In the News: Creation museum pushes 'true history'
Jason Spaceman
----------------------------------------------------------
By Matthew Wells
BBC News, Kentucky
A new high-tech temple to fundamentalist Christianity is due to open in
heart of Middle America next May, aiming to provide the grandest riposte
yet to Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Staff and supporters of the Answers in Genesis organisation call it the
Creation Museum.
But secular scientists would take issue with the use of either word to
describe the almost completed building that stands just a few miles west of
Cincinnati, on the borders of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana.
Wherever you stand on the debate, it is impossible not to be impressed by
the effort that has gone into constructing the $27m (£13.5m) museum, which
hopes to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors each year.
"We have a planetarium to our left, and a virtually-finished bookstore.
"The museum is right under that archway there," said Mark Looy, vice
president for ministry relations, standing in the foyer next to an
animatronics dinosaur that is munching on a synthetic plant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6216788.stm
J. Spaceman
Hoof-Hearted
Jason Spaceman wrote:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> By Matthew Wells
> BBC News, Kentucky
>
> A new high-tech temple to fundamentalist Christianity is due to open in
> heart of Middle America next May, aiming to provide the grandest riposte
> yet to Darwinian evolutionary theory.
>
> Staff and supporters of the Answers in Genesis organisation call it the
> Creation Museum.
>
It cannot be a museum in the true sense of the word, just a fantasy
theme park business. The AAM has a code of ethics for museums:
http://www.aam-us.org/museumresources/ethics/coe.cfm
Code of Ethics for Museums
Introduction
Ethical codes evolve in response to changing conditions, values, and
ideas. A professional code of ethics must, therefore, be periodically
updated. It must also rest upon widely shared values. Although the
operating environment of museums grows more complex each year, the root
value for museums, the tie that connects all of us together despite our
diversity, is the commitment to serving people, both present and future
generations. This value guided the creation of and remains the most
fundamental principle in the following Code of Ethics for Museums.
Code of Ethics for Museums
Museums make their unique contribution to the public by collecting,
preserving, and interpreting the things of this world. Historically,
they have owned and used natural objects, living and nonliving, and all
manner of human artifacts to advance knowledge and nourish the human
spirit. Today, the range of their special interests reflects the scope
of human vision. Their missions include collecting and preserving, as
well as exhibiting and educating with materials not only owned but also
borrowed and fabricated for these ends. Their numbers include both
governmental and private museums of anthropology, art history and
natural history, aquariums, arboreta, art centers, botanical gardens,
children's museums, historic sites, nature centers, planetariums,
science and technology centers, and zoos. The museum universe in the
United States includes both collecting and noncollecting institutions.
Although diverse in their missions, they have in common their nonprofit
form of organization and a commitment of service to the public. Their
collections and/or the objects they borrow or fabricate are the basis
for research, exhibits, and programs that invite public participation.
Taken as a whole, museum collections and exhibition materials represent
the world's natural and cultural common wealth. As stewards of that
wealth, museums are compelled to advance an understanding of all
natural forms and of the human experience. It is incumbent on museums
to be resources for humankind and in all their activities to foster an
informed appreciation of the rich and diverse world we have inherited.
It is also incumbent upon them to preserve that inheritance for
posterity.
Museums in the United States are grounded in the tradition of public
service. They are organized as public trusts, holding their collections
and information as a benefit for those they were established to serve.
Members of their governing authority, employees, and volunteers are
committed to the interests of these beneficiaries. The law provides the
basic framework for museum operations. As nonprofit institutions,
museums comply with applicable local, state, and federal laws and
international conventions, as well as with the specific legal standards
governing trust responsibilities. This Code of Ethics for Museums takes
that compliance as given. But legal standards are a minimum. Museums
and those responsible for them must do more than avoid legal liability,
they must take affirmative steps to maintain their integrity so as to
warrant public confidence. They must act not only legally but also
ethically. This Code of Ethics for Museums, therefore, outlines ethical
standards that frequently exceed legal minimums.
Loyalty to the mission of the museum and to the public it serves is the
essence of museum work, whether volunteer or paid. Where conflicts of
interest arise - actual, potential, or perceived - the duty of
loyalty must never be compromised. No individual may use his or her
position in a museum for personal gain or to benefit another at the
expense of the museum, its mission, its reputation, and the society it
serves.
For museums, public service is paramount. To affirm that ethic and to
elaborate its application to their governance, collections, and
programs, the American Association of Museums promulgates this Code of
Ethics for Museums. In subscribing to this code, museums assume
responsibility for the actions of members of their governing authority,
employees, and volunteers in the performance of museum-related duties.
Museums, thereby, affirm their chartered purpose, ensure the prudent
application of their resources, enhance their effectiveness, and
maintain public confidence. This collective endeavor strengthens museum
work and the contributions of museums to society - present and
future.
Governance
Museum governance in its various forms is a public trust responsible
for the institution's service to society. The governing authority
protects and enhances the museum's collections and programs and its
physical, human, and financial resources. It ensures that all these
resources support the museum's mission, respond to the pluralism of
society, and respect the diversity of the natural and cultural common
wealth.
Thus, the governing authority ensures that:
* all those who work for or on behalf of a museum understand and
support its mission and public trust responsibilities
* its members understand and fulfill their trusteeship and act
corporately, not as individuals
* the museum's collections and programs and its physical, human,
and financial resources are protected, maintained, and developed in
support of the museum's mission
* it is responsive to and represents the interests of society
* it maintains the relationship with staff in which shared roles
are recognized and separate responsibilities respected
* working relationships among trustees, employees, and volunteers
are based on equity and mutual respect
* professional standards and practices inform and guide museum
operations
* policies are articulated and prudent oversight is practiced
* governance promotes the public good rather than individual
financial gain.
Collections
The distinctive character of museum ethics derives from the ownership,
care, and use of objects, specimens, and living collections
representing the world's natural and cultural common wealth. This
stewardship of collections entails the highest public trust and carries
with it the presumption of rightful ownership, permanence, care,
documentation, accessibility, and responsible disposal.
Thus, the museum ensures that:
* collections in its custody support its mission and public trust
responsibilities
* collections in its custody are lawfully held, protected, secure,
unencumbered, cared for, and preserved
* collections in its custody are accounted for and documented
* access to the collections and related information is permitted
and regulated
* acquisition, disposal, and loan activities are conducted in a
manner that respects the protection and preservation of natural and
cultural resources and discourages illicit trade in such materials
* acquisition, disposal, and loan activities conform to its mission
and public trust responsibilities
* disposal of collections through sale, trade, or research
activities is solely for the advancement of the museum's mission.
Proceeds from the sale of nonliving collections are to be used
consistent with the established standards of the museum's discipline,
but in no event shall they be used for anything other than acquisition
or direct care of collections.
* the unique and special nature of human remains and funerary and
sacred objects is recognized as the basis of all decisions concerning
such collections
* collections-related activities promote the public good rather
than individual financial gain
* competing claims of ownership that may be asserted in connection
with objects in its custody should be handled openly, seriously,
responsively and with respect for the dignity of all parties involved.
Programs
Museums serve society by advancing an understanding and appreciation of
the natural and cultural common wealth through exhibitions, research,
scholarship, publications, and educational activities. These programs
further the museum's mission and are responsive to the concerns,
interests, and needs of society.
Thus, the museum ensures that:
* programs support its mission and public trust responsibilities
* programs are founded on scholarship and marked by intellectual
integrity
* programs are accessible and encourage participation of the widest
possible audience consistent with its mission and resources
* programs respect pluralistic values, traditions, and concerns
* revenue-producing activities and activities that involve
relationships with external entities are compatible with the museum's
mission and support its public trust responsibilities
* programs promote the public good rather than individual financial
gain.
Promulgation
This Code of Ethics for Museums was adopted by the Board of Directors
of the American Association of Museums on November 12, 1993. The AAM
Board of Directors recommends that each nonprofit museum member of the
American Association of Museums adopt and promulgate its separate code
of ethics, applying the Code of Ethics for Museums to its own
institutional setting.
A Committee on Ethics, nominated by the president of the AAM and
confirmed by the Board of Directors, will be charged with two
responsibilities:
* establishing programs of information, education, and assistance
to guide museums in developing their own codes of ethics
* reviewing the Code of Ethics for Museums and periodically
recommending refinements and revisions to the Board of Directors.
Afterword
In 1987 the Council of the American Association of Museums determined
to revise the association's 1978 statement on ethics. The impetus for
revision was recognition throughout the American museum community that
the statement needed to be refined and strengthened in light of the
expanded role of museums in society and a heightened awareness that the
collection, preservation, and interpretation of natural and cultural
heritages involve issues of significant concern to the American people.
