>>There's little to no faith involved in science; this is the
>>difference. Science of necessity ackowledges the holes in its data
>>and analysis; faith of necessity denies that there are holes, gaps
>>or lacunae in its beliefs. By definition, faith cannot accept any
>>suggestion that it is wrong on any point; science on the other hand
>>is predicated on the possibility that it may be wrong, pending the
>>discovery of contradictory information.
>
> Oh bullshit. You redefine "faith" as blind adherence based upon
> nothing and then proclaim what it can and cannot accept.
Faith is based on acceptance of certain ideas as Truth. This is the
case in all religions. Challenging that Truth is heresy, by
definition. This is all the more rigid and brittle among religious
conservatives of all faiths, naturally.
> There are serious problems with our understanding of evolution - you
> understand that yet prefer somehow to believe all is mere fortune of
> chemistry. We all have problems understanding all of His works.
There are gaps in the understanding- "serious problems" is your value
judgment and not an objective fact. On the whole, however, I think
that it is clear that science has been the far more useful tool in
improving the lives of humanity (and being a two edged sword, has also
been the tool of those who have caused much misery). Religion entraps
people into fighting the future, which is a losing battle. Time
marches on regardless.
> Faith can acknowledge imperfect knowledge and survive as well.
In the case of Buddhism, that is correct; in fact it is a point stated
time and again by different teachers in that tradition. I don't know
about how Hindus deal with this. Christians and Muslims, especially
of the conservative bent, reject any notion that any part of their
faith and teachings are incorrect. The proclaim Eternal Truths, which
by definition cannot be wrong.
But as I said, you are free to believe whatever you choose. I will
disagree with you, but I'll defend your right to your faith.
Tim McNamara
"Hairless bipedal apes" is a gross distortion of evolutionary theory,
one that has been a favorite among reactionary conservative Christians
since the publication of Darwin's first books. Your use of it betrays
your prejudice, Ron.
> The debate is really not whether we are the product of a divine
> creation instead of some aimless biochemical reactions, but whether
> we should treat one another as one.
An excellent point. However, you make the implicit and erroneous
assumption that one cannot treat others morally in a scientific world.
> I will expose myself to Godwin's Law, we know who in the last
> century was the most ardent believer in Darwinism as applied to
> human interaction. Having seen the pit at the end of that particular
> slippery slope Darwin is a little less welcome than he once was.
You only expose your misunderstanding and your distorted prejudice
against science and evolution, by attempting to associate science with
Hitler and the Nazis. The Nazis used many ploys to justify their
actions, including religious ones. Like some other governments, they
used a scattergun approach to justifying their immoral actions,
peppering critics with multiple, often contradictory justifications.
And as is always the case, some people were confunded and parroted
those justifications themselves.
A Muzi
>>news:WMBPd.6559$m31....@typhoon.sonic.net...
>>>I'm still waiting for the right wing to complain that this thread is
>>>OFF TOPIC as occurred when the Bush administration was criticized
>>>before the presidential election. I think it shows where the Bushmen
>>>are hiding. Somewhere in creation no doubt.
> "Frank" <retro...@NOSPAMallegiance.tv> wrote:
>>It is OFF TOPIC, but that seems to matter little in the RB forums
Mark Hickey wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out who's the official representative of "the
> right wing" on r.b.t - or should that be the "drive side wing"?...
> ;-)
I'll volunteer.
On one condition- all comments in that official capacity are
addressed to me outside of r.b.t.
The occasional humorous or tangential comment adds richness
but we know what happens when it gets out of hand.
So insult, harangue and provoke me to your heart's content -
just not here.
Mark Hickey
>The issues you raise, such as parthenogenesis and evolution, are
>problematic primarily as distorted and reframed by the conservative
>religious right, who see science as anathema and as competition for
>their own beliefs.
I think you're trying to throw one big blanket over a very diverse
group of people there... you would probably consider me one of the
"religious right", but I hardly see science as either anathema or a
"competition for (my) own beliefs". I see it as the study of how the
creation was done, and find it fascinating, but NOT at odds with my
view of the universe and life as God-designed and directed.
> Science is very clear on the matter- it is not
>known how the first organisms developed despite a plurality of
>theories. The information is not yet available to explain this.
And if the textbooks were to put it in those terms, our kids would
have a much better chance of coming to grips with the issue. Instead,
it's taught as gospel (pardon the term...) in our schools, and that
IMHO is a major disservice to our kids.
>Of
>course, parthenogenesis comes from the Greek meaning "virgin birth,"
>which is a central belief in Christianity. ;-) Parthenogenesis is
>well-known and documented in many species, by the way, but not in
>humans.
Oh, I can think of one example... ;-)
>The reclassification of archaea has perhaps helped clarify the issue
>of the development of life somewhat:
>
>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/archaea/archaea.html
>
>http://tolweb.org/tree?group=life_on_earth
>
>http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/VikingCD/Puzzle/EvoLife.htm
>
>> The current "policy bully pulpit" seems to be manifesting itself in
>> the refusal to tell students that evolution and the theories about
>> the origin of life are theories that have gaping holes (even Darwin
>> said so). I'd be happy if the politics were removed from the whole
>> thing, and all the facts and various opinions were presented to the
>> students to let them make up their own minds.
>
>The problem with that being that there are no facts supporting the
>creationist viewpoint of Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythology.
I think a frank discussion about the unbelievably steep odds against
life knitting itself together in a mud puddle, and the fact that some
groups believe that the process was orchestrated by a creator (created
man from the "dust of the earth") would be sufficient.
>> That way, no one is "imposing their faith", whether that faith is in
>> Darwin or a Creator.
>
>The problem I have with teaching creationism, or whatever the current
>politically astute marketing term might be, is that it treats the
>situation has having two possible truths: Judeo-Christian-Islamic
>creationism and Darwinism. The Right Wing would take to the streets
>with pitchforks and torches if public schools attempted to teach the
>creation myths of Hinduism, the Navajos, the Hopi, Buddhism, Taoism or
>any other religion. But if we are going to teach one version of
>creationism, we have to teach them all and this is not going to be
>accceptable to the Right. They only want their religion taught, and
>they want ot taught on the taxpayer's dollar through vouchers and
>classes in public schools.
I couldn't disagree more - I just think it's impossible to talk about
the origin of life without opening up the possibility of a creator
(whatever form that might take - doesn't have to be a "Judeo-Christian
creator, after all). I don't want Genesis taught in public schools -
they'd do a lousy job, for one thing. ;-)
>Politics is not, has not and never will be removed from education on
>any topic, but this one most of all because it strikes at the heart of
>the problems of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths, and the faithful
>will not gladly suffer any challenge to their beliefs. They are
>convinced of their rightness, and protecting that conviction is the
>core motivator of attempts to rewrite science in His image. In an odd
>way, it seems to me that this indicates a real lack of faith! If the
>True Religion is really true, nothing can threaten it. These folks
>fighting to make the True Religion into the overt state religion-
>believing that anything else is the denigration of and attack upon
>their faith- lack a true faith in their God and Savior.
I think you are misinterpreting a HUGE number of the "religious
right", myself included. The more I learn about the origin and
structure of the universe, and of life, the more it bolsters my faith
that it simply can't be a random accident. The vast majority of
Christians I've discussed these issues with agree with me, though I'm
sure there are some who don't (who take a classic seven calendar day
view of the creation).
FWIW, I've read that there are few astrophysicists who are convinced
that the universe can be explained without the presence of some sort
of "designer"...
>Of course, with the changing demographics in the US, Christianity may
>find itself not in the majority position in another 50 years. It will
>be interesting to see what happens as Islamists, for example, gain a
>greater presence in the US. It will also be interesting to see what
>happens on the world stage as India and China become the preeminent
>economies in the next half-century. If we live that long.
I'm worried about the US school system in more ways than just the
teaching of Darwin as unquestionable fact - we don't seem to be doing
a very good job at teaching 'em math and science either.
Wasatch5k
Yet some people still cling to the fairy tales.
Just remember, all religion is of this world, not the reverse.
--
Let the bridges I burn light my way...
RonSonic
>Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>>The issues you raise, such as parthenogenesis and evolution, are
>>problematic primarily as distorted and reframed by the conservative
>>religious right, who see science as anathema and as competition for
>>their own beliefs.
>
>I think you're trying to throw one big blanket over a very diverse
>group of people there... you would probably consider me one of the
>"religious right", but I hardly see science as either anathema or a
>"competition for (my) own beliefs". I see it as the study of how the
>creation was done, and find it fascinating, but NOT at odds with my
>view of the universe and life as God-designed and directed.
I forget who said it but one of my favorite thoughts on the subject goes like:
Any two-bit demigod worthy of his graven image can put something together and
make it live. It takes a first-rate Creator-God to set in motion a handful of
physical principles to form his creation in its fullness and glory billions of
years hence.
I'm sure I've mangled the quote, but it's a great one that I think survives it.
Ron
RonSonic
True. I'm the one using my own words.
Ron
David Damerell
>I've noticed this and have been baffled by it ever since the rise of
>the Moral Majority (which seemed to be neither). It's obvious that
>the teachings of Jesus that I studied in Sunday School came from a
>different Bible than the one that the Moral Majority uses to justify
>rather than to guide its actions.
... oh, hell, one more article in this thread won't hurt.
I presume they're reading the Old Testament. The God of the OT is a
monster almost beyond belief; the only rational response to supposing the
OT was accurate would be Satanism.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Second Monday, February.
RonSonic
First, I will politely ask you to not presume to know me, my philosophy or how I
arrived at it based on four paragraphs. Trust me on this you are not arguing
with a fundamentalist and most especially not your narrow minded caricature of
what a Christian might be.
