Questions
Sarah Hampton
possibility of creation?
Isn't it unscientific to eliminate a theory (the possibility of
creation) from consideration based partly on the discrediting of a book
(the Bible)?
Starting from the physical world and working towards the spiritual
world, (Christianity does this vice versa) how should a creator have
written an operations manual for the human race?
1. What spiritual practices are best. (My answer: God is love, anything
that is not love is not from God and may cause physical stress and
subsequent illness. Humans also should not be coerced into conversing
with unseen beings (praying) since by doing this they develop openings
in their psychic being through which they can later be invaded.)
2. What diet. (My answer: a raw diet since digesting cooked foods
consumes enzymes - something that the Mosaic Law overlooked when it
required the eating of sacrifices and unleavened bread.)
Does the discrediting of the Bible mean that the Israelites have no
claim to Palestine and should get out?
Bartman
steve...@webtv.net (Sarah Hampton) wrote:
> Does the fact that the Bible is pure bunk totally eliminate the
> possibility of creation?
No.
> Isn't it unscientific to eliminate a theory (the possibility of
> creation) from consideration based partly on the discrediting of a
book (the Bible)?
Yes, it would be unscientific.
Thing is, creationism is not discredited only because the bible
contains logical flaws, but also because it doesn't match with the
available genetic, biological, geological and paleontological data.
> Starting from the physical world and working towards the spiritual
> world, (Christianity does this vice versa) how should a creator have
> written an operations manual for the human race?
I have no idea, I'm not a creator.
> 1. What spiritual practices are best. (My answer: God is love,
anything that is not love is not from God and may cause physical stress
and subsequent illness. Humans also should not be coerced into
conversing with unseen beings (praying) since by doing this they
develop openings in their psychic being through which they can later be
invaded.)
Whatever spiritual practice you find most beneficial is probably the
best spiritual practice for you. I may find another or totally no
practice to be best for me.
> 2. What diet. (My answer: a raw diet since digesting cooked foods
> consumes enzymes - something that the Mosaic Law overlooked when it
> required the eating of sacrifices and unleavened bread.)
I prefer Italian food.
> Does the discrediting of the Bible mean that the Israelites have no
> claim to Palestine and should get out?
A religious text is not an act of ownership. The claim of Israeli's
have on Israel over the Palestinians is the same as Americans have on
the U.S. over the Native Americans: Law of the Gun.
I believe no-one can claim any moral, religious or historical "right"
to a land that was previously inhabited. Should Israeli's move out?
Should Americans move out? That's probably a bit unrealistic, but both
nations might try to come to better terms with their "hosts".
--
Regards,
Bartman
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
A Pagano
Does the fact that the Bible is pure bunk totally eliminate the
possibility of creation?
Pagano replies:
One wonders what rules, standards, and evidence lead Hampton to draw
such a conclusion. Modern archeology and other literary histories
corroborate much of the literal sense of Scripture. Modern cosmology
now believes that the material world had a beginning and is finite.
Both are modern claims and correspond to the literal sense of Holy
Scripture written long ago. Even the atheist Gould and the rabid
anti-creationist Dawkins would not have made such a claim which is so
obviously and demonstrably false.
"The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary" lists the meaning of "bunk"
to be "nonsense." It would seem to me that Hampton couldn't justify
this characterization if her life depended on it.
**********************************
Hampton continues:
Isn't it unscientific to eliminate a theory (the possibility of
creation) from consideration based partly on the discrediting of a book
(the Bible)?
Pagano replies:
Creationists eliminate neoDarwinian evolution principly because it is
empirically untested, untestable, and because neoDarwinian transformism
has NEVER been observed; it also has shortfalls in its explanatory power
and it seemingly explains everything which is a clue that it really
explains nothing. In fact it was a dead theory until the neoDarwinian
reformers conjoined Darwinism with Mendelism. Problem is that Mendelism
could explain most everything without Darwinism. The fossil record
doesn't lend assistance to transformism, molecular biology doesn't help
the claim of transformism, population genetics doesn't lend help to the
notion of transformism, neither information theory nor chaos theory
helps the claim of transformism.