Following a series of group discussions and commentary by members of
the AAM Council, the Accreditation Commission, and museum leaders
throughout the country, the president of AAM appointed an Ethics Task
Force to prepare a code of ethics. In its work, the Ethics Task Force
was committed to codifying the common understanding of ethics in the
museum profession and to establishing a framework within which each
institution could develop its own code. For guidance, the task force
looked to the tradition of museum ethics and drew inspiration from
AAM's first code of ethics, published in 1925 as Code of Ethics for
Museum Workers, which states in its preface:
Museums, in the broadest sense, are institutions which hold their
possessions in trust for mankind and for the future welfare of the
[human] race. Their value is in direct proportion to the service they
render the emotional and intellectual life of the people. The life of a
museum worker is essentially one of service.
This commitment to service derived from nineteenth-century notions of
the advancement and dissemination of knowledge that informed the
founding documents of America's museums. George Brown Goode, a noted
zoologist and first head of the United States National Museum, declared
in 1889:
The museums of the future in this democratic land should be adapted
to the needs of the mechanic, the factory operator, the day laborer,
the salesman, and the clerk, as much as to those of the professional
man and the man of leisure. . . . In short, the public museum is, first
of all, for the benefit of the public.
John Cotton Dana, an early twentieth-century museum leader and director
of the Newark Museum, promoted the concept of museum work as public
service in essays with titles such as "Increasing the Usefulness of
Museums" and "A Museum of Service." Dana believed that museums did not
exist solely to gather and preserve collections. For him, they were
important centers of enlightenment.
By the 1940s, Theodore Low, a strong proponent of museum education,
detected a new concentration in the museum profession on scholarship
and methodology. These concerns are reflected in Museum Ethics,
published by AAM in 1978, which elaborated on relationships among
staff, management, and governing authority.
During the 1980s, Americans grew increasingly sensitive to the nation's
cultural pluralism, concerned about the global environment, and
vigilant regarding the public institutions. Rapid technological change,
new public policies relating to nonprofit corporations, a troubled
educational system, shifting patterns of private and public wealth, and
increased financial pressures all called for a sharper delineation of
museums' ethical responsibilities. In 1984 AAM's Commission on Museums
for a New Century placed renewed emphasis on public service and
education, and in 1986 the code of ethics adopted by the International
Council of Museums (ICOM) put service to society at the center of
museum responsibilities. ICOM defines museums as institutions "in the
service of society and of its development" and holds that "employment
by a museum, whether publicly or privately supported, is a public trust
involving great responsibility."
Building upon this history, the Ethics Task Force produced several
drafts of a Code of Ethics for Museums. These drafts were shared with
the AAM Executive Committee and Board of Directors, and twice referred
to the field for comment. Hundreds of individuals and representatives
of professional organizations and museums of all types and sizes
submitted thoughtful critiques. These critiques were instrumental in
shaping the document submitted to the AAM Board of Directors, which
adopted the code on May 18, 1991. However, despite the review process,
when the adopted code was circulated, it soon became clear that the
diversity of the museum field prevented immediate consensus on every
point.
Therefore, at its November 1991 meeting, the AAM Board of Directors
voted to postpone implementation of the Code of Ethics for at least one
year. At the same meeting an Ethics Commission nominated by the AAM
president was confirmed. The newly appointed commission - in addition
to its other charges of establishing educational programs to guide
museums in developing their own code of ethics and establishing
procedures for addressing alleged violations of the code - was asked
to review the code and recommend to the Board changes in either the
code or its implementation.
The new Ethics Commission spent its first year reviewing the code and
the hundreds of communications it had generated, and initiating
additional dialogue. AAM institutional members were invited to comment
further on the issues that were most divisive - the mode of
implementation and the restrictions placed on funds from deaccessioned
objects. Ethics Commission members also met in person with their
colleagues at the annual and regional meetings, and an ad hoc meeting
of museum directors was convened by the board president to examine the
code's language regarding deaccessioning.
This process of review produced two alternatives for the board to
consider at its May meeting: (1) to accept a new code developed by the
Ethics Commission, or (2) to rewrite the sections of the 1991 code
relating to use of funds from deaccessioning and mode of
implementation. Following a very lively and involved discussion, the
motion to reinstate the 1991 code with modified language was passed and
a small committee met separately to make the necessary changes.
In addition, it was voted that the Ethics Commission be renamed the
Committee on Ethics with responsibilities for establishing information
and educational programs and reviewing the Code of Ethics for Museums
and making periodic recommendations for revisions to the board. These
final changes were approved by the board in November 1993 and are
incorporated into this document, which is the AAM Code of Ethics for
Museums.
Each nonprofit museum member of the American Association of Museums
should subscribe to the AAM Code of Ethics for Museums. Subsequently,
these museums should set about framing their own institutional codes of
ethics, which should be in conformance with the AAM code and should
expand on it through the elaboration of specific practices. This
recommendation is made to these member institutions in the belief that
engaging the governing authority, staff, and volunteers in applying the
AAM code to institutional settings will stimulate the development and
maintenance of sound policies and procedures necessary to understanding
and ensuring ethical behavior by institutions and by all who work for
them or on their behalf.
With these steps, the American museum community expands its continuing
effort to advance museum work through self-regulation. The Code of
Ethics for Museums serves the interests of museums, their
constituencies, and society. The primary goal of AAM is to encourage
institutions to regulate the ethical behavior of members of their
governing authority, employees, and volunteers. Formal adoption of an
institutional code promotes higher and more consistent ethical
standards. To this end, the Committee on Ethics will develop workshops,
model codes, and publications. These and other forms of technical
assistance will stimulate a dialogue about ethics throughout the museum
community and provide guidance to museums in developing their
institutional codes.
2000
Ron O
Jason Spaceman wrote:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> By Matthew Wells
> BBC News, Kentucky
>
> A new high-tech temple to fundamentalist Christianity is due to open in
> heart of Middle America next May, aiming to provide the grandest riposte
> yet to Darwinian evolutionary theory.
>
> Staff and supporters of the Answers in Genesis organisation call it the
> Creation Museum.
>
> But secular scientists would take issue with the use of either word to
> describe the almost completed building that stands just a few miles west of
> Cincinnati, on the borders of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana.
>
> Wherever you stand on the debate, it is impossible not to be impressed by
> the effort that has gone into constructing the $27m (£13.5m) museum, which
> hopes to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors each year.
>
> "We have a planetarium to our left, and a virtually-finished bookstore.
A planetarium? Why antagonize the flat-earthers and geocentric
creationists? They wouldn't put out such a slock program as to appease
those twits would they? I can just see their program on flat-earth
zetic cosmology where the sun is only 300 miles above a pizza like
earth, and we never landed a man on the moon. There was just a thread
where about the most bogus geocentric argument that the earth was fixed
and all the stars and galaxies were orbiting around it was put forward.
The AIG explanation for how fast the distant galaxies have to be going
to accomplish this would be a hoot. Just trying to account for the
great distances that light has to travel is a major boondoggle for the
YECers.
Ron Okimoto
Elroy Willis
> Read it at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6216788.stm
"The museum's aim is to bring Genesis - the first book of the Bible -
to life for all ages, and promote the belief that the Earth is less
than 10,000 years old.
To hammer that point home, two smiling children clad in tasteful
animal skins, work and play alongside a pair of baby Tyrannosaurus
Rex."
===
Just like the Flintstones!
$27 million spent on spreading another Christian lie. What a waste of
money. Think of how many homeless and hungry people that could help,
but instead it's used for spreading "false history."
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Christopher A.Lee
The ICR has had one just outside San Diego for years.
gebobs
> The ICR has had one just outside San Diego for years.
It's not still there? Sounds like another National Lampoon Vacation
sequel just waiting to be written.
Ron O
27 million sounds like a pretty pitiful amount for a modern museum.
Back before the fall T. rex was supposed to be a vegetarian, but before
the fall there wouldn't be kids playing with any unless they were a
young Adam and Eve (Where is that in the Bible). T. rex was obviously
a very friendly beast with banana sized slashing teeth designed to eat
cabbage, just don't think too hard about it, don't try and connect the
dots, and move along staying as ignorant as you possibly can.
Ron Okimoto
Elroy Willis
>> ===
>> Just like the Flintstones!
There's one an hour or so away from me:
http://www.creationevidence.org/
http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html
I've thought of going there and snapping some pictures and writing an
article about it, but can't seem to get motivated enough.
I'm wondering what's up with the stegosaurus pictured on the
last link above. It's supposed to be from a Ta Prohm Cambodian Temple
dedicated in 1186.
Here's another look at it:
http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/watstegosaurus.jpg
Could Cambodian people have uncovered a fossilized stegosaurus
skeleton and made up stories about it, or is it something else?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Elroy Willis
> Jason Spaceman wrote:
>> BBC News, Kentucky
>> Wherever you stand on the debate, it is impossible not to be impressed by
>> the effort that has gone into constructing the $27m (£13.5m) museum, which
>> hopes to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors each year.
>> "We have a planetarium to our left, and a virtually-finished bookstore.