"Hairless bipedal ape" rather accurately describes the creature staring back at
me from the mirror. My "prejudice" if you will is to note the remarkable
similarities between humans and chimps and wonder why God made them so alike.
>> The debate is really not whether we are the product of a divine
>> creation instead of some aimless biochemical reactions, but whether
>> we should treat one another as one.
>
>An excellent point. However, you make the implicit and erroneous
>assumption that one cannot treat others morally in a scientific world.
No, not that it isn't possible. But that it does not logically follow. There is
no moral consequence to the disruption of a self-propogating DNA chain or the
noise it makes in the process.
>> I will expose myself to Godwin's Law, we know who in the last
>> century was the most ardent believer in Darwinism as applied to
>> human interaction. Having seen the pit at the end of that particular
>> slippery slope Darwin is a little less welcome than he once was.
>
>You only expose your misunderstanding and your distorted prejudice
>against science and evolution, by attempting to associate science with
>Hitler and the Nazis.
Hitler himself was specifically and avowedly Darwinist. It is all over his
letters and writings. He invokes the principle from his earliest writings to his
last despairs as the allies were closing in. You may argue that Hitler did
indeed misunderstand. But *I* didn't associate Hitlerism with Darwin, Hitler
did, loudly, clearly and repeatedly.
Once again, back to this ad hominem crap; my understanding of evolution is
remarkably sound for a layman. It's a subject that interests me and having been
a science fan all my life I've done some fairly serious reading. I have no
prejudice against science whatever, count me with Thomas Aquinas as believing
that we have a duty to explore analyze and attempt to understand His creations
and methods.
Do you really think that science and faith are incompatible. If so you have
either a very narrow faith or a very weak science.
Ron
Mark Hickey
>Seems to me, throughout history, God has been the #1 cause of death....
>Yet some people still cling to the fairy tales.
>Just remember, all religion is of this world, not the reverse.
Yawn... one OT thread per troll, please.
Pat
: >
: >But as I said, you are free to believe whatever you choose. I will
: >disagree with you, but I'll defend your right to your faith.
: As will I yours, but I will certainly challenge your ignorant and bigoted
(yes,
: that's the right word) characterisations.
:
: Wanna know enough Christianity so that you can speak on the subject
without
: looking like a moron? Please, take me up on this; go to the library and
pick up
: a copy of C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" and read it. It is a short
book, easy
: reading. Give it a shot. You'll be through it in a couple days at most.
:
: Ron
Ron, his take on it appears more educated than yours. Instead of putting
forth ideas, all you are doing is yelling names at him. He doesn't look
like a moron.
Pat in TX
:
RonSonic
As will I yours, but I will certainly challenge your ignorant and bigoted (yes,
Kenny
death. Christians are no exceptions. Death is but the release of the
spiritual form from the physical shell. According to my belief, if you
reject Jesus as your redeemer while in the now physical form, then
upon the death of the physical body, the spirit of that body, which is
pure conscious energy and because it is energy it cannot be destroyed,
will be forever exiled from God's presence (the total essence of pure
love in spirit form) and or be punished for rejecting Jesus as the
Saviour and be judged accordinly.
Don't say I didn't try to warn you.
Kenny Lee
Neil Brooks
Faith through fear. If nothing else, it /does/ win elections :-/
Sheldon Brown
> There is no escaping the physical death. Everyone dies a physical
> death.
This is widely believed, but is not quite correct.
It is estimated that approximately 100 billion people have been born
throughout the existence of the species.
There are currently approximately 6 billion people alive, so of the 100
billion total, only 94 billion have died.
Thus, we can determine that death is _not_ inevitable, as commonly
believed, merely highly probable.
You have a 6% chance of survival!
Carapace Completed Umber
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| We are satisfied that there can be but little liberty |
| on earth while men worship a tyrant in heaven. |
| -- Robert Green Ingersoll |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
pete...@yahoo.com
Mark Hickey wrote:
> It might surprise you, but I agree with you... I'd point out that
> currently the "faith" required to believe in spontaneous generation
of
> life and undirected random evolution is at least as great as that to
> believe in the concept of a creator directing the process (greater,
> actually... but I won't quibble).
Actually, you are wrong. Simulations of conditions early (after the
formation of the seas, over 4 billion years ago) in the life of the
earth show that peptides will form of their own accord with the
application of energy (i.e., lightning). Certainly more easily
accepted than mere words in text, with absolutely nothing else to back
them up.
Please, do quibble, it makes clear to everyone the basis of your
argument (or lack thereof).
> The current "policy bully pulpit" seems to be manifesting itself in
> the refusal to tell students that evolution and the theories about
the
> origin of life are theories that have gaping holes (even Darwin said
> so). I'd be happy if the politics were removed from the whole thing,
> and all the facts and various opinions were presented to the students
> to let them make up their own minds.
Theories, by definition, are not fact, but are rather a proposition
based on facts. Gaping holes go with the territory. As for "various
opinions", let the creationists spout their religion in church where
religion belongs.
>
> That way, no one is "imposing their faith", whether that faith is in
> Darwin or a Creator.
Schools are for teaching people how to deal with reality - religion is
for assuaging the fears of those unable to deal with the finality of
death and controlling the masses.
If there were any rigor, any science, any actual research that is
founded in the scientific method that were accepted by any reasonable
institution, it would be appropriate. But there isn't.
App
Neil Brooks
distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh
of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it
is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the
people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is
required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion
about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs
illusions."
Say what you will about the forgotten Marx brother, but the brother
realized that the emperor was buck naked all along.
As I've said for decades, I'll support anybody's freedom /of/ religion
if they'll support my freedom /from/ it.
Mike Latondresse
news:osydnZUXbuu...@comcast.com:
> Seems to me, throughout history, God has been the #1 cause of
> death....
May I suggest old age.
Alex Rodriguez
rons...@tampabay.rr.com says...>>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>| The most preposterous notion that H. Sapiens has ever dreamed up |
>>| is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the |
>>| Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can |
>>| be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not |
>>| receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred |
>>| of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, |
>>| largest, and least productive industry in all history. |
>>| --Robert A. Heinlein |
>>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>The most arrogant notion of H. Sapiens is that it might ignore the fact of its
>own creation and the consequences of that status as a creation. It is scarcely
>imaginable that such a creature could ever find any happiness without gaining
>some communication with its creator. The impedance mismatch is such that man
>can
>scarcely imagine his creator much less know him well enough to communicate
>fully. The attempt and will to do so are nontheless important.
If the creator is so high and mighty, he should be the one who could learn
to communicate with the rest of us lowly beings.
>What is truly preposterous is to take some childish caricature of religious
>faith and hold it up as a straw man to denounce all religion. Sadly, humanity
>is
>such that many of its religions are childish and silly. Yet nearly all have
>improved the condition of their adherents - that is more important than the
>self-flattery of those who "know better."
I don't think anyone is saying that all religion is bad, which is what you
are implying. Some religions are good, but not because they worship a high
and might god. Religion provides a social setting that many people enjoy. It
also provides guidance to individuals who like to be told what to do. In that
sense religion is good.
-------------
Alex
Benjamin Lewis
> The most arrogant notion of H. Sapiens is that it might ignore the fact
> of its own creation and the consequences of that status as a creation.
These consequences hardly imply the existence of a supernatural, conscious
creator.
> It is scarcely imaginable that such a creature could ever find any
> happiness without gaining some communication with its creator.
I don't know what you mean by this. I find it not only easily imaginable,
but have first-hand knowledge that it happens frequently -- or are atheists
somehow not qualified to judge whether they are happy or not?
--
Benjamin Lewis
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips
over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."
--Matt Groening
Jim Smith
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>> It might surprise you, but I agree with you... I'd point out that
>> currently the "faith" required to believe in spontaneous generation
> of
>> life and undirected random evolution is at least as great as that to
>> believe in the concept of a creator directing the process (greater,
>> actually... but I won't quibble).
>
> Actually, you are wrong. Simulations of conditions early (after the
> formation of the seas, over 4 billion years ago) in the life of the
> earth show that peptides will form of their own accord with the
> application of energy (i.e., lightning). Certainly more easily
> accepted than mere words in text, with absolutely nothing else to back
> them up.
Evolutionarily speaking, it isn't too hard to imagine going from a
bacterium to any other life form. It is getting that first bacteria
that is a real PITA. Stanley Miller's experiment doesn't have
anything to say about how to go from those peptides to bacteria. About
all he showed is that it is possible to do organic chemistry in an
organic chemistry lab.
data...@yahoo.com
i lament the loss of manadatory email addresses and suggest a long walk
to detroit carrying a cross in January: very carthartic.
einstein rode a bike
life is long! god bless.
data...@yahoo.com
Tim McNamara
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>>The issues you raise, such as parthenogenesis and evolution, are
>>problematic primarily as distorted and reframed by the conservative
>>religious right, who see science as anathema and as competition for
>>their own beliefs.
>
> I think you're trying to throw one big blanket over a very diverse
> group of people there...
You may be quite correct about my painting with too broad a brush
here. Wouldn't be the first time, and I will own up that my view of
the "religious right" is heavily predicated on (1) the religious
right's media figures and (2) the earnest but extremist people who
knock on my door and leave religious literature on my porch several
times a week.
> you would probably consider me one of the "religious right", but I
> hardly see science as either anathema or a "competition for (my) own
> beliefs". I see it as the study of how the creation was done, and
> find it fascinating, but NOT at odds with my view of the universe
> and life as God-designed and directed.
While I know that some religious folks have tried to build some kind
of bridge with the notion of "directed evolution" or "divine design,"
I think that science and religion are opposing polarities of thought.