The Catholic Church, for example, doesn't eliminate modern neoDarwinian
transformism based upon Scripture simply because modern neoDarwinian
transformism is far too conjectural, unobserved, and unproven for it to
be taken that seriously. Creationists however have made a good case
that modern neoDarwinian transformism is inconsistent with the literal
sense of Scripture. Many Catholics would agree.
*********************************
Hampton continues:
Starting from the physical world and working towards the spiritual
world, (Christianity does this vice versa) how should a creator have
written an operations manual for the human race?
1. What spiritual practices are best. (My answer: God is love, anything
that is not love is not from God and may cause physical stress and
subsequent illness. Humans also should not be coerced into conversing
with unseen beings (praying) since by doing this they develop openings
in their psychic being through which they can later be invaded.)
2. What diet. (My answer: a raw diet since digesting cooked foods
consumes enzymes - something that the Mosaic Law overlooked when it
required the eating of sacrifices and unleavened bread.)
Pagano replies:
Hampton is recommending a form of Paganism. Christians draw their
information about God and His intructions to us from the revelation of
Scripture (Catholics include Tradition and the Magisterium). Hampton
draws her information about God from Rationalism and Modernism both of
which were condemned by the Catholic Church.
************************************
Hampton continues:
Does the discrediting of the Bible mean that the Israelites have no
claim to Palestine and should get out?
Pagano replies:
Since Hampton couldn't defend her bald claim of "discredited" should she
go to the library and begin to educate herself?
Regards,
T Pagano
Mark Isaak
Sarah Hampton <steve...@webtv.net> wrote:
>Does the fact that the Bible is pure bunk totally eliminate the
>possibility of creation?
The Bible is NOT pure bunk, despite what creationists want you to believe.
>Isn't it unscientific to eliminate a theory (the possibility of
>creation) from consideration based partly on the discrediting of a book
>(the Bible)?
You have it backwards. It is the rejection of the Biblical creation
(which falls on its own) which discredits the Bible.
>1. What spiritual practices are best.
Depends on the spirit.
>2. What diet.
Chocolate.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek
Ghostview
<16663-38...@storefull-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
steve...@webtv.net (Sarah Hampton) wrote:
> Does the fact that the Bible is pure bunk totally
> eliminate the
> possibility of creation?
Nope
> Isn't it unscientific to eliminate a theory (the
> possibility of
> creation) from consideration based partly on the
> discrediting of a book
> (the Bible)?
Nope, there are far better reasons why it should be
eliminated.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Shy David www.xenu.net
> Does the fact that the Bible is pure bunk totally eliminate the
> possibility of creation?
No. The Gods could still have created everything.
---
"Shy" David Rice. A proud supporter and defender of religious rights.
Help fight religious descrimination! http://holysmoke.org/tolerate.htm
wf...@ptd.net
>Sarah Hampton wrote:
>Does the fact that the Bible is pure bunk totally eliminate the
>possibility of creation?
>
> Pagano replies:
>One wonders what rules, standards, and evidence lead Hampton to draw
>such a conclusion. Modern archeology and other literary histories
>corroborate much of the literal sense of Scripture.
while sarah may have overstated her case, the verification of
scriptural historical references no more render scripture holy than
similar claims about plutarch, or pliny...
irrelevant.
Modern cosmology
>now believes that the material world had a beginning and is finite.
except you reject modern cosmology. so you're saying your acceptance
of holy scripture is partially based on its rejection.
interesting view from a creationist.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Creationists eliminate neoDarwinian evolution principly because it is
>empirically untested, untestable, and because neoDarwinian transformism
>has NEVER been observed;
wrong and wrong. creationists reject science because it conflicts with
their arbitrary view of creation. evolution is a fact and it has been
observed.
it also has shortfalls in its explanatory power
>and it seemingly explains everything which is a clue that it really
>explains nothing.
says the guy who thinks 'god did it' somehow explains anything at all.
In fact it was a dead theory until the neoDarwinian
>reformers conjoined Darwinism with Mendelism.
hardly. the fact that mendel's discoveries allowed evolution to be set
on a genetic basis confirmed, rather than falsified the theory of
evolution...a fact you implicitly acknowledge...another creationist
contradiction.