> A planetarium? Why antagonize the flat-earthers and geocentric
> creationists? They wouldn't put out such a slock program as to appease
> those twits would they? I can just see their program on flat-earth
> zetic cosmology where the sun is only 300 miles above a pizza like
> earth, and we never landed a man on the moon. There was just a thread
> where about the most bogus geocentric argument that the earth was fixed
> and all the stars and galaxies were orbiting around it was put forward.
> The AIG explanation for how fast the distant galaxies have to be going
> to accomplish this would be a hoot. Just trying to account for the
> great distances that light has to travel is a major boondoggle for the
> YECers.
You gotta remember the Bible god(s) were afraid of people being able
to build an actual tower tall enough to reach up into heaven and the
stars. That's why in their infinite wisdom, they decided to scramble
people's language.
Genesis 11:5-7
But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were
building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language
they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be
impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language
so they will not understand each other."
And that, my friends, is why we've lost space probes to this day --
because of different languages and measuring systems, like inches vs.
centimeters and mph vs. kph, etc.. The gods were and still are afraid
of us getting up there in their realm to this day.
They're afraid of the USA mostly, since we blew up the first atomic
bombs, and they're determined to keep us under control by keeping us
from adopting the metric system. They send angels to lobbyists and
teachers, telling them to keep up the fight...
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Christopher A.Lee
I said "had" because it's a few years since I lived in California.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Jason Spaceman wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Read it at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6216788.stm
>> "The museum's aim is to bring Genesis - the first book of the Bible -
>> to life for all ages, and promote the belief that the Earth is less
>> than 10,000 years old.
>> To hammer that point home, two smiling children clad in tasteful
>> animal skins, work and play alongside a pair of baby Tyrannosaurus
>> Rex."
>> ===
>> Just like the Flintstones!
>> $27 million spent on spreading another Christian lie. What a waste of
>> money. Think of how many homeless and hungry people that could help,
>> but instead it's used for spreading "false history."
> 27 million sounds like a pretty pitiful amount for a modern museum.
Not for where it's located. It probably will take in some good money
from the gullible in the tri-state area.
> Back before the fall T. rex was supposed to be a vegetarian,
> the fall there wouldn't be kids playing with any unless they were a
> young Adam and Eve (Where is that in the Bible). T. rex was obviously
> a very friendly beast with banana sized slashing teeth designed to eat
> cabbage,
To pick cabbage delicately from the patch, actually. Gathering and
putting it in a pile, for the humans to pick up. The long teeth were
used to till the ground before planting new cabbage, similar to modern
day plows. The advantage was that if a tooth broke off, it'd just
grow back!
> just don't think too hard about it, don't try and connect the
> dots, and move along staying as ignorant as you possibly can.
I like to make fun of the ideas, and the people who run the
creationist museums can't seem to realize they're completely
brainwashed by their religion.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
CreateThis
<notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
>But secular scientists would take issue ...
What's a "secular scientist"? Is that like wet water?
CT
John Wilkins
A scientist who happens not to be ordained like Fr Coyne or Francisco
Ayala (who is now released from his vows anyway)...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Elroy Willis
> Jason Spaceman <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
>> But secular scientists would take issue ...
> What's a "secular scientist"? Is that like wet water?
A scientist who doesn't let their religious beliefs, if they have any,
get in the way of honest science and their research and their
conclusions?
I find it hard to believe that any scientist who has strong religious
beliefs about some god or about some religious dogma can actually be
completely unbiased when it comes to their research.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Lizz Holmans
Would you like to talk to my friend the professor of geology? He
manages pretty well.
For that matter, I've done all right myself.
Lizz 'but thee knew that' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Al Klein
wrote:
More like "dry water" - something that doesn't exist.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
gebobs
Regardless, I'm going to claim rights to the screenplay.
JessHC
Elroy Willis wrote:
> Jason Spaceman wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Read it at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6216788.stm
>
> "The museum's aim is to bring Genesis - the first book of the Bible -
> to life for all ages, and promote the belief that the Earth is less
> than 10,000 years old.
>
> To hammer that point home, two smiling children clad in tasteful
> animal skins, work and play alongside a pair of baby Tyrannosaurus
> Rex."
>
> ===
I thought you were kidding. I guess if they have such a display, it
must be true. They wouldn't LIE, would they?
Bob
"Christopher A.Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:p3ctn2tuu4jf2g6k4...@4ax.com...
It was there last year around this time - I was visiting San Diego
and found a pamphlet/leaflet advertising it. Scary ignorance.
--
Bob
a.a. #2261
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
http://www.godisimaginary.com
http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com
Desertphile
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> By Matthew Wells
> BBC News, Kentucky
>
> A new high-tech temple to fundamentalist Christianity is due to open in
> heart of Middle America next May, aiming to provide the grandest riposte
> yet to Darwinian evolutionary theory.
>
> Staff and supporters of the Answers in Genesis organisation call it the
> Creation Museum.
Séances every evening, afterwards the collection plate shall be passed
through the pews.
george
Desertphile wrote:
> Séances every evening, afterwards the collection plate shall be passed
> through the pews.
Though I know you -really- meant "along" I'm billing you for a new
keyboard :-)
Robibnikoff
"Elroy Willis" <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:jq8tn25kp927qm6sr...@4ax.com...
Yeah, right!
>
> Could Cambodian people have uncovered a fossilized stegosaurus
> skeleton and made up stories about it, or is it something else?
Yeah, Adobe PhotoShop! ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like
Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet
Kermit
Elroy Willis wrote:
<snip>
>
> I'm wondering what's up with the stegosaurus pictured on the
> last link above. It's supposed to be from a Ta Prohm Cambodian Temple
> dedicated in 1186.
>
> Here's another look at it:
> http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/watstegosaurus.jpg
>
> Could Cambodian people have uncovered a fossilized stegosaurus
> skeleton and made up stories about it, or is it something else?
>
Doesn't have the right head for a stegosaurus. Look at all the
circle/spirals; they're surrounded by lines-of-blocks decorations. The
spiral draws these decorations into the circles, The two below the
beast also have a few, altho they don't have as many. The tiger or
whatever it is on the bottom is holding a stegosaurus upside down, I
guess, cause he's got a row of those blocks over his head :P
I think the beastie in question is just a pig or tapir, with decoration
filling in the area above its back. Maybe a rhino.
The artisans couldn't stand to leave a smooth area free of decoration.
I'd be interested in seeing the rest of the pseudo-pillar, on the top.
> --
> Elroy Willis
> www.elroysemporium.com
Kermit
John Wilkins
Robibnikoff
"Kermit" <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165957333.9...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
I'd be interested in seeing it right in front of me as well as verification
of its age. You can do amazing things with photo programs these days.
SeppoP
> "Kermit" <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165957333.9...@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I'm wondering what's up with the stegosaurus pictured on the
>>> last link above. It's supposed to be from a Ta Prohm Cambodian Temple
>>> dedicated in 1186.
>>>
>>> Here's another look at it:
>>> http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/watstegosaurus.jpg
>>>
>>> Could Cambodian people have uncovered a fossilized stegosaurus
>>> skeleton and made up stories about it, or is it something else?
>>>
>> Doesn't have the right head for a stegosaurus. Look at all the
>> circle/spirals; they're surrounded by lines-of-blocks decorations. The
>> spiral draws these decorations into the circles, The two below the
>> beast also have a few, altho they don't have as many. The tiger or
>> whatever it is on the bottom is holding a stegosaurus upside down, I
>> guess, cause he's got a row of those blocks over his head :P
>>
>> I think the beastie in question is just a pig or tapir, with decoration
>> filling in the area above its back. Maybe a rhino.
>>
>> The artisans couldn't stand to leave a smooth area free of decoration.
>> I'd be interested in seeing the rest of the pseudo-pillar, on the top.
>
> I'd be interested in seeing it right in front of me as well as verification
> of its age. You can do amazing things with photo programs these days.
Like this, for example:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5IRdFIpvA>
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Robibnikoff
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> CreateThis <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Jason Spaceman <notr...@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote:
>>>> But secular scientists would take issue ...
>>> What's a "secular scientist"? Is that like wet water?
>> A scientist who doesn't let their religious beliefs, if they have any,
>> get in the way of honest science and their research and their
>> conclusions?
>> I find it hard to believe that any scientist who has strong religious
>> beliefs about some god or about some religious dogma can actually be
>> completely unbiased when it comes to their research.
> Would you like to talk to my friend the professor of geology? He
> manages pretty well.
> For that matter, I've done all right myself.
No doubt you and he appeal to emotionalism and/or argument
from incredulity.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Jason Spaceman wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Read it at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6216788.stm
>> "The museum's aim is to bring Genesis - the first book of the Bible -
>> to life for all ages, and promote the belief that the Earth is less
>> than 10,000 years old.
>> To hammer that point home, two smiling children clad in tasteful
>> animal skins, work and play alongside a pair of baby Tyrannosaurus
>> Rex."
> I thought you were kidding. I guess if they have such a display, it
> must be true. They wouldn't LIE, would they?