If the findings of science are ultimately correct, then religion is
not (and here I must include all religions with the possible exception
of Buddhism, which is kind of an odd duck as far as religions go-
lacking a deity, for example).
>>Science is very clear on the matter- it is not known how the first
>>organisms developed despite a plurality of theories. The
>>information is not yet available to explain this.
>
> And if the textbooks were to put it in those terms, our kids would
> have a much better chance of coming to grips with the issue.
> Instead, it's taught as gospel (pardon the term...) in our schools,
> and that IMHO is a major disservice to our kids.
Since evolution is pretty clearly correct, and has even been
demonstrated on fairly small scales in a number of studies, the real
issue facing evlution is how life "began." I suspect the notion of an
acute, defineable beginning is simply incorrect and that the
beginnings of life were fuzzy and incremental. Given the predominance
of the notion of life as an instantaneous creation, however, it is
difficult fo rpeople to even begin to think in scientific ways about
this (even for some scientists).
However, anything being taught in schools should be clear and
comrpehensible. Even when the material is not yet definitive- kids
can handle intellectual ambiguity. Now, I should point out that the
description I gave you *is* what I was taught in school. Evolution
was not taught as "gospel" but as a theory that was- if you'll pardon
the expression- evolving.
>>Of course, parthenogenesis comes from the Greek meaning "virgin
>>birth," which is a central belief in Christianity. ;-)
>>Parthenogenesis is well-known and documented in many species, by the
>>way, but not in humans.
>
> Oh, I can think of one example... ;-)
Presumably the one I alluded to? :-)
>>The reclassification of archaea has perhaps helped clarify the issue
>>of the development of life somewhat:
>>
>>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/archaea/archaea.html
>>
>>http://tolweb.org/tree?group=life_on_earth
>>
>>http://cmex-www.arc.nasa.gov/VikingCD/Puzzle/EvoLife.htm
>>
>>> The current "policy bully pulpit" seems to be manifesting itself
>>> in the refusal to tell students that evolution and the theories
>>> about the origin of life are theories that have gaping holes (even
>>> Darwin said so). I'd be happy if the politics were removed from
>>> the whole thing, and all the facts and various opinions were
>>> presented to the students to let them make up their own minds.
>>
>>The problem with that being that there are no facts supporting the
>>creationist viewpoint of Judeo-Christian-Islamic mythology.
>
> I think a frank discussion about the unbelievably steep odds against
> life knitting itself together in a mud puddle, and the fact that
> some groups believe that the process was orchestrated by a creator
> (created man from the "dust of the earth") would be sufficient.
Only if the conversation is not stated in baldly prejudicial terms,
like the ones you just used.
>>> That way, no one is "imposing their faith", whether that faith is
>>> in Darwin or a Creator.
>>
>>The problem I have with teaching creationism, or whatever the
>>current politically astute marketing term might be, is that it
>>treats the situation has having two possible truths:
>>Judeo-Christian-Islamic creationism and Darwinism. The Right Wing
>>would take to the streets with pitchforks and torches if public
>>schools attempted to teach the creation myths of Hinduism, the
>>Navajos, the Hopi, Buddhism, Taoism or any other religion. But if
>>we are going to teach one version of creationism, we have to teach
>>them all and this is not going to be accceptable to the Right. They
>>only want their religion taught, and they want ot taught on the
>>taxpayer's dollar through vouchers and classes in public schools.
>
> I couldn't disagree more - I just think it's impossible to talk
> about the origin of life without opening up the possibility of a
> creator (whatever form that might take - doesn't have to be a
> "Judeo-Christian creator, after all). I don't want Genesis taught
> in public schools - they'd do a lousy job, for one thing. ;-)
I don't think that it is the place of public schools to teach
religious tenets of any faith. It would violate the intent of the
framers of the Constitution, for one thing.
For another, it would imply that one religious creation myth is true
and the rest are false. That is a matter for comparative religion
classes and not for science classes. Hmmm, I'm not sure how I'd feel
about elective comparative religion classes being taught in public
schools- I've never thought about that before.
For a third, as a non-Christian I would be frankly offended if my
children were being essentially proselytized (sp?) by a religion I do
not believe in- and as their parent, would I not have the right to
choose which faith they are raised in? One of the interesting ideas I
have heard from pro-Christians regarding schools is that "Christianity
is the faith of 99% of the country and therefore it is OK to teach it
in public schools." There are a number of problems in this thinking.
>>Politics is not, has not and never will be removed from education on
>>any topic, but this one most of all because it strikes at the heart
>>of the problems of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths, and the
>>faithful will not gladly suffer any challenge to their beliefs.
>>They are convinced of their rightness, and protecting that
>>conviction is the core motivator of attempts to rewrite science in
>>His image. In an odd way, it seems to me that this indicates a real
>>lack of faith! If the True Religion is really true, nothing can
>>threaten it. These folks fighting to make the True Religion into
>>the overt state religion- believing that anything else is the
>>denigration of and attack upon their faith- lack a true faith in
>>their God and Savior.
>
> I think you are misinterpreting a HUGE number of the "religious
> right", myself included. The more I learn about the origin and
> structure of the universe, and of life, the more it bolsters my
> faith that it simply can't be a random accident. The vast majority
> of Christians I've discussed these issues with agree with me, though
> I'm sure there are some who don't (who take a classic seven calendar
> day view of the creation).
I think that for the most part Christians- even many of those who
would include themselves in the "religious right"- tend to be fairly
moderate, but the moderates are often not the ones showing up at
school board meetings trying to sway policy. The same of course is
true on the other side of the coin.
I think your use of loaded words like "random" are part of your
prejudgment about what science proposes, and that they blind your
thinking. It is possible that the universe is not random and yet has
no creative Consciousness designing or guiding it. At the same time,
some element of randomness/chaos is quite evident (unless you believe-
as do many- that God has ordered the Universe in a predestined manner,
in which case none of us are responsible for anything as we have no
choice).
> FWIW, I've read that there are few astrophysicists who are convinced
> that the universe can be explained without the presence of some sort
> of "designer"...
The majority of the books and articles I've seen on this have not
mentioned religious concepts in their publications; what they think
privately I do not know.
>>Of course, with the changing demographics in the US, Christianity
>>may find itself not in the majority position in another 50 years.
>>It will be interesting to see what happens as Islamists, for
>>example, gain a greater presence in the US. It will also be
>>interesting to see what happens on the world stage as India and
>>China become the preeminent economies in the next half-century. If
>>we live that long.
>
> I'm worried about the US school system in more ways than just the
> teaching of Darwin as unquestionable fact - we don't seem to be
> doing a very good job at teaching 'em math and science either.
I don't think that it is the school system that is to blame. I think
the "decline" or "failure" of the public school system is a carefully
crafted illusion in most cases, with some local situations that really
are not good. The illusion is driven by other factors, especially not
wanting to pay the cost of education our children. Heck, even GWB
wants to de-fund his own "No Child Left Behind" act!
I think there are a number of issues, including the generational
problem of "I don't know what these kids are coming to." Every
generation thinks the next generation is deficient in character and
morals- yet if this was really true the human race would have killed
itself off long ago.
I think that the main "failing" of public schools is found at home and
in neighborhoods, not in the schools. I see too many families, many
of them middle and upper middle class, where education is not the
priority. Children are indulged and not held accountable; they are
given false rewards for inadequate performance to make them feel
better about themselves- but they know the score and it doesn't work;
there are too many distractions from studies- cell phones, TV in their
rooms, video games, computers, etc.
Parents are often not available, working long hours and not getting
home until late in the day. I think boomer parents (my generation)
have some tendency to be self-absorbed and overly permissive as a
result.
I think that children are encouraged to be dependent rather than
independent. They aren't used to getting themselves around by bike,
for example, and depend on adults to drive them everywhere. They
can't organize a game of pickup baseball because they have only played
in organized team sports with overinvolved parents who are often
acting out their own issues through their kids- and ruining the game
in the process.
I think there is one real problem in schools that is specifically the
result of a failure within the educational system. With the advent of
standardized testing and the dependence of funding on test scores, the
results have been that what is taught is what kids need to know to do
well on the tests rather than what they need to know to do well in
life. Cheating by school officials has become widespread (with a
rather famous set of cases in Texas during Governor Bush's reign),
with poor performing kids being left out of the testing and possibly
not even graduating from school because their low performace
endangered the school's funding. Since one-half of all children are
below average academically, this is a serious concern for the future
of this generation.
Good performance in public schools is pretty well correlated with a
few factors: class sizes smaller than 30 students; well-trained
skilled teachers; current textbooks. Unfortunately, many parts of the
country simply fail to fund the schools adequately enough to meet even
one of the three conditions, compounded by the failure of the federal
government to resolve the huge unfunded mandates that have existed for
years (30 years and more in come cases, beginning with IIRC PL94-142).
Kenny
Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> If the creator is so high and mighty, he should be the one who could
learn
> to communicate with the rest of us lowly beings.
He sent his only son, Jesus. He's trying to communicate with you now.
RonSonic
Of course you type this having clipped the entirety of his post, which did
indeed demonstrate bigotry and ignorance. True these are not exclusively
characteristic of morons, but when subjected to that combination I am happy to
throw in the gratuitous insult for free.
I'll suggest that what you see in him as "educated" is nothing more than an
agreeable set of prejudices. But then that is a large part of most educations
which is, once again, why I strongly suggest remedying those prejudices.
Ron
RonSonic
>"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real
>distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh
>of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it
>is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the
>people.
>
>The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is
>required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion
>about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs
>illusions."
>
>Say what you will about the forgotten Marx brother, but the brother
>realized that the emperor was buck naked all along.
Oh bullshit. Comrade Marx was just showing off his own line up of designer
clothing. And we see the rags those turned out to be.