Problem is that Mendelism
>could explain most everything without Darwinism. The fossil record
>doesn't lend assistance to transformism, molecular biology doesn't help
>the claim of transformism, population genetics doesn't lend help to the
>notion of transformism, neither information theory nor chaos theory
>helps the claim of transformism.
meaningless rhetoric. we've seen above you're wrong on both
creationism and science.
>
>The Catholic Church, for example, doesn't eliminate modern neoDarwinian
>transformism based upon Scripture simply because modern neoDarwinian
>transformism is far too conjectural, unobserved, and unproven for it to
>be taken that seriously.
the pope, of course, has called evolution 'more than a
hypothesis'...another fact the propagandist pagano fails to note.
evolution is taught in catholic schools, and the vatican observatory
acknowledges the universe is billions of yrs old (see fr. c. corbally,
s.j., at the vatican observatory webpage).
Creationists however have made a good case
>that modern neoDarwinian transformism is inconsistent with the literal
>sense of Scripture. Many Catholics would agree.
irrelevant. the magisterium of the church does not accept or deny the
idea of biblical literalism and pagano has never cited a single
official reference from the catechism saying it accepts biblical
literalism or rejects evolution.
>
> Pagano replies:
>Hampton is recommending a form of Paganism. Christians draw their
>information about God and His intructions to us from the revelation of
>Scripture (Catholics include Tradition and the Magisterium). Hampton
>draws her information about God from Rationalism and Modernism both of
>which were condemned by the Catholic Church.
and pagano ignores the last 60 yrs of the church's examination of
evolution and its acceptance of that idea.
Paul J Gans
>Does the fact that the Bible is pure bunk totally eliminate the
>possibility of creation?
Even given that the premise *might* be a slight overstatement,
the answer is no. There are many other religions NOT based
on the Old and New Testaments.
>Isn't it unscientific to eliminate a theory (the possibility of
>creation) from consideration based partly on the discrediting of a book
>(the Bible)?
No. Science deals with natural explanations for events
in the natural world. The supernatural is not part of
science. This should not be surprising. Science never
claimed to deal with the supernatural and cedes that
to theologians and other interested parties.
>Starting from the physical world and working towards the spiritual
>world, (Christianity does this vice versa) how should a creator have
>written an operations manual for the human race?
Any entity capable of creating the universe or even just life,
is surely capable of writing burning letters across the sky
every generation or so directing folks to check out the
current version of the operations manual. The *lack*
of such direct manifestations of a creator has created
many problems for theologians.
>1. What spiritual practices are best. (My answer: God is love, anything
>that is not love is not from God and may cause physical stress and
>subsequent illness. Humans also should not be coerced into conversing
>with unseen beings (praying) since by doing this they develop openings
>in their psychic being through which they can later be invaded.)
>2. What diet. (My answer: a raw diet since digesting cooked foods
>consumes enzymes - something that the Mosaic Law overlooked when it
>required the eating of sacrifices and unleavened bread.)
>Does the discrediting of the Bible mean that the Israelites have no
>claim to Palestine and should get out?
This is quite an unrelated topic. Many groups claim lands
based on past history. Such claims are often denied or
disputed. The U.S. has all sorts of claims on land without
any legal basis other than physical possession. However, Jews
*have* lived in "Palestine" for far longer than Europeans have
lived in North America.
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
sarah clark
wf...@ptd.net wrote:
<snip>
> the pope, of course, has called evolution 'more than a
> hypothesis'..
http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
> .another fact the propagandist pagano fails to note.
> evolution is taught in catholic schools, and the vatican observatory
> acknowledges the universe is billions of yrs old (see fr. c. corbally,
> s.j., at the vatican observatory webpage).
http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/
<snip>
>
> > Pagano replies:
> >Hampton is recommending a form of Paganism. Christians draw their
> >information about God and His intructions to us from the revelation of
> >Scripture (Catholics include Tradition and the Magisterium). Hampton
> >draws her information about God from Rationalism and Modernism both of
> >which were condemned by the Catholic Church.
>
> and pagano ignores the last 60 yrs of the church's examination of
> evolution and its acceptance of that idea.
and pagans,,,,
are not so bad.
--
leonardo dasso
Sarah Hampton <steve...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16663-38...@storefull-154.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Does the discrediting of the Bible mean that the Israelites have no
> claim to Palestine and should get out?
>
Try sending that question to the NewYork Times
leo