If lying can make money to help spread the faith, sure, why not?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Elroy Willis
> SeppoP <seppo_pi...@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
>> Robibnikoff wrote:
>>> Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Elroy Willis wrote:
>>>>> I'm wondering what's up with the stegosaurus pictured on the
>>>>> last link above. It's supposed to be from a Ta Prohm Cambodian Temple
>>>>> dedicated in 1186.
>>>>> Here's another look at it:
>>>>> http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/watstegosaurus.jpg
>>>>> Could Cambodian people have uncovered a fossilized stegosaurus
>>>>> skeleton and made up stories about it, or is it something else?
>>>> Doesn't have the right head for a stegosaurus. Look at all the
>>>> circle/spirals; they're surrounded by lines-of-blocks decorations. The
>>>> spiral draws these decorations into the circles, The two below the
>>>> beast also have a few, altho they don't have as many. The tiger or
>>>> whatever it is on the bottom is holding a stegosaurus upside down, I
>>>> guess, cause he's got a row of those blocks over his head :P
>>>> I think the beastie in question is just a pig or tapir, with decoration
>>>> filling in the area above its back. Maybe a rhino.
>>>> The artisans couldn't stand to leave a smooth area free of decoration.
>>>> I'd be interested in seeing the rest of the pseudo-pillar, on the top.
>>> I'd be interested in seeing it right in front of me as well as
>>> verification of its age. You can do amazing things with photo programs
>>> these days.
>> Like this, for example:
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5IRdFIpvA>
> Cool! :)
Yeah, not a single pimple or blemish by the time they're through with
her. :)
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Lizz Holmans
<elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>No doubt you and he appeal to emotionalism and/or argument
>from incredulity.
My favorite geologist is one of the most unemotional people I know
when it comes to his specialist science. He teaches geology, not
religion. I've never heard him say anything that smacked of
emotionalism and/or argument from incredulity. In fact, he'd be very
insulted if you attributed either of those to him. He's a scientist
with a Ph.D from a secular university, a long-term professor at a
secular university, and at least one of his students called him the
Anti-Christ.
As for me, I never had my religion affect my professional life,
either. Or rather, I use my faith to help me deal with some pretty
grisly events in my own career, but only in private.
And yet he is an Episcopalian lay minister and I am a Quaker. And you,
sir, seem to be an expert (not) in mind-reading. Have you thought
about taking the Randi Challenge? jI pledged my $1000. Have you?
We aren't all fundamentalists, much to your chagrin.
Lizz 'sorry' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> No doubt you and he appeal to emotionalism and/or argument
>> from incredulity.
> My favorite geologist is one of the most unemotional people I know
> when it comes to his specialist science. He teaches geology, not
> religion. I've never heard him say anything that smacked of
> emotionalism and/or argument from incredulity. In fact, he'd be very
> insulted if you attributed either of those to him. He's a scientist
> with a Ph.D from a secular university, a long-term professor at a
> secular university, and at least one of his students called him the
> Anti-Christ.
What's his stance on the age of the Earth, and why did they call him
that?
> As for me, I never had my religion affect my professional life,
> either. Or rather, I use my faith to help me deal with some pretty
> grisly events in my own career, but only in private.
So tell me why you reject a completely natural worldview.
> And yet he is an Episcopalian lay minister and I am a Quaker. And you,
> sir, seem to be an expert (not) in mind-reading. Have you thought
> about taking the Randi Challenge? jI pledged my $1000. Have you?
I don't claim to have any supernatural powers or to be in contact with
some god or dead people, mind-reading jokes aside, so I've no reason
to take the challenge.
> We aren't all fundamentalists, much to your chagrin.
I remember reading about a professional geologist who also
believed in a young Earth. Dunno how he could manage it,
do you?
As for you, I don't remember what your profession is.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Christopher A.Lee
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>We aren't all fundamentalists, much to your chagrin.
That was uncalled for.
>Lizz 'sorry' Holmans
Elroy Willis
> Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> We aren't all fundamentalists, much to your chagrin.
> That was uncalled for.
I'm sure she must believe in some basic Quaker "fundamental"
ideas or doctrines, otherwise why would she bother calling herself a
Quaker?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Lizz Holmans
<elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>What's his stance on the age of the Earth, and why did they call him
>that?
Oh, what a silly question to ask a geologist. He's a *scientist*, not
a Christian Scientist.
>
>So tell me why you reject a completely natural worldview.
I don't. I just believe in God.
>
>I don't claim to have any supernatural powers or to be in contact with
>some god or dead people, mind-reading jokes aside, so I've no reason
>to take the challenge.
Claiming that you know what my friend believes about his special
science is mind-reading.
>
>I remember reading about a professional geologist who also
>believed in a young Earth. Dunno how he could manage it,
>do you?
No idea. It goes against all the evidence.
>
>As for you, I don't remember what your profession is.
I was a registered nurse, which means I had to take anatomy &
physiology, microbiology, and other science stuff.
Why do atheists take the Bible so literally? No one I know, or would
know, or would love, or would marry, believes that.
Lizz 'I heart Lenny Bruce' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Lizz Holmans
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:08:35 +0000, Lizz Holmans
><di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>We aren't all fundamentalists, much to your chagrin.
>
>That was uncalled for.
>
You mean you aren't sure what chagrin means, or you can't take what's
dished out to most theists in sci.skeptic. I've been called much worse
by atheists, y' know. I didn't know youse guys were so touchy.
Lizz 'although I admit I do touch an atheist as often as possible'
Lizz Holmans
<elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>
>I'm sure she must believe in some basic Quaker "fundamental"
>ideas or doctrines, otherwise why would she bother calling herself a
>Quaker?
Our fundamental belief is that there is that of God in ever human
being. That's about it. Oh, and pacifism. Nothing too onerous.
Lizz 'Treating people as thee would be treated isn't even Christian in
origin; it's just a good idea' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Christopher A.Lee
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:43:44 -0500, "Christopher A.Lee"
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:08:35 +0000, Lizz Holmans
>><di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>We aren't all fundamentalists, much to your chagrin.
>>
>>That was uncalled for.
>>
>You mean you aren't sure what chagrin means, or you can't take what's
>dished out to most theists in sci.skeptic. I've been called much worse
>by atheists, y' know. I didn't know youse guys were so touchy.
If I meant that I would have said so. But I neither meant nor said
that.
You were lying when you said "to his chagrin".
And you're lying now.
You're supposed to be above that sort of thing.
But we all realised you were only pretending to be, when you ignored
what you were told and simply said "rumpety rumpety" a few weeks ago.
John Wilkins
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:33:01 +0000, Lizz Holmans
> <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:43:44 -0500, "Christopher A.Lee"
> ><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:08:35 +0000, Lizz Holmans
> >><di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>We aren't all fundamentalists, much to your chagrin.
> >>
> >>That was uncalled for.
> >>
> >You mean you aren't sure what chagrin means, or you can't take what's
> >dished out to most theists in sci.skeptic. I've been called much worse
> >by atheists, y' know. I didn't know youse guys were so touchy.
>
> If I meant that I would have said so. But I neither meant nor said
> that.
>
> You were lying when you said "to his chagrin".
How does one lie when asserting an opinion? Do you think she didn't
think he was chagrined>
>
> And you're lying now.
>
> You're supposed to be above that sort of thing.
>
> But we all realised you were only pretending to be, when you ignored
> what you were told and simply said "rumpety rumpety" a few weeks ago.
You're not all that Bright, are you? Lizz uses that as a tagline, in her
rotating and occasionally edited sig. It's from the Elephant and the Bad
Baby, a children's book:
http://www.toonhound.com/briggseatbb.htm
>
>
> >Lizz 'although I admit I do touch an atheist as often as possible'
> >Holmans
But you don't know about agnostics. Yes, we've heard it before...
CreateThis
Shirley, you meant "theistic" or "spiritual". "Christian" is so...
Christcentric.
CT
Christopher A.Lee
Wilkins) wrote:
>Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:33:01 +0000, Lizz Holmans
>> <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:43:44 -0500, "Christopher A.Lee"
>> ><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:08:35 +0000, Lizz Holmans
>> >><di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>We aren't all fundamentalists, much to your chagrin.
>> >>
>> >>That was uncalled for.
>> >>
>> >You mean you aren't sure what chagrin means, or you can't take what's
>> >dished out to most theists in sci.skeptic. I've been called much worse
>> >by atheists, y' know. I didn't know youse guys were so touchy.
>>
>> If I meant that I would have said so. But I neither meant nor said
>> that.
>>
>> You were lying when you said "to his chagrin".
>
>How does one lie when asserting an opinion? Do you think she didn't
>think he was chagrined>
She didn't call it an opinion, and she was amateur-psychologising a
"reason" out of ignorance.
>> And you're lying now.
>>
>> You're supposed to be above that sort of thing.
>>
>> But we all realised you were only pretending to be, when you ignored
>> what you were told and simply said "rumpety rumpety" a few weeks ago.