>As I've said for decades, I'll support anybody's freedom /of/ religion
>if they'll support my freedom /from/ it.
I think we can all agree to not force others to go through motions or make
utterances. But I cannot promise you will not hear of it or see signs of it. No
reasonable person, which I assume you are, could ask that. But there are a
number of unreasonable people out there.
The worst example lately were complaints to highway departments to remove the
improvised shrines set at accident sites. The claim was that the crosses were
offensive. That is madness.
Ron
RonSonic
>In article <2hit011ltk8cddq0g...@4ax.com>,
>rons...@tampabay.rr.com says...
>>
>>
>>On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:03:04 -0500, Sheldon Brown <capt...@sheldonbrown.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>| The most preposterous notion that H. Sapiens has ever dreamed up |
>>>| is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the |
>>>| Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can |
>>>| be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not |
>>>| receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred |
>>>| of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, |
>>>| largest, and least productive industry in all history. |
>>>| --Robert A. Heinlein |
>>>+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>>The most arrogant notion of H. Sapiens is that it might ignore the fact of its
>>own creation and the consequences of that status as a creation. It is scarcely
>>imaginable that such a creature could ever find any happiness without gaining
>>some communication with its creator. The impedance mismatch is such that man
>>can
>>scarcely imagine his creator much less know him well enough to communicate
>>fully. The attempt and will to do so are nontheless important.
>
>If the creator is so high and mighty, he should be the one who could learn
>to communicate with the rest of us lowly beings.
Shouldn't a parent carry a child everywhere all the time since it can do so
easily. There are lessons to be learned.
>>What is truly preposterous is to take some childish caricature of religious
>>faith and hold it up as a straw man to denounce all religion. Sadly, humanity
>>is
>>such that many of its religions are childish and silly. Yet nearly all have
>>improved the condition of their adherents - that is more important than the
>>self-flattery of those who "know better."
>
>I don't think anyone is saying that all religion is bad, which is what you
>are implying. Some religions are good, but not because they worship a high
>and might god.
The quote I replied to is abusive of religion in general.
>Religion provides a social setting that many people enjoy. It
>also provides guidance to individuals who like to be told what to do. In that
>sense religion is good.
Then go ahead and congratulate yourself on "knowing better."
Ron
>-------------
>Alex
RonSonic
wrote:
Birth. Precedes old age. So far everything born dies.
Sheldon mentioned a numerical indication that this might possibly not be true,
but I just think all the data hasn't been collected.
Ron
S o r n i
> Kenny wrote:
>
>> There is no escaping the physical death. Everyone dies a physical
>> death.
>
> This is widely believed, but is not quite correct.
>
> It is estimated that approximately 100 billion people have been born
> throughout the existence of the species.
>
> There are currently approximately 6 billion people alive, so of the
> 100 billion total, only 94 billion have died.
>
> Thus, we can determine that death is _not_ inevitable, as commonly
> believed, merely highly probable.
>
> You have a 6% chance of survival!
Holy crap, I better clean up my diet.
Bill "maybe tomorrow" S.
Neil Brooks
>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:55:42 GMT, Neil Brooks <Neil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real
>>distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh
>>of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it
>>is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the
>>people.
>>
>>The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is
>>required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion
>>about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs
>>illusions."
>>
>>Say what you will about the forgotten Marx brother, but the brother
>>realized that the emperor was buck naked all along.
>
>Oh bullshit. Comrade Marx was just showing off his own line up of designer
>clothing. And we see the rags those turned out to be.
You do an admirable job, Ron, of defining a person by a singular and
specific belief (Hitler/Darwinism) when it suits your purpose, and an
equally deft job of the opposite when /that/ suits your purpose. The
belief (evolution) should stand alone. The quote--while I gave it its
attribution because I think it's only proper--should also stand alone.
I just admire its eloquence, much as I admire the sagacity of Deepak
Chopra's recent, "Religion and nationalism are the scourge of
humanity." I couldn't agree more. The barriers, the violence, the
killing in the name of both of those concepts. Unbelievable.
>>As I've said for decades, I'll support anybody's freedom /of/ religion
>>if they'll support my freedom /from/ it.
>
>I think we can all agree to not force others to go through motions or make
>utterances. But I cannot promise you will not hear of it or see signs of it. No
>reasonable person, which I assume you are, could ask that. But there are a
>number of unreasonable people out there.
"go through motions or make utterances???" I think the Christian
Right can be disgustingly overbearing and obstrusive /far/ short of
mustering another Crusade.
Nice try, incidentally, with "No reasonable person, which I assume you
are, could ask that." What about all of the elements of imposition of
religion that fall between those two extremes? A reasonable person
could ask that you leave your religion at home and at church, leaving
me to worship, or not worship, as I see fit. Sorry if this puts a
damper on the proselytizing business, but . . . que sera sera.
How about not taking the time of /all/ schoolchildren just so that the
religious among them can pray? Pray at home. Pray on the bus. Pray
into an icon on the top shelf of your locker.
How about not keeping homosexuals from living their lives in /any/ way
that they want to simply because it is considered, by Christians, to
be a sin that will deny gay people access to "His Kingdom" after
death?? As a Jew, allegedly, I'm not welcome in that particular Good
Ol' Boys crowd either.
"Johnny? What do we have for our Jewish friend here?" "Well, Bob,
it's eternal hellfire and damnation!" Again, ain't religion a
beautiful thing?
>The worst example lately were complaints to highway departments to remove the
>improvised shrines set at accident sites. The claim was that the crosses were
>offensive. That is madness.
I think you're doing a find job of pillorying the middle by use of the
extreme example . . . but I'm not swayed. Nut-jobs are nut-jobs at
either end of the spectrum. The folk who want those highway shrines
yanked are operating loosely at a local level. They don't appear to
be organizing grass-roots campaigns, getting elected to school boards,
state legislatures, or Congress. They aren't particularly influencing
national policy; they're just making noise. When they take office
(say, the Presidency) and try to impose they're values on the nation
and on you (as Jeb's brother does), give me a jingle and I'll get them
to back down. Promise.
While we're at it, I'm ready for the ~$16 billion (e) annual in
property tax that the Church doesn't pay (another imposition of
religion on those who don't want it. I'm subsidizing it, too). We're
sure gonna' need it with W maxing out the charge cards on war-toys and
colonialism.
Tom Sherman
> ...Again, ain't religion a beautiful thing?...
Without the divine inspiration of the Prophet Tullio Campagnolo, we
would all still be attaching our wheels with wing nuts!
--
Tom Sherman - Earth
Mark Hickey
>Mark Hickey <ma...@habcycles.com> writes:
<snipped lots o' thoughtful prose>
I could spend an hour responding to the many excellent comments you
made - I'm obviously not in violent disagreement with many of your
points... but OTOH I don't have an hour either. ;-)
>While I know that some religious folks have tried to build some kind
>of bridge with the notion of "directed evolution" or "divine design,"
>I think that science and religion are opposing polarities of thought.
>If the findings of science are ultimately correct, then religion is
>not (and here I must include all religions with the possible exception
>of Buddhism, which is kind of an odd duck as far as religions go-
>lacking a deity, for example).
I think you've inappropriately identified the issue as binary - it's
really not. I haven't seen anything in science that disagrees with my
opinion of the creation. In fact, the more science uncovers about the
reality of the universe, the more it "proves" my point that it simply
can't be a cosmic accident (is that another of those "prejudicial
terms?). I'd sincerely recommend the book 'The Fingerprint of God' by
astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross. He goes into excruciating details about
the origin of the universe and the probabilities of it happening
without control. He actually began the project as an atheist looking
for some hint at what or who was behind the obvious design of the
universe, and studied a number of religions looking for the answer.
>Since evolution is pretty clearly correct, and has even been
>demonstrated on fairly small scales in a number of studies,
I'm not aware of any documented example of evolution. We have seen
some limited adaptation, but certainly have not (in human experience)
seen anything that would qualify as "evolution". This stumped Darwin
as well, since his theories required either huge time lapses (in which
case there would be plenty of transitional forms left in fossil
record) or it has to happen in a very short "burst" (which would
provide evidence that we could examine in human history, none of which
exist).
To me, the bat is the perfect example (one that occurred to me, not
something I've read somewhere). To get from a rat/mouse to a bat
would require many generations of transitional life forms that could
barely walk, but be unable to fly. Doesn't sound like a successful
plan...
> the real
>issue facing evlution is how life "began." I suspect the notion of an
>acute, defineable beginning is simply incorrect and that the
>beginnings of life were fuzzy and incremental. Given the predominance
>of the notion of life as an instantaneous creation, however, it is
>difficult fo rpeople to even begin to think in scientific ways about
>this (even for some scientists).
Even the simplest example of "life" is so completely complex that it's
impossible for me (at least...) to imagine it simply knitting itself
together. The potential for this life form that DID to survive would
be pretty slim, too (another thing Ross covers in his book, BTW).
>However, anything being taught in schools should be clear and
>comrpehensible. Even when the material is not yet definitive- kids
>can handle intellectual ambiguity. Now, I should point out that the
>description I gave you *is* what I was taught in school. Evolution
>was not taught as "gospel" but as a theory that was- if you'll pardon
>the expression- evolving.
Again, the textbooks that present Darwin as a theory with significant
unexplained gaps are OK by me. But I'm not aware of any of the texts
that go into any of the significant problems with the theory (can't
say I've been in high school for a while though - could be different
these days).
<big time-induced snip>
Mark Hickey
Heck, the leap from a peptide to bacteria is absolutely mind-boggling.
Check out the article at http://www.grisda.org/origins/14007.htm
An excerpt: "The resulting protenoids have only a superficial
resemblance to true proteins, in that the resulting peptide bonds
are predominantly of the beta, gamma and epsilon variety, rather
than the naturally occurring alpha bonds. The amino acid sequences
are generated entirely by random means, and there is no mechanism
to ensure any reproducibility. If by chance a biologically useful
molecule is formed, how will its subsequent production be ensured?
When protenoids cool, they form microspheres which, according to
Fox, grow and divide. True growth, however, requires numerous
metabolic steps and incorporation of small molecules into the
polymer structure of the cell. In Fox's experiment, "growth"
results from the physical attraction of opposite charges, and
"budding" refers to the breaking up of microspheres due to changes
in acidity or heat.
Mark Hickey
>Birth. Precedes old age. So far everything born dies.
>
>Sheldon mentioned a numerical indication that this might possibly not be true,
>but I just think all the data hasn't been collected.
Get back to me in a couple hundred years, and I'll bet we have it
figured out...
Jim Smith
As a firm believer in Darwinism, I prefer to mark these sites with
improvised swastikas.
Jim Smith
> Heck, the leap from a peptide to bacteria is absolutely mind-boggling.
>
> Check out the article at http://www.grisda.org/origins/14007.htm
he does a reasonably good job of pointing out some of the problems. I
think that sort material is entirely appropriate, or even necessary,
for a high school biology textbook.
I do, however take exception to his conclusions in the last paragraph.
In particular, he states:
"Our inability not only to create living matter but even to suggest
how such could come into existence forces us to admit that the
existence of life demands the existence of a Creator."
It sounds like he is claiming he has found a proof for the existence
of God. There may indeed be a creator, but our present failure to
explain the origins of life in no way proves "his" existence.
Benjamin Lewis
> To me, the bat is the perfect example (one that occurred to me, not
> something I've read somewhere). To get from a rat/mouse to a bat
> would require many generations of transitional life forms that could
> barely walk, but be unable to fly. Doesn't sound like a successful
> plan...
Hmm. Ever seen a flying squirrel?
> Even the simplest example of "life" is so completely complex that it's
> impossible for me (at least...) to imagine it simply knitting itself
> together. The potential for this life form that DID to survive would
> be pretty slim, too (another thing Ross covers in his book, BTW).
You might want to look into some books by Richard Dawkins, or "Freedom
Evolves" by Daniel Dennett.
pete...@yahoo.com
seen string theory? It's just a theory - maybe creationism should
supplant all study of physics and chemistry?
F***in' A, let's all just go to Bob Jones university, and screw any
real knowledge. Certainly would go a long way to discovering cures
for cancer, and developing our knowledge of the universe - god will
provide, all we have to do is squinch our eyes shut real tight and beg
for it.
So when you come down with some awful disease, or come up against
something you don't understand, just close your eyes, think of god (the
correct christian god, which one is yours?) and everything will be
fine. Don't think, don't try to make sense 'cuz it ain't sposed ta'.
Again, let's address the real issue you are skirting, namely, that your
god-boy explanation for the origins of the world belongs in a CATECHISM
class not in a BIOLOGY class.
Science class is for science. Stop polluting science with your crap -
all of you.
App, who thinks churches should be forced to teach evolution as an
"alternative theory".
App
Pat
Message-ID: <37eermF...@individual.net>
References: <1108230031.2...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <ghrPd.4343$aW6....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> <420E44D8...@sheldonbrown.com> <2hit011ltk8cddq0g...@4ax.com> <m2psz59...@Althea.local> <u4qu01pgfmenlb8nf...@4ax.com> <m2650wn...@Althea.local> <u7ov01d7a5vatle11...@4ax.com> <m2k6pc6...@Althea.local> <hpc1115bstnvvfrkq...@4ax.com> <37btc1F...@individual.net> <npn211p61vqps5rah...@4ax.com>
X-Trace: individual.net WtOWoyQWE8zTushb9TFPXAy67Fy/LI0ZXrX7y+M4qwvshjllg1
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
Xref: g2news1.google.com rec.bicycles.tech:51933
: >
: >Ron, his take on it appears more educated than yours. Instead of putting
: >forth ideas, all you are doing is yelling names at him. He doesn't look
: >like a moron.
:
: Of course you type this having clipped the entirety of his post, which did
: indeed demonstrate bigotry and ignorance. True these are not exclusively
: characteristic of morons, but when subjected to that combination I am
happy to
: throw in the gratuitous insult for free.
:
: I'll suggest that what you see in him as "educated" is nothing more than
an
: agreeable set of prejudices. But then that is a large part of most
educations
: which is, once again, why I strongly suggest remedying those prejudices.
:
: Ron
Whoops, you did it again. Just can't control your fingers, can you? I'm
outta here. No use trading opinions with someone who is only gonna come back
with insults. You do Christianity a disservice.
Pat in TX
:
Mark Hickey
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> To me, the bat is the perfect example (one that occurred to me, not
>> something I've read somewhere). To get from a rat/mouse to a bat
>> would require many generations of transitional life forms that could
>> barely walk, but be unable to fly. Doesn't sound like a successful
>> plan...
>
>Hmm. Ever seen a flying squirrel?
Yep, and it can't fly. They can jump further than "stock squirrels"
because of the better glide ratio due to its extra skin, but are many,
many, many variations removed from anything that could remotely dream
of using its flying ability to hunt insects (for example). In the
mean time, they'd lose their ability to walk long before reaching the
ability to fly.
Mark Hickey
It sounds to me like he's proposed a theory (not any different than
what Darwin did) that would fill in the missing gaps. And let's face
it, until there's a theory that DOES explain the spontaneous
generation of life, a "creator" is the best theory we've got to work
with from a scientific perspective - that is, it comes down to a "we
have no idea, and it seems impossible, but it just happened somehow"
or "it was a controlled process".
My money's on the latter. ;-)
Mark Hickey
>Not as mind-boggling as the leap to believe creationism. And have you
>seen string theory? It's just a theory - maybe creationism should
>supplant all study of physics and chemistry?
Hardly - it was the introductory material.
>F***in' A, let's all just go to Bob Jones university, and screw any
>real knowledge. Certainly would go a long way to discovering cures
>for cancer, and developing our knowledge of the universe - god will
>provide, all we have to do is squinch our eyes shut real tight and beg
>for it.
Man, you gotta get out of the dark ages. You have some sort of
radically archaic view of religion. Go pick up a book on the subject
or something.
>So when you come down with some awful disease, or come up against
>something you don't understand, just close your eyes, think of god (the
>correct christian god, which one is yours?) and everything will be
>fine. Don't think, don't try to make sense 'cuz it ain't sposed ta'.
You sound like a NASCAR fan trying to explain bicycling.
>Again, let's address the real issue you are skirting, namely, that your
>god-boy explanation for the origins of the world belongs in a CATECHISM
>class not in a BIOLOGY class.
>
>Science class is for science. Stop polluting science with your crap -
>all of you.
I'm advocating stop polluting science with bias. Teach the material,
and explain the gaps and the problems with the theories. Does that
sound too radical for you, or do you think our kids can't handle the
truth?
>App, who thinks churches should be forced to teach evolution as an
>"alternative theory".
Funny enough, Christians don't seem to be concerned with evolution as
a theory. But you seem to have a real problem with any teaching that
lies outside your particular biases (is this where you "squinch your
eyes shut real tight"?).
RonSonic
>
>: >
>: >Ron, his take on it appears more educated than yours. Instead of putting
>: >forth ideas, all you are doing is yelling names at him. He doesn't look
>: >like a moron.
>:
>: Of course you type this having clipped the entirety of his post, which did
>: indeed demonstrate bigotry and ignorance. True these are not exclusively
>: characteristic of morons, but when subjected to that combination I am
>happy to
>: throw in the gratuitous insult for free.
>:
>: I'll suggest that what you see in him as "educated" is nothing more than
>an
>: agreeable set of prejudices. But then that is a large part of most
>educations
>: which is, once again, why I strongly suggest remedying those prejudices.
>:
>: Ron
>
>Whoops, you did it again. Just can't control your fingers, can you? I'm
>outta here. No use trading opinions with someone who is only gonna come back
>with insults. You do Christianity a disservice.
Sorry, but Tom while being an intelligent and otherwise decent and well educated
fellow is ignorant on the subject of Christianity. I would be lying to say
otherwise. If you find his opinions on the subject to appear educated then you
also are ignorant. Sorry, it is a legitimate and accurate word.
Ron
pete...@yahoo.com
> You sound like a NASCAR fan trying to explain bicycling.
And went on to twist the argument thusly:
> Funny enough, Christians don't seem to be concerned with evolution as
> a theory. But you seem to have a real problem with any teaching that
> lies outside your particular biases (is this where you "squinch your
> eyes shut real tight"?).
And you yours. Again, as maybe by repetition you will understand: it
is called a theory. A theory, since you seem to have already
forgotten, is a proposition based on a collection of facts. This is
the first thing I, and probably any other student in this country is
taught about SCIENCE. There is no need for the shrill voice of the
religious in this country to be plastered all over text books.
Science, as opposed to religion is open to discussion. Facts, theories
and scientific method are taught prior to anything else in all science
classes.
Give it up - you are pushing an agenda that is already crumbling. The
things you want are already taught about SCIENCE, i.e., the nature of
theories.
OTOH, if what you want is to prop up religion by tearing down science,
then keep it up.
Finally, Mr. Hickey prevaricated:
> Funny enough, Christians don't seem to be concerned with evolution as
> a theory.
Really? You, sir, are full of shit. Then why are they trying to ban
the teaching of evolution - Scopes Monkey trial, Kansas, etc...?
App, who doesn't pepper his arguments with outright lies.
RonSonic
>Neil Brooks wrote:
>
>> ...Again, ain't religion a beautiful thing?...