>
>You're not all that Bright, are you? Lizz uses that as a tagline, in her
>rotating and occasionally edited sig. It's from the Elephant and the Bad
>Baby, a children's book:
You're stupid, aren't you? She didn't use it as a tagline in messages
in a certain thread a few weeks ago. It was her ONLY response to
things she was told that she should have known better anyway.
In several messages.
She did it to both me and Michael Gray.
And I don't care where she got it from.
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>Shirley, you meant "theistic" or "spiritual". "Christian" is so...
>Christcentric.
Being a Christian most of my life, it was the first example I could
think of. Hillel, the Jewish scholar, said much the same thing, as
have others.
Lizz 'I *am* Christian, you know, but that doesn't mean I don't know
other religious beliefs' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Cheezits
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:43:44 -0500, "Christopher A.Lee"
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>That was uncalled for.
[etc.]
> I didn't know youse guys were so touchy.
No, I'm pretty sure it's just Christopher.
Sue
--
"Please do not offer my god a peanut." - Apu
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> What's his stance on the age of the Earth, and why did they call him
>> that?
> Oh, what a silly question to ask a geologist. He's a *scientist*, not
> a Christian Scientist.
How old does he believe the Earth is, and how does he reconcile that
age with the Biblical creation story?
>> So tell me why you reject a completely natural worldview.
> I don't.
Apparently you do.
> I just believe in God.
Your god doesn't ever do anything supernatural? If not, why call it a
god?
>> I don't claim to have any supernatural powers or to be in contact with
>> some god or dead people, mind-reading jokes aside, so I've no reason
>> to take the challenge.
> Claiming that you know what my friend believes about his special
> science is mind-reading.
No, it's called generalizing, and it doesn't take supernatural
abilities. I'm willing to admit I generalized wrong, since there are
exceptions to every generalization.
>> I remember reading about a professional geologist who also
>> believed in a young Earth. Dunno how he could manage it,
>> do you?
> No idea. It goes against all the evidence.
It disproves the Bible, imo. I don't see how any professional
geologist, or biologist, for that matter, can maintain a belief in
the Bible without tossing out huge chunks of it, especially when it
comes to the origins of man and the food chain.
>> As for you, I don't remember what your profession is.
> I was a registered nurse, which means I had to take anatomy &
> physiology, microbiology, and other science stuff.
So you know that people die because we're animals and we're subject
to the same things that kill other animals in the food chain, not
because of some fictitious "sin" idea which the Bible says is why
man dies, and why Jesus had to die a bloody death
on a cross, right?
> Why do atheists take the Bible so literally?
I take it literally when it requires me to believe some absurd idea
that goes against common sense and nature. I do the same for other
religious texts, not just the Bible.
An immortal god impregnating an earth woman in order to create a
perfect sinless child to sacrifice to itself? C'mon, do you really
believe that?
> No one I know, or would know, or would love, or would marry, believes
> that.
Believes what, exactly?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> I'm sure she must believe in some basic Quaker "fundamental"
>> ideas or doctrines, otherwise why would she bother calling herself a
>> Quaker?
> Our fundamental belief is that there is that of God in ever human
> being. That's about it. Oh, and pacifism. Nothing too onerous.
You'd never give up those beliefs, no matter what?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Lizz Holmans
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>You were lying when you said "to his chagrin".
I don't think so. I've dealt with proselytizing Christians, Muslims,
and other ones who think they own the 'truth'.
>
>And you're lying now.
Am I? Have you read his other posts?
>
>You're supposed to be above that sort of thing.
I try to, but alas! I am only human.
>
>But we all realised you were only pretending to be, when you ignored
>what you were told and simply said "rumpety rumpety" a few weeks ago.
As I said before, that was a mistake. I don't pretend about my faith.
Lizz 'It's the Real Thing, for me at least' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Lizz Holmans
And as I said then, it was a mistake.
>
>In several messages.
>
>She did it to both me and Michael Gray.
>
>And I don't care where she got it from.
Pity. It's a great book.
Lizz 'You never once said Please' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Christopher A.Lee
wrote:
>Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:43:44 -0500, "Christopher A.Lee"
>> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>[etc.]
>>>That was uncalled for.
>[etc.]
>> I didn't know youse guys were so touchy.
>
>No, I'm pretty sure it's just Christopher.
No. She shouldn't have lied with "to your chagrin".
She likes to give the impression she's above that sort of thing. But
this kind of phony amateur-psychologising to the point of falsehood is
a standard net.theist technique.
>Sue
Christopher A.Lee
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:13:50 -0500, "Christopher A.Lee"
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:58:12 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
>>Wilkins) wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>>You're not all that Bright, are you? Lizz uses that as a tagline, in her
>>>rotating and occasionally edited sig. It's from the Elephant and the Bad
>>>Baby, a children's book:
>>
>>You're stupid, aren't you? She didn't use it as a tagline in messages
>>in a certain thread a few weeks ago. It was her ONLY response to
>>things she was told that she should have known better anyway.
>
>And as I said then, it was a mistake.
And as I asked then, four times in a row?
>>In several messages.
>>
>>She did it to both me and Michael Gray.
>>
>>And I don't care where she got it from.
>
>Pity. It's a great book.
So what?
Lizz Holmans
Wilkins) wrote:
>
>But you don't know about agnostics. Yes, we've heard it before...
I didn't marry them all, you know, but I've gone through that phase
myself. It didn't speak to my condition.
Lizz 'if that wasn't aimed at me, my apologies' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Richard Harter
wrote:
>Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:43:44 -0500, "Christopher A.Lee"
>> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>[etc.]
>>>That was uncalled for.
>[etc.]
>> I didn't know youse guys were so touchy.
>
>No, I'm pretty sure it's just Christopher.
Indeed. The strongest argument that I know of for being a Christian is
that Christopher Lee is an atheist.
Lizz Holmans
It was either my mistake or the cat walked across the keyboard. I
didn't do it on purporse. Truth is also one of my fundamental
beliefs..
Lizz ' besides, it's "Rumpeta Rumpeta, Rumpeta', That's how elephants
and Bad Babies go down the road' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Lizz Holmans
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> You were lying when you said "to his chagrin".
I don't think so.
>>
>>How does one lie when asserting an opinion? Do you think she didn't
>>think he was chagrined>
>
>She didn't call it an opinion, and she was amateur-psychologising a
>"reason" out of ignorance.
Everything I post on Usenet is my opinion. Who else's would it be?
Lizz 'I do keep my navel to myself, though' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Christopher A.Lee
Yet another pig-ignorant idiot who can't grasp that there would be no
reaction to theists and their theism if only they had the sense to
keep it to themselves and learn to think outside the box.
>
>
Jeffrey Turner
I think John was only punning on the meaning of "agnostic."
--Jeff
--
All men of conscience or prudence
ply to windward, to maintain their
wars to be defensive.
-Roger Williams
Cheezits
Not much of an argument though, is it?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Lizz Holmans
<elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>
>How old does he believe the Earth is, and how does he reconcile that
>age with the Biblical creation story?
As I've said before, most Christians do not take the Bible literally.
That seems to be restricted to Fundamentalist denominations and
atheists.
>
>
>> I don't.
>
>Apparently you do.
I don't take the Bible literally. Most Christians don't.
>
>> I just believe in God.
>
>Your god doesn't ever do anything supernatural? If not, why call it a
>god?
Not 'supernatural' a bit. And God doesn't do everything I tell him to.
>
>No, it's called generalizing, and it doesn't take supernatural
>abilities. I'm willing to admit I generalized wrong, since there are
>exceptions to every generalization.
Thank you.
>It disproves the Bible, imo. I don't see how any professional
>geologist, or biologist, for that matter, can maintain a belief in
>the Bible without tossing out huge chunks of it, especially when it
>comes to the origins of man and the food chain.
Sorry to disappoint you, but there's a lot of us Out There who don't
take the Bible literally. As the Quaker saying demonstrates, 'There is
Truth in the Bible, but the Bible is not The Truth.'
>
>>> As for you, I don't remember what your profession is.
>
>> I was a registered nurse, which means I had to take anatomy &
>> physiology, microbiology, and other science stuff.
>
>So you know that people die because we're animals and we're subject
>to the same things that kill other animals in the food chain, not
>because of some fictitious "sin" idea which the Bible says is why
>man dies, and why Jesus had to die a bloody death
>on a cross, right?
According to the Old Testament, a man's life span is three score and
ten. 70 is a pretty good innings, but of course there are those
batsmen who can make a double century.
>
>I take it literally when it requires me to believe some absurd idea
>that goes against common sense and nature. I do the same for other
>religious texts, not just the Bible.
Required? Who is requiring you? Certainly not I.
>
>An immortal god impregnating an earth woman in order to create a
>perfect sinless child to sacrifice to itself? C'mon, do you really
>believe that?