>
>Without the divine inspiration of the Prophet Tullio Campagnolo, we
>would all still be attaching our wheels with wing nuts!
Tom, while we have disagreed on many important issues I must say you have an eye
that sees to heart of things.
Ron
RonSonic
>RonSonic wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:55:42 GMT, Neil Brooks <Neil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real
>>>distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh
>>>of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it
>>>is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the
>>>people.
>>>
>>>The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is
>>>required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion
>>>about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs
>>>illusions."
>>>
>>>Say what you will about the forgotten Marx brother, but the brother
>>>realized that the emperor was buck naked all along.
>>
>>Oh bullshit. Comrade Marx was just showing off his own line up of designer
>>clothing. And we see the rags those turned out to be.
>
>You do an admirable job, Ron, of defining a person by a singular and
>specific belief (Hitler/Darwinism) when it suits your purpose, and an
>equally deft job of the opposite when /that/ suits your purpose. The
>belief (evolution) should stand alone. The quote--while I gave it its
>attribution because I think it's only proper--should also stand alone.
That quote stands only as part of Marx's sales pitch for his own brand of belief
system.
Now the Hitler/Darwinism thing: I think you completely misunderstand my point
which was not to associate the two for the mere pejorative value - nice
rhetorical gimmick yes thank you - but to present as example the argument that
it is hard to logically derive from Darwinism any mandate that humans treat one
another well. There is no moral or ethical code that necessarily follows from
it. That is the far greater point and the most important.
>I just admire its eloquence, much as I admire the sagacity of Deepak
>Chopra's recent, "Religion and nationalism are the scourge of
>humanity." I couldn't agree more. The barriers, the violence, the
>killing in the name of both of those concepts. Unbelievable.
The human capacity for cruelty, injustice and violence doesn't seem to depend on
those justifications at all. Others will be found as needed. It is only because
those things are so important that the thug will invoke them to justify and
incite.
>>>As I've said for decades, I'll support anybody's freedom /of/ religion
>>>if they'll support my freedom /from/ it.
>>
>>I think we can all agree to not force others to go through motions or make
>>utterances. But I cannot promise you will not hear of it or see signs of it. No
>>reasonable person, which I assume you are, could ask that. But there are a
>>number of unreasonable people out there.
>
>"go through motions or make utterances???" I think the Christian
>Right can be disgustingly overbearing and obstrusive /far/ short of
>mustering another Crusade.
>
>Nice try, incidentally, with "No reasonable person, which I assume you
>are, could ask that." What about all of the elements of imposition of
>religion that fall between those two extremes? A reasonable person
>could ask that you leave your religion at home and at church, leaving
>me to worship, or not worship, as I see fit. Sorry if this puts a
>damper on the proselytizing business, but . . . que sera sera.
Sorry, our national/cultural bias in favor of free speech requires they get to
make their pitch and then you exercise your own by telling them to shut up and
leave you alone.
>How about not taking the time of /all/ schoolchildren just so that the
>religious among them can pray? Pray at home. Pray on the bus. Pray
>into an icon on the top shelf of your locker.
You'll note there has been some controversy about the latter two.
>How about not keeping homosexuals from living their lives in /any/ way
>that they want to simply because it is considered, by Christians, to
>be a sin that will deny gay people access to "His Kingdom" after
>death?? As a Jew, allegedly, I'm not welcome in that particular Good
>Ol' Boys crowd either.
>
>"Johnny? What do we have for our Jewish friend here?" "Well, Bob,
>it's eternal hellfire and damnation!" Again, ain't religion a
>beautiful thing?
Wait a moment, don't you guys have your own deal with God, a covenant of some
sort I vaguely recall. What do you care what some other human thinks. That's
silly.
>>The worst example lately were complaints to highway departments to remove the
>>improvised shrines set at accident sites. The claim was that the crosses were
>>offensive. That is madness.
>
>I think you're doing a find job of pillorying the middle by use of the
>extreme example . . . but I'm not swayed. Nut-jobs are nut-jobs at
>either end of the spectrum. The folk who want those highway shrines
>yanked are operating loosely at a local level. They don't appear to
>be organizing grass-roots campaigns, getting elected to school boards,
>state legislatures, or Congress. They aren't particularly influencing
>national policy; they're just making noise. When they take office
>(say, the Presidency) and try to impose they're values on the nation
>and on you (as Jeb's brother does), give me a jingle and I'll get them
>to back down. Promise.
Here's the thing, so far in this discussion Christians were presumptive
nut-jobs, no matter how moderate or open-minded. Don't be surprised at a bit of
suspicion on either side.
>While we're at it, I'm ready for the ~$16 billion (e) annual in
>property tax that the Church doesn't pay (another imposition of
>religion on those who don't want it. I'm subsidizing it, too). We're
>sure gonna' need it with W maxing out the charge cards on war-toys and
>colonialism.
I'm in favor of pretty much any tax break for pretty much any reason. Besides,
you've got it backward, you're acting as if it were the government's money in
the first place.
It the exemption abused, sure. That filthy little shakedown deal between Clinton
and the Church of $cientology comes to mind as an egregious example. But still
the exemption is right and proper. The occasional abuse doesn't change that.
Ron
Chuck Davis
"Mark Hickey" <ma...@habcycles.com> wrote in message
news:dn14111tunfpsm30p...@4ax.com...
>...
> Yep, and it can't fly. They can jump further than "stock squirrels"
> because of the better glide ratio due to its extra skin, but are many,
> many, many variations removed from anything that could remotely dream
> of using its flying ability to hunt insects (for example). In the
> mean time, they'd lose their ability to walk long before reaching the
> ability to fly.
It's fun to read these threads and watch them jump around. This caught my
eye, though, because it seems to state that you're beyond who created the
universe and on to who created squirrels and bats. I have no problem with a
need to say that everything has to have come from somewhere, so a god must
have done it. Fine with me. Although it does beg the question, "Where did
the god come from?"
Regardless, back to squirrels and bats. It seems, Mark, that you're saying
that your god created squirrels and bats as two separate things at some
point in time. Do you believe (he?) created them and all other life forms
at the same time? Or did (he?) create lower forms first, admire his work
and create some more later on and so on? Do you have a theory on that or am
I completely misunderstanding your statement?
Also, I have difficulty jumping from "intelligent design" to the Garden of
Eden, Adam and Eve, Heaven and Hell, original sin, in God's image, and all
that.
Chuck Davis
Neil Brooks
>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 03:16:29 GMT, Neil Brooks <Neil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>RonSonic wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:55:42 GMT, Neil Brooks <Neil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real
>>>>distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh
>>>>of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it
>>>>is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the
>>>>people.
>>>>
>>>>The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is
>>>>required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion
>>>>about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs
>>>>illusions."
>>>>
>>>>Say what you will about the forgotten Marx brother, but the brother
>>>>realized that the emperor was buck naked all along.
>>>
>>>Oh bullshit. Comrade Marx was just showing off his own line up of designer
>>>clothing. And we see the rags those turned out to be.
>>
>>You do an admirable job, Ron, of defining a person by a singular and
>>specific belief (Hitler/Darwinism) when it suits your purpose, and an
>>equally deft job of the opposite when /that/ suits your purpose. The
>>belief (evolution) should stand alone. The quote--while I gave it its
>>attribution because I think it's only proper--should also stand alone.
>
>That quote stands only as part of Marx's sales pitch for his own brand of belief
>system.
You can readily consider the source if your aim is to embrace or
discount his views of communism /or/ you can take the quote at face
value as I am.
>Now the Hitler/Darwinism thing: I think you completely misunderstand my point
>which was not to associate the two for the mere pejorative value - nice
>rhetorical gimmick yes thank you - but to present as example the argument that
>it is hard to logically derive from Darwinism any mandate that humans treat one
>another well. There is no moral or ethical code that necessarily follows from
>it. That is the far greater point and the most important.
But it's certainly not I who is asserting that Darwinians have any
monopoly on compassion or respect for humanity. On the contrary, in
my view, this self-righteous view is held by a significant number of
Christians . . . to the extent that the /word/ 'Christian' is defined
(Webster's) as, "commendably decent or generous." Good in theory--in
much the same way as Communism can be believed to be good in
theory--but then the frailties (, avarice, narcissism, and solipsism)
of its practitioners warp its pure constructs.
>>I just admire its eloquence, much as I admire the sagacity of Deepak
>>Chopra's recent, "Religion and nationalism are the scourge of
>>humanity." I couldn't agree more. The barriers, the violence, the
>>killing in the name of both of those concepts. Unbelievable.
>
>The human capacity for cruelty, injustice and violence doesn't seem to depend on
>those justifications at all. Others will be found as needed. It is only because
>those things are so important that the thug will invoke them to justify and
>incite.
Agreed: it doesn't /depend/, but that vise-like nationalism, or devout
religiousness, serves to justify heinous actions in the mind of the
faithful, be they Crusaders, caliphate seekers, or any other trying to
impose their dogma on others through force. Perpetuating violence
under the guise of "God's work" is, to me, repugnant, but done all the
time.
>>>>As I've said for decades, I'll support anybody's freedom /of/ religion
>>>>if they'll support my freedom /from/ it.
>>>
>>>I think we can all agree to not force others to go through motions or make
>>>utterances. But I cannot promise you will not hear of it or see signs of it. No
>>>reasonable person, which I assume you are, could ask that. But there are a
>>>number of unreasonable people out there.
>>
>>"go through motions or make utterances???" I think the Christian
>>Right can be disgustingly overbearing and obstrusive /far/ short of
>>mustering another Crusade.
>>
>>Nice try, incidentally, with "No reasonable person, which I assume you
>>are, could ask that." What about all of the elements of imposition of
>>religion that fall between those two extremes? A reasonable person
>>could ask that you leave your religion at home and at church, leaving
>>me to worship, or not worship, as I see fit. Sorry if this puts a
>>damper on the proselytizing business, but . . . que sera sera.
>
>Sorry, our national/cultural bias in favor of free speech requires they get to
>make their pitch and then you exercise your own by telling them to shut up and
>leave you alone.
A pitch is one thing--witness those opposed to crosses at death sites
on roadways. Foisting national policy on the dissenting minority on
the basis of faith is quite another.
>>How about not taking the time of /all/ schoolchildren just so that the
>>religious among them can pray? Pray at home. Pray on the bus. Pray
>>into an icon on the top shelf of your locker.
>
>You'll note there has been some controversy about the latter two.
There has?? Where? To what degree?? Are you, again, trying to
categorize a large body of people based on the actions of a few?
>>How about not keeping homosexuals from living their lives in /any/ way
>>that they want to simply because it is considered, by Christians, to
>>be a sin that will deny gay people access to "His Kingdom" after
>>death?? As a Jew, allegedly, I'm not welcome in that particular Good
>>Ol' Boys crowd either.
>>
>>"Johnny? What do we have for our Jewish friend here?" "Well, Bob,
>>it's eternal hellfire and damnation!" Again, ain't religion a
>>beautiful thing?
>
>Wait a moment, don't you guys have your own deal with God, a covenant of some
>sort I vaguely recall. What do you care what some other human thinks. That's
>silly.
Oh, Ron . . . we're so lucky (arguably) to have been born (and here's
a /big/ presumption on my part) white males. Ask just about any
minority (Jews included) whether or not there's a reason to care what
other humans think. What somebody /thinks/ determines, in large part,
how they act. If you think somebody doomed to Hell, where's the
motivation to treat them as an equal? If you think all will be
forgiven in Heaven if you recite some gibberish, where's the
motivation to make amends?
I care what other humans think because we're all on this big blue
marble together, sharing (inequitably) the same resources, breathing
the same air, drinking the same water. I care because I live in
populous Southern California where how you think influences how you
act, how you drive, and how you interact with your fellow humans.
Something like 94% of Americans claim to believe in God. That
thought, in my four decades on this Earth, rarely translates into
actions that I would call 'Christian,' including watching them exiting
the parking lot after Sunday services. It just seems to provide easy
answers to complex questions and a quick route to expiating the guilt
arising from the abject screwing of your fellow humans.
>>>The worst example lately were complaints to highway departments to remove the
>>>improvised shrines set at accident sites. The claim was that the crosses were
>>>offensive. That is madness.
>>
>>I think you're doing a find job of pillorying the middle by use of the
>>extreme example . . . but I'm not swayed. Nut-jobs are nut-jobs at
>>either end of the spectrum. The folk who want those highway shrines
>>yanked are operating loosely at a local level. They don't appear to
>>be organizing grass-roots campaigns, getting elected to school boards,
>>state legislatures, or Congress. They aren't particularly influencing
>>national policy; they're just making noise. When they take office
>>(say, the Presidency) and try to impose they're values on the nation
>>and on you (as Jeb's brother does), give me a jingle and I'll get them
>>to back down. Promise.
>
>Here's the thing, so far in this discussion Christians were presumptive
>nut-jobs, no matter how moderate or open-minded. Don't be surprised at a bit of
>suspicion on either side.
Again, the people objecting to religious icons alongside a public
roadway aren't the President of the United States, claiming a divine
mandate to lead, crafting public policy, telling your daughter whether
or not reproductive rights are hers, looking for ten-minute time-outs
in school for organized prayer, etc., etc.
I don't need to look to the extreme on the Christian Right to find the
point at which I object to their actions. I just have to look toward
Washington.
>>While we're at it, I'm ready for the ~$16 billion (e) annual in
>>property tax that the Church doesn't pay (another imposition of
>>religion on those who don't want it. I'm subsidizing it, too). We're
>>sure gonna' need it with W maxing out the charge cards on war-toys and
>>colonialism.
>
>I'm in favor of pretty much any tax break for pretty much any reason. Besides,
>you've got it backward, you're acting as if it were the government's money in
>the first place.
>
>It the exemption abused, sure. That filthy little shakedown deal between Clinton
>and the Church of $cientology comes to mind as an egregious example.
>But still the exemption is right and proper.
Why? Because religion, and the practice thereof, is considered to be
a good thing?? Why? That's an incredibly self-serving argument. The
best thing about organized religion, IMO, is that it provides a
structured framework for families to be together on a regular
basis--something easily achieved without imposing guilt and fear in
the process.
Anti-choice advocates /refuse/ to have their tax dollars go toward
reproductive rights (though "it's not the government's money in the
first place"), yet my tax dollars subsidize ENORMOUS real estate
holdings by the Church (not to mention preemptive wars based on false
premises)?
>The occasional abuse doesn't change that.
You don't need to get to abuse before that concept is wrong. They're
all over the political forums, yet it's Julian Bond that gets a
surprise audit for, allegedly, delving into politics. Huh??
A few have mentioned Buddhism on this thread. I'm not a religious guy
(can you tell?), but I spent some time at a Buddhist monastery early
in '04. The most significant take-away I had from that experience was
the incredibly powerful premise that Buddhists believe that they have
a way to happiness that works. They also believe that others may have
a way that works, too. IOW, they don't claim that you can't get past
the gates if you don't think as I think, do as I do. They believe
that all creatures should be free of suffering. You don't hear a lot
about Buddhist land grabs and preemptive wars. That's nice ;-)
data...@yahoo.com
well, that blows the bush red state theory.
illoominating.
Jay Beattie
Your opinion of creation, assuming that it accepts Genesis, is
totally inconsistent with evolution -- unless you get really
creative with the whole "seven day" thing or unless you see Adam
and Eve as bacteria. I have no problem with a divine design --
one can easily say that evolution is part of a divine design. I
just don't swallow Genesis and most every other book of the
Bible, at least to the extent it is supposed to be a literal
truth as opposed to parable. Devine is one thing, Christian is
another. The problem with Conservative Christians is that they
have all of these non-negotiable, faith-based issues that
interfere with basic scientific research and education.
Evolution is just one targeted theory, as is much of
paleontology, geology or any other study that shows the earth is
more than, say, 6 to 10 thousand years old. We would have to
change a lot of text books to get right with the Right. 100
hundred years from now, we will look back on this and roll our
eyes, just like we do now with Pope Paul V and Galileo. -- Jay
Beattie.
Benjamin Lewis
> Benjamin Lewis <bcl...@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>> To me, the bat is the perfect example (one that occurred to me, not
>>> something I've read somewhere). To get from a rat/mouse to a bat
>>> would require many generations of transitional life forms that could
>>> barely walk, but be unable to fly. Doesn't sound like a successful
>>> plan...
>>
>> Hmm. Ever seen a flying squirrel?
>
> Yep, and it can't fly. They can jump further than "stock squirrels"
> because of the better glide ratio due to its extra skin, but are many,
> many, many variations removed from anything that could remotely dream
> of using its flying ability to hunt insects (for example).
Yes, but they start one's imagination going.
> In the mean time, they'd lose their ability to walk long before reaching
> the ability to fly.
This may seem apparent to you, but it isn't at all to me. Even todays bats
can walk around a little bit, although admittedly very awkwardly.
carl...@comcast.net
<bcl...@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> Benjamin Lewis <bcl...@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>>> To me, the bat is the perfect example (one that occurred to me, not
>>>> something I've read somewhere). To get from a rat/mouse to a bat
>>>> would require many generations of transitional life forms that could
>>>> barely walk, but be unable to fly. Doesn't sound like a successful
>>>> plan...
>>>
>>> Hmm. Ever seen a flying squirrel?
>>
>> Yep, and it can't fly. They can jump further than "stock squirrels"
>> because of the better glide ratio due to its extra skin, but are many,
>> many, many variations removed from anything that could remotely dream
>> of using its flying ability to hunt insects (for example).
>
>Yes, but they start one's imagination going.
>
>> In the mean time, they'd lose their ability to walk long before reaching
>> the ability to fly.
>
>This may seem apparent to you, but it isn't at all to me. Even todays bats
>can walk around a little bit, although admittedly very awkwardly.
Dear Benjamin,
I resent that. It's my preferred method of stalking cattle.
http://bss.sfsu.edu/geog/bholzman/courses/fall99projects/vampire.htm
D. rotundas
carl...@comcast.net
>heinlien
[snip]
Dear Geine,
I know that you like seEIng wEIrdly spelled words and thEIr
ilk, but please remember that it's I before E, except after
C, and in words like Boeing, Geiger, Florsheim, Eiger,
Frankenstein, Fahrenheit, Eisenhower . . .
But only half of Heinlein.
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
<jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Your opinion of creation, assuming that it accepts Genesis, is
>totally inconsistent with evolution -- unless you get really
>creative with the whole "seven day" thing . . .
[snip]
Dear Jay,
Of course, there are two contradictory creation myths mushed
right up against each other in Genesis, one inland and the
other coastal, with entirely different gods, one
polytheistic, the other monotheistic--different right down
to their names, as the lovely King James translation
faithfully reflects. The seven-day version is frankly dull,
while the Garden-of-Eden version has a fine tragic plot with
a dark, fearful main character.
I used to enjoy telling students to a) find a Bible, and b)
bring an outline the order of creation in Genesis to class.
Most of them had firm opinions, one way or the other, but
few of them had actually read the text.
Carl Fogel
data...@yahoo.com
there's, yours, ours?
No property is secure when it becomes large enough to tempt the
cupidity of indigent power.
--Edmund Burke
when will it all end?"