In the church I was raised in before I became a convinced Quaker that
was not a requirement, so no, I don't believe God physically
impregnated anybody. I do believe that Jesus Christ as a man was
subject to all the sins any other person would be. The thing is, is
that he was more integrated with God so as to be called the Son of
God.
As for the Resurrection, it's a mystery.
>
>> No one I know, or would know, or would love, or would marry, believes
>> that.
>
>Believes what, exactly?
That the Bible is inerrant and dictated by God Hirself. It's obviously
not true, or how was Moses able to write the Torah after he was dead?
Nevertheless, there is Truth in the Bible, but there are also love
stories, adventure stories, and one downright sexy one. As I've said
approximately 2 billion times, there is Truth but not the truth.
Y' know, I've never tried to convert you, so why are you making me
sound so holy?
Lizz 'unlike my favorite sweater' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Lizz Holmans
<elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Our fundamental belief is that there is that of God in ever human
>> being. That's about it. Oh, and pacifism. Nothing too onerous.
>
>You'd never give up those beliefs, no matter what?
I pray not. I am only human, but I pray not.
Lizz 'would *you* give up your cherished beliefs? I don't think so'
Lizz Holmans
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>And as I asked then, four times in a row?
I have not and would not purposefully lie about it.
>
>>Pity. It's a great book.
>
>So what?
'Cos it just is. If you have children, I recommend it. All my kids
loved it.
Lizz 'And it's not a bit supernatural, except maybe for the talking
Elephant' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Christopher A.Lee
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:40:25 GMT, Elroy Willis
><elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>>Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism
>>
>>
>>How old does he believe the Earth is, and how does he reconcile that
>>age with the Biblical creation story?
>
>As I've said before, most Christians do not take the Bible literally.
>That seems to be restricted to Fundamentalist denominations and
>atheists.
Something else you know better than that.
Lizz Holmans
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>No. She shouldn't have lied with "to your chagrin".
>
>She likes to give the impression she's above that sort of thing. But
>this kind of phony amateur-psychologising to the point of falsehood is
>a standard net.theist technique.
I am no psychologist, amateur or otherwise. And I never take the high
ground because I don't deserve to. I don't lie. It's not right, no
matter what your religion or atheism, because when you tell the truth
you don't have to remember so much.
Lizz 'well, there was that time I blamed my sister for a quarrel I
started, but we were 6 and 7 years old at the time' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Cary Kittrell
>
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:40:25 GMT, Elroy Willis
> <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
{...}
> >
> >So you know that people die because we're animals and we're subject
> >to the same things that kill other animals in the food chain, not
> >because of some fictitious "sin" idea which the Bible says is why
> >man dies, and why Jesus had to die a bloody death
> >on a cross, right?
>
> According to the Old Testament, a man's life span is three score and
> ten. 70 is a pretty good innings, but of course there are those
> batsmen who can make a double century.
Oh, lordy, she's gone totally native on us.
Quick! Someone fetch a Philly Cheese Steak and cornbread
and some hush puppies and ... and ... anyone know what
they serve in Oklahoma?
-- cary
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>> Our fundamental belief is that there is that of God in ever human
>>> being. That's about it. Oh, and pacifism. Nothing too onerous.
>> You'd never give up those beliefs, no matter what?
> I pray not. I am only human, but I pray not.
Because of what?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in alt.atheism
>> How old does he believe the Earth is, and how does he reconcile that
>> age with the Biblical creation story?
> As I've said before, most Christians do not take the Bible literally.
> That seems to be restricted to Fundamentalist denominations and
> atheists.
So that's your geologist friend's belief? An old earth, millions if
not billions of years old?
>>> I don't.
>> Apparently you do.
> I don't take the Bible literally. Most Christians don't.
You must take at least some parts of it literally, don't you?
>>> I just believe in God.
>> Your god doesn't ever do anything supernatural? If not, why call it a
>> god?
> Not 'supernatural' a bit. And God doesn't do everything I tell him to.
How can you tell the difference?
>> No, it's called generalizing, and it doesn't take supernatural
>> abilities. I'm willing to admit I generalized wrong, since there are
>> exceptions to every generalization.
> Thank you.
>> It disproves the Bible, imo. I don't see how any professional
>> geologist, or biologist, for that matter, can maintain a belief in
>> the Bible without tossing out huge chunks of it, especially when it
>> comes to the origins of man and the food chain.
> Sorry to disappoint you, but there's a lot of us Out There who don't
> take the Bible literally.
The historical and scientific facts that we evolved from apes is proof
enough to discredit the Biblical creation story. How can you even
take the rest of the Bible story seriously when it says that some god
made people out of dirt one day and breathed life into them like magic
puppets?
Wait, a minute... You said you don't take it seriously, so never
mind...
Jesus had to die for what reason? Answer me that, if you can.
> As the Quaker saying demonstrates, 'There is Truth in the Bible,
> but the Bible is not The Truth.'
Paying attention to the capital letters, of course.
>>>> As for you, I don't remember what your profession is.
>>> I was a registered nurse, which means I had to take anatomy &
>>> physiology, microbiology, and other science stuff.
>> So you know that people die because we're animals and we're subject
>> to the same things that kill other animals in the food chain, not
>> because of some fictitious "sin" idea which the Bible says is why
>> man dies, and why Jesus had to die a bloody death
>> on a cross, right?
> According to the Old Testament, a man's life span is three score and
> ten. 70 is a pretty good innings, but of course there are those
> batsmen who can make a double century.
After some pretended flood, of course, before which some special
people lived to be nearly a thousand years old...
>> I take it literally when it requires me to believe some absurd idea
>> that goes against common sense and nature. I do the same for other
>> religious texts, not just the Bible.
> Required? Who is requiring you? Certainly not I.
Required by any potential convert. That's the way I approach any
religion I come across. I want to know what I'm expected or required
to believe before I decide to get involved with it, even if it's just
hypothetically.
>> An immortal god impregnating an earth woman in order to create a
>> perfect sinless child to sacrifice to itself? C'mon, do you really
>> believe that?
> In the church I was raised in before I became a convinced Quaker that
> was not a requirement, so no, I don't believe God physically
> impregnated anybody. I do believe that Jesus Christ as a man was
> subject to all the sins any other person would be. The thing is, is
> that he was more integrated with God so as to be called the Son of
> God.
Seems he called himself the "Son of Man" way more than he called
himself the "Son of God" to me. Have you ever counted up the
references?
> As for the Resurrection, it's a mystery.
Not really, if you've actually researched the origin of the many
different resurrection mythologies floating around at the time.
Especially the resurrection of the "sun" myths during the winter
solstice.
>>> No one I know, or would know, or would love, or would marry, believes
>>> that.
>> Believes what, exactly?
> That the Bible is inerrant and dictated by God Hirself. It's obviously
> not true, or how was Moses able to write the Torah after he was dead?
> Nevertheless, there is Truth in the Bible, but there are also love
> stories, adventure stories, and one downright sexy one. As I've said
> approximately 2 billion times, there is Truth but not the truth.
> Y' know, I've never tried to convert you, so why are you making me
> sound so holy?
I didn't mean to make you sound holy, just gullible. There's a
difference, isn't there?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Elroy Willis
> Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
> {...}
>>> So you know that people die because we're animals and we're subject
>>> to the same things that kill other animals in the food chain, not
>>> because of some fictitious "sin" idea which the Bible says is why
>>> man dies, and why Jesus had to die a bloody death
>>> on a cross, right?
>> According to the Old Testament, a man's life span is three score and
>> ten. 70 is a pretty good innings, but of course there are those
>> batsmen who can make a double century.
> Oh, lordy, she's gone totally native on us.
> Quick! Someone fetch a Philly Cheese Steak and cornbread
> and some hush puppies and ... and ... anyone know what
> they serve in Oklahoma?
Calf fries... She needs a few calf fries... That'll fix her up!
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Lizz Holmans
<elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote in alt.atheism
>
>
>> Oh, lordy, she's gone totally native on us.
>
>> Quick! Someone fetch a Philly Cheese Steak and cornbread
>> and some hush puppies and ... and ... anyone know what
>> they serve in Oklahoma?
Chicken-fried steak, if you please
>
>Calf fries... She needs a few calf fries... That'll fix her up!
Thanks, but no thanks.
Lizz 'bollocks' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Richard Harter
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:09:23 GMT, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:37:50 GMT, Cheezits <Cheez...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:43:44 -0500, "Christopher A.Lee"
>>>> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>[etc.]
>>>>>That was uncalled for.
>>>[etc.]
>>>> I didn't know youse guys were so touchy.
>>>
>>>No, I'm pretty sure it's just Christopher.
>>
>>Indeed. The strongest argument that I know of for being a Christian is
>>that Christopher Lee is an atheist.
>
>Yet another pig-ignorant idiot who can't grasp that there would be no
>reaction to theists and their theism if only they had the sense to
>keep it to themselves and learn to think outside the box.
Speak for yourself snout face.
Cheezits
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:02:44 GMT, Elroy Willis
> <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>> Quick! Someone fetch a Philly Cheese Steak and cornbread
>>> and some hush puppies and ... and ... anyone know what
>>> they serve in Oklahoma?
>
> Chicken-fried steak, if you please
How do they train chickens to fry steaks?
Sue
--
"I thought I had an appetite for destruction, but all
I wanted was a club sandwich." - Homer Simpson
Lizz Holmans
Answer my question first. What beliefs would you give up, no matter
what?
Lizz 'surely you believe in something?' Holmans-
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
eyelessgame
Elroy Willis wrote:
> Jason Spaceman wrote in alt.atheism
>
> > Read it at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6216788.stm
>
> "The museum's aim is to bring Genesis - the first book of the Bible -
> to life for all ages, and promote the belief that the Earth is less
> than 10,000 years old.
>
> To hammer that point home, two smiling children clad in tasteful
> animal skins, work and play alongside a pair of baby Tyrannosaurus
> Rex."
>
> ===
>
> Just like the Flintstones!
That was my first thought. These people think the Flintstones was a
documentary. *
Could serve a useful purpose, though. Let's get all the ID people to
commit to a position on this museum: is the history described in this
museum right, or is it wrong?
eyelessgame
* wish I could take credit - stolen from Lewis Black
eyelessgame
Jason Spaceman wrote:
> From the article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> By Matthew Wells
> BBC News, Kentucky
>
I was interested in this bit:
> "We have a planetarium to our left..."
What's their position going to be on speed of light, I wonder.
eyelessgame
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>How do they train chickens to fry steaks?
It takes a lot of intensive training, seeing that chickens don't have
thumbs.
No, it's battered and fried steak. Steak fried as one would fry a
chicken. When prepared properly, it is the Food of the Gods. Not your
filet or sirloin, but rump steak. Serve with cream gravy, which
doesn't have any cream in it.
Lizz 'the national dish of the Great American Southwest' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Robibnikoff
"Elroy Willis" <elroy...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:u9m2o254poi9cq3tu...@4ax.com...
> Robibnikoff"<witc...@broomstick.com> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>> SeppoP <seppo_pi...@xyahoox.com> wrote in message
>>> Robibnikoff wrote:
>>>> Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Elroy Willis wrote:
>
>>>>>> I'm wondering what's up with the stegosaurus pictured on the
>>>>>> last link above. It's supposed to be from a Ta Prohm Cambodian
>>>>>> Temple
>>>>>> dedicated in 1186.
>
>>>>>> Here's another look at it:
>>>>>> http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/watstegosaurus.jpg
>
>>>>>> Could Cambodian people have uncovered a fossilized stegosaurus
>>>>>> skeleton and made up stories about it, or is it something else?
>
>>>>> Doesn't have the right head for a stegosaurus. Look at all the
>>>>> circle/spirals; they're surrounded by lines-of-blocks decorations. The
>>>>> spiral draws these decorations into the circles, The two below the
>>>>> beast also have a few, altho they don't have as many. The tiger or
>>>>> whatever it is on the bottom is holding a stegosaurus upside down, I
>>>>> guess, cause he's got a row of those blocks over his head :P
>
>>>>> I think the beastie in question is just a pig or tapir, with
>>>>> decoration
>>>>> filling in the area above its back. Maybe a rhino.
>
>>>>> The artisans couldn't stand to leave a smooth area free of decoration.
>>>>> I'd be interested in seeing the rest of the pseudo-pillar, on the top.
>
>>>> I'd be interested in seeing it right in front of me as well as
>>>> verification of its age. You can do amazing things with photo programs
>>>> these days.
>
>>> Like this, for example:
>
>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5IRdFIpvA>
>
>> Cool! :)
>
> Yeah, not a single pimple or blemish by the time they're through with
> her. :)
I did something like that for a SIL once - whitened her teeth (which are
disgusting from smoking) and removed the shadow of a double-chin ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
I think religion is so popular because even the village idiot can feel like
Einstein without any effort. - Denis Loubet
Robibnikoff
"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:56s3o2d1gs0dvdqcl...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:17:50 GMT, Cheezits <Cheez...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>How do they train chickens to fry steaks?
>
> It takes a lot of intensive training, seeing that chickens don't have
> thumbs.
>
> No, it's battered and fried steak. Steak fried as one would fry a
> chicken. When prepared properly, it is the Food of the Gods. Not your
> filet or sirloin, but rump steak. Serve with cream gravy, which
> doesn't have any cream in it.
Gross! :P
t...@optonline.net
Hoof-Hearted wrote:
> Jason Spaceman wrote:
>
>
> It cannot be a museum in the true sense of the word, just a fantasy
> theme park business. The AAM has a code of ethics for museums:
>
What does ethics have to do with fundamentalist christians? I'll bet
that "Mark Looy, vice
president for ministry relations" doesn't miss any meals or is too cold
in the winter and has good health care. I wonder how much of the $27m
spent on this horror made its way into his bank account.
t...@optonline.net
> >> Elroy Willis wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> I'm wondering what's up with the stegosaurus pictured on the
> >>> last link above. It's supposed to be from a Ta Prohm Cambodian Temple
> >>> dedicated in 1186.
> >>>
> >>> Here's another look at it:
> >>> http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/watstegosaurus.jpg
> >>>
> >>> Could Cambodian people have uncovered a fossilized stegosaurus
> >>> skeleton and made up stories about it, or is it something else?
> >>>
> >> Doesn't have the right head for a stegosaurus. Look at all the
> >> circle/spirals; they're surrounded by lines-of-blocks decorations. The
> >> spiral draws these decorations into the circles, The two below the
> >> beast also have a few, altho they don't have as many. The tiger or
> >> whatever it is on the bottom is holding a stegosaurus upside down, I
> >> guess, cause he's got a row of those blocks over his head :P
> >>
> >> I think the beastie in question is just a pig or tapir, with decoration
> >> filling in the area above its back. Maybe a rhino.
> >>
> >> The artisans couldn't stand to leave a smooth area free of decoration.
> >> I'd be interested in seeing the rest of the pseudo-pillar, on the top.
> >
> > I'd be interested in seeing it right in front of me as well as verification
> > of its age. You can do amazing things with photo programs these days.
>
> Like this, for example:
>
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5IRdFIpvA>
>
> Seppo P.
> What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
That's like the case where a patient couldn't afford an operation so
for a smaller fee, the doctor retouched the X-Rays.
Lizz Holmans
<witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:56s3o2d1gs0dvdqcl...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:17:50 GMT, Cheezits <Cheez...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How do they train chickens to fry steaks?
>>
>> It takes a lot of intensive training, seeing that chickens don't have
>> thumbs.
>>
>> No, it's battered and fried steak. Steak fried as one would fry a
>> chicken. When prepared properly, it is the Food of the Gods. Not your
>> filet or sirloin, but rump steak. Serve with cream gravy, which
>> doesn't have any cream in it.
>
>Gross! :P
No, I assure you, it is yummy. And besides, eating oysters alive is
gross.
Lizz 'I don't eat my food live' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
CreateThis
At least not the food that could protest. But what about those fresh
fruits and vegetables, or that yogurt? Or whatever billions of live
organisms are all over whatever dead stuff you do eat?
CT
Jeffrey Turner
> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:37:50 GMT, Cheezits <Cheez...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:43:44 -0500, "Christopher A.Lee"
>>>><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>[etc.]
>>>
>>>>>That was uncalled for.
>>>
>>>[etc.]
>>>
>>>>I didn't know youse guys were so touchy.
>>>
>>>No, I'm pretty sure it's just Christopher.
>>
>>Indeed. The strongest argument that I know of for being a Christian is
>>that Christopher Lee is an atheist.
>
>
> Not much of an argument though, is it?
I disagree. But there are plenty of theists, take Jerry Falwell
(please?), who are similarly eloquent arguments against theism.
Robibnikoff
Don't look at me, I'm a vegetarian now ;)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist Bastard Extraordinaire
#1557
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>At least not the food that could protest. But what about those fresh
>fruits and vegetables, or that yogurt? Or whatever billions of live
>organisms are all over whatever dead stuff you do eat?
I don't eat food that has a culture. Who knows? Cultured yogurt may
have just as advanced a culture as humans do. As for organisms all
over whatever dead stuff I do eat, I find cooking to be a valuable
defense.
Lizz 'I have learned through hard experience not to cook bacon au
naturel' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Lizz Holmans
<witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>
>"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:l8n5o255grk4mrvmt...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:28:34 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
>> <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
>>
>> No, I assure you, it is yummy. And besides, eating oysters alive is
>> gross.
>
>Don't look at me, I'm a vegetarian now ;)
That's jake with me. I don't force folks to eat stuff they don't like
for whatever reason. It's just good manners.
Lizz 'and it means there's more for me' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Cheezits
> Cheezits wrote:
>> c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>>>Indeed. The strongest argument that I know of for being a Christian
>>>is that Christopher Lee is an atheist.