Benjamin Lewis
> <bcl...@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:
>> This may seem apparent to you, but it isn't at all to me. Even todays
>> bats can walk around a little bit, although admittedly very awkwardly.
>
> Dear Benjamin,
>
> I resent that. It's my preferred method of stalking cattle.
>
> http://bss.sfsu.edu/geog/bholzman/courses/fall99projects/vampire.htm
>
> D. rotundas
I stand corrected, but thank you for illustrating my point better than I
could.
Every example I've seen so far of some feature that "couldn't have evolved"
has turned out to be a failure of human imagination rather than
evolutionary theory (the eye is a classic example).
Jim Smith
Your understanding of "...demands the existence of a Creator" is
apparantly differant than mine.
Carl Fogel
which of the four Gospels is authoritative, so I'll just stick my
question here . . .
To my dismay, I do not see the truly faithful and the raging heathens
debating what kind of bike Jesus would ride.
What say ye, rec.bicycles.tech?
Fixed-gear single-speed (the strict monotheistic, only-son sect).
Three-speed hub (Trinitarians).
Derailleur (those who favor more elaborate rituals).
Internal hub (the Puritanical only-outward-signs-of-inward-grace
crowd).
Clincher (the modern separation of church and state, tire and tube).
Tubular (Henry VIII's church and state, tire and tube combined).
Tufo (those who hint at any separation will be damned).
Generator (riders who supply their own light).
Battery (riders who rely on a divine source).
Helmets (halos now).
No Helmets (halos later).
Disc (brakers who believe that angels wear halos).
Rim (brakers who think that the halos are bigger).
Fixie No-Front (brakers who may soon be wearing halos).
Campagnolo (oddly, not for believers with catholic tastes).
Shimano (for soulless modernists, Buddhists, and so forth).
HPVA (the Unitarian-style everyone-welcome anything-goes approach).
WalMart (devil-worshippers).
I hope to see more bicycling-related theology here.
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
<bcl...@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:
>carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> <bcl...@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:
>>> This may seem apparent to you, but it isn't at all to me. Even todays
>>> bats can walk around a little bit, although admittedly very awkwardly.
>>
>> Dear Benjamin,
>>
>> I resent that. It's my preferred method of stalking cattle.
>>
>> http://bss.sfsu.edu/geog/bholzman/courses/fall99projects/vampire.htm
>>
>> D. rotundas
>
>I stand corrected, but thank you for illustrating my point better than I
>could.
>
>Every example I've seen so far of some feature that "couldn't have evolved"
>has turned out to be a failure of human imagination rather than
>evolutionary theory (the eye is a classic example).
Dear Benjamin,
My favorite is the ductus arteriosus with its absurd capture
of the recurrent laryngeal nerve and its curious pre-natal
function.
Carl Fogel
Frank
Dear Benjamin,
My favorite is the ductus arteriosus with its absurd capture of the
recurrent laryngeal nerve and its curious pre-natal function.
Carl Fogel
===================
My favorite is pepperoni with extra cheese and hand-tossed crust.
Frank
Neil Brooks
Quoting Bill Sornson here:
> What Would Jesus Ride?
Too easy.
{pause}
A CROSS BIKE, of course.
Jim Smith
I have always thought of it as a nice reminder of how closely related
we are to earthworms. (hollow, segmented tubes.) The embryological
development of the aortic and pharyngeal arches nicely illustrates our
segmented origins. The formation of the chordae tendonae and
papillary muscles is cool bananas too.
Benjamin Lewis
> carl...@comcast.net writes:
>>
>> My favorite is the ductus arteriosus with its absurd capture
>> of the recurrent laryngeal nerve and its curious pre-natal
>> function.
>
> I have always thought of it as a nice reminder of how closely related
> we are to earthworms. (hollow, segmented tubes.) The embryological
> development of the aortic and pharyngeal arches nicely illustrates our
> segmented origins. The formation of the chordae tendonae and
> papillary muscles is cool bananas too.
I'll bet you guys are great fun at parties ;P
(Hey, I'd enjoy it...)
For me, what I find most amazing and wonderful is the evolution of cranial
capacity so incredibly complex that it can do what it does, such as
<ahem>
designing, constructing, and riding a bicycle...
I find it disappointing and disheartening when people reduce (in my eyes)
the beauty of this phenomenon by reducing it to "it was endowed to us by
The Grand Wazoo", which just begs the question.
Oh well, I almost got on topic for a second there.
carl...@comcast.net
<bcl...@cs.sfu.ca> wrote:
>Jim Smith wrote:
>
>> carl...@comcast.net writes:
>>>
>>> My favorite is the ductus arteriosus with its absurd capture
>>> of the recurrent laryngeal nerve and its curious pre-natal
>>> function.
>>
>> I have always thought of it as a nice reminder of how closely related
>> we are to earthworms. (hollow, segmented tubes.) The embryological
>> development of the aortic and pharyngeal arches nicely illustrates our
>> segmented origins. The formation of the chordae tendonae and
>> papillary muscles is cool bananas too.
>
>I'll bet you guys are great fun at parties ;P
>(Hey, I'd enjoy it...)
>
>For me, what I find most amazing and wonderful is the evolution of cranial
>capacity so incredibly complex that it can do what it does, such as
><ahem>
>designing, constructing, and riding a bicycle...
>
>I find it disappointing and disheartening when people reduce (in my eyes)
>the beauty of this phenomenon by reducing it to "it was endowed to us by
>The Grand Wazoo", which just begs the question.
>
>Oh well, I almost got on topic for a second there.
Dear Benjamin,
Several suspicious strangers have shoved slips of paper
under my door:
Our ability to construct and ride bicycles is clear evidence
of creation, Mr. Scopes--there are no conceivable
intermediate steps!
--William Jennings Bryan
Damn these training wheels!
--Boo-Boo the Circus Bear
It is impossible to imagine a fish riding a bicycle.
--Gloria Steinem
Or a dedicated feminist marrying for money after her sugar
daddy supported her magazine for years.
--Charlie the Tuna
There may be a grand design behind this flurry of related
quotations--they may even be the Gospel truth--but I suspect
that they're made up.
Carl Fogel
Mark Vieselmeyer
: carl...@comcast.net (Carl Fogel) wrote:
: Quoting Bill Sornson here:
:> What Would Jesus Ride?
: Too easy.
: {pause}
I'm not real familiar with cyclo-cross -- are you allowed to have someone
else carry your bike over the rough sections?
- Mark
RonSonic
>A pitch is one thing--witness those opposed to crosses at death sites
>on roadways. Foisting national policy on the dissenting minority on
>the basis of faith is quite another.
Fair enough.
>>>How about not keeping homosexuals from living their lives in /any/ way
>>>that they want to simply because it is considered, by Christians, to
>>>be a sin that will deny gay people access to "His Kingdom" after
>>>death?? As a Jew, allegedly, I'm not welcome in that particular Good
>>>Ol' Boys crowd either.
>>>
>>>"Johnny? What do we have for our Jewish friend here?" "Well, Bob,
>>>it's eternal hellfire and damnation!" Again, ain't religion a
>>>beautiful thing?
>>
>>Wait a moment, don't you guys have your own deal with God, a covenant of some
>>sort I vaguely recall. What do you care what some other human thinks. That's
>>silly.
>
>Oh, Ron . . . we're so lucky (arguably) to have been born (and here's
>a /big/ presumption on my part) white males. Ask just about any
>minority (Jews included) whether or not there's a reason to care what
>other humans think. What somebody /thinks/ determines, in large part,
>how they act. If you think somebody doomed to Hell, where's the
>motivation to treat them as an equal?
Jesus's commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself. It might seem a small
thing to you, but just a tip on the subject of Christian thought, that's kinda,
sorta, pretty much the biggest single rule He laid down. It also appears in
Leviticus, so it wasn't new with Him.
>If you think all will be
>forgiven in Heaven if you recite some gibberish, where's the
>motivation to make amends?
Now what in tarnation are you talking about here. Now perhaps there is somewhere
out there some sect of "Christians" who believe some crap like that. I don't
know any and don't think I'd take off the quotation marks if I did.
>I care what other humans think because we're all on this big blue
>marble together, sharing (inequitably) the same resources, breathing
>the same air, drinking the same water. I care because I live in
>populous Southern California where how you think influences how you
>act, how you drive, and how you interact with your fellow humans.
>Something like 94% of Americans claim to believe in God. That
>thought, in my four decades on this Earth, rarely translates into
>actions that I would call 'Christian,' including watching them exiting
>the parking lot after Sunday services. It just seems to provide easy
>answers to complex questions and a quick route to expiating the guilt
>arising from the abject screwing of your fellow humans.
Well, yeah, everyone of 'em is human with all that entails. But unfortunately
most Christians are pretty sure you are going to hell. Then again they aren't
the chosen people of God. So take your pick.
>A few have mentioned Buddhism on this thread. I'm not a religious guy
>(can you tell?), but I spent some time at a Buddhist monastery early
>in '04. The most significant take-away I had from that experience was
>the incredibly powerful premise that Buddhists believe that they have
>a way to happiness that works. They also believe that others may have
>a way that works, too. IOW, they don't claim that you can't get past
>the gates if you don't think as I think, do as I do. They believe
>that all creatures should be free of suffering. You don't hear a lot
>about Buddhist land grabs and preemptive wars. That's nice ;-)
My kid brother's a Buddhist, helped establish one of the finer temples in the
midwest. He assures me that Buddhists are also entirely human. I don't know that
they don't have a way, I am certain that they know a large part of the way.
The mistake you are making is to compare very real grown-up Buddhism to which
you were introduced on its terms with this warped caricature of Christianity you
were introduced to by who knows what.
Ron