>>
>> Not much of an argument though, is it?
>
> I disagree.
Do you mean, you think that Christopher Lee being an atheist is a good
reason to be a Christian? :-)
> But there are plenty of theists, take Jerry Falwell
> (please?), who are similarly eloquent arguments against theism.
I think he is an argument against fundie Christian fanaticism than
theism per se.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Cheezits
[chickens frying steak deleted]
> No, I assure you, it is yummy. And besides, eating oysters alive is
> gross.
Unless you're a seagull. I won't even eat them dead unless they're
cooked.
> Lizz 'I don't eat my food live' Holmans
I do everything live. :-D
Sue
--
Arthur Dent: "What's so unpleasant about being drunk?"
Ford Prefect: "You ask a glass of water."
The Chief Instigator
>Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[chickens frying steak deleted]
>> No, I assure you, it is yummy. And besides, eating oysters alive is
>> gross.
>Unless you're a seagull. I won't even eat them dead unless they're
>cooked.
>> Lizz 'I don't eat my food live' Holmans
>I do everything live. :-D
Picky, picky, picky. (Some of the one-neuroned wonders who have wandered into
Usenet over the past few years make me wish I had a case of Keith's "David
Koresh Will Be Bock" beer on hand. ;-)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 3, San Antonio 1 (December 14)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, December 16 vs. Manitoba, 7:35
John Wilkins
> Lizz 'I don't eat my food live' Holmans
Interesting. I personally don't eat my food dead. It's hard to swallow
when you;re dead.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Cheezits
[etc.]
> Picky, picky, picky. (Some of the one-neuroned wonders who have
> wandered into Usenet over the past few years make me wish I had a case
> of Keith's "David Koresh Will Be Bock" beer on hand. ;-)
Beer is always welcome in t.o!
Sue
--
Sanity is highly overrated. - someone on phl.singles
Lizz Holmans
Wilkins) wrote:
>Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Lizz 'I don't eat my food live' Holmans
>
>Interesting. I personally don't eat my food dead. It's hard to swallow
>when you;re dead.
How many dead people have you seen eat oysters? None, I tell you,
none. That should tell you something.
Lizz 'It tells me I shouldn't post so late at night' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Lizzardwoman
| On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:11:58 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
| <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
|
| >
| >"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
| >news:l8n5o255grk4mrvmt...@4ax.com...
| >> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:28:34 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
| >> <witc...@broomstick.com> wrote:
| >>
|
| >> No, I assure you, it is yummy. And besides, eating oysters alive is
| >> gross.
| >
| >Don't look at me, I'm a vegetarian now ;)
|
| That's jake with me. I don't force folks to eat stuff they don't like
| for whatever reason. It's just good manners.
I had a very religiously Christian person, after being told I was a
vegetarian, ask me incredulously and in all sincerity, "Well why do you
think these animals were put on earth then?!?!"
This person was a lab technician helping me with my research so I didn't
want to offend him. I simply said I was a political vegetarian because I
object to the way farm animals are treated. But I must say, when you're
working in a Federal science research lab, it is very easy to get blindsided
by stuff like that. It simply it not expected in my experience (inverse
relationship btw religious belief and education, especially in the
sciences).
So Lizz, is that yet another part of the Bible you choose not to take
literally? And how do you choose by the way?
Thanks.
sharon
--
sharon, momma to savannah and willow
"This is why the results of scientific research tend to converge, and why
religious dogmas tends to diverge. One is dealing with something real, and
the other is not." -- Denis Loubet
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent
in its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness." -- Emmett F. Fields
Cheezits
[etc.]
> I had a very religiously Christian person, after being told I was a
> vegetarian, ask me incredulously and in all sincerity, "Well why do
> you think these animals were put on earth then?!?!"
Why did they think poisonous mushrooms were put on earth? Or animals
that we don't eat?
Lizzardwoman
"Cheezits" <Cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns989B7350E2B76ch...@130.81.64.196...
| "Lizzardwoman" <lizzardw...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
| [etc.]
| > I had a very religiously Christian person, after being told I was a
| > vegetarian, ask me incredulously and in all sincerity, "Well why do
| > you think these animals were put on earth then?!?!"
| [etc.]
|
| Why did they think poisonous mushrooms were put on earth? Or animals
| that we don't eat?
If I wasn't so shocked to be asked such a ludicrous question in a research
science setting, I might have gathered enough wits to respond with that.
sharon
--
"(of creationism) ... Only apocryphal tales told by goat herders around the
campfire after it became too dark to continue to molest their charges." --
TvG (Rec.Equestrian, 2003)
Lizz Holmans
<lizzardw...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>I had a very religiously Christian person, after being told I was a
>vegetarian, ask me incredulously and in all sincerity, "Well why do you
>think these animals were put on earth then?!?!"
How intolerant. I feel sorry for both of you.
>
>This person was a lab technician helping me with my research so I didn't
>want to offend him. I simply said I was a political vegetarian because I
>object to the way farm animals are treated. But I must say, when you're
>working in a Federal science research lab, it is very easy to get blindsided
>by stuff like that. It simply it not expected in my experience (inverse
>relationship btw religious belief and education, especially in the
>sciences).
How sad for thee. My Christian geologist's old boss was the imam at
his local mosque and yet he managed to be a scientist. Being Christian
doesn't make you anything but a follower of Jesus, and I don't
remember Jesus discussing science or animal research.
>
>So Lizz, is that yet another part of the Bible you choose not to take
>literally? And how do you choose by the way?
The Bible was written by human beings, not dictated by Hirself. The
people who assume it's necessary to believe the Bible literally are
either fundamentalist Christians (a minority amongst Christians) or
fundamentalist atheists (also a minority, thank God). I'm a Quaker and
as we say 'There is truth in the Bible, but the Bible is not The
Truth.'
>
>Thanks.
Thee is entirely welcome.
Lizz 'there is also truth in Shakespeare, the Constitution of the
United States, and "Layla" ' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Lizzardwoman
| On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 11:06:21 -0500, "Lizzardwoman"
(snip)
| >So Lizz, is that yet another part of the Bible you choose not to take
| >literally? And how do you choose by the way?
|
| The Bible was written by human beings, not dictated by Hirself. The
| people who assume it's necessary to believe the Bible literally are
| either fundamentalist Christians (a minority amongst Christians) or
| fundamentalist atheists (also a minority, thank God). I'm a Quaker and
| as we say 'There is truth in the Bible, but the Bible is not The
| Truth.'
So how do you know the key part about Jesus wasn't a purely human invention?
sharon
Free Lunch
If Wilkins can find a way to humorously misunderstand a sentence, he
feels that it is his antipodean duty to share it with us.
Matt Silberstein
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> in
<ur88o2p3jfkl7sas4...@4ax.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Lizz 'there is also truth in Shakespeare, the Constitution of the
>United States, and "Layla" ' Holmans
And even in Lizz Holmans. From Matt, who is listening to _Blues Power_
at the moment.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Jeffrey Turner
> Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>But there are plenty of theists, take Jerry Falwell
>>(please?), who are similarly eloquent arguments against theism.
>
> I think he is an argument against fundie Christian fanaticism than
> theism per se.
Falwell may be, but do you really want to argue that there aren't any
annoying or obnoxious theists of other stripes? I think God has to
stand or fall on God's own merits and not on the qualities of those who
support or deny.
Lizz Holmans
<lizzardw...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>So how do you know the key part about Jesus wasn't a purely human invention?
I am getting the idea that any answer I give won't satisfy thee. Just
accept that there are folks out there who can be religious and be good
scientists. Thee doesn't have to like it, but thee can't deny it.
Lizz 'it's just one of those mysterious ways' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Jeffrey Turner
>
> Being Christian
> doesn't make you anything but a follower of Jesus, and I don't
> remember Jesus discussing science or animal research.
Which is too bad, because God could really have given us a lot of
knowledge about such things.
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>
>If Wilkins can find a way to humorously misunderstand a sentence, he
>feels that it is his antipodean duty to share it with us.
Really? Who'd a thunk it?
Lizz 'antipodean? He types with his feet?' Holmans
--
Rumpeta, rumpeta, rumpeta
Matt Silberstein
<jtu...@localnet.com> in <12o8khr...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>Cheezits wrote:
>> Jeffrey Turner <jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But there are plenty of theists, take Jerry Falwell
>>>(please?), who are similarly eloquent arguments against theism.
>>
>> I think he is an argument against fundie Christian fanaticism than
>> theism per se.
>
>Falwell may be, but do you really want to argue that there aren't any
>annoying or obnoxious theists of other stripes? I think God has to
>stand or fall on God's own merits and not on the qualities of those who
>support or deny.
There are annoying and obnoxious atheists, both fundamentalist and
non. Some of the theists are annoying because of and/or about their
religion, some about other issues. Some of the atheists are annoying
because of and/or about their atheist, some about other issues.
Showing a meaningful correlation requires far more evidence than
either of us have.