Supernatural Origins
All-seeing-I
full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible. They are
directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
God from the equation of creating.
You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
Christianity teaches. But you do have to read the book and understand
what you are reading.
In this age too many Christians have become apathetic and pacifistic
toward lost and dying humanity. They could care less that Satan is
conducting a full-scale murder campaign against the inhabitants of
this world.
They don't want to hear about warfare or fighting against sin and
Satan. All they want is a Christianity where everyone always feels
warm and happy.
Here is what the 'touchy-feely' Christians need to know. The entire
purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification was to destroy the
works of Satan and the corruption The Watchers placed on this earth.
Meaningless church programs, social activities and fellowships while
sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
to the kingdom of Hell. Jesus tore the curtain so you can take the
power that you need.
Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
years.
it really is just THAT simple.
Friar Broccoli
> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
.
> Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
> man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible. They are
> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
> God from the equation of creating.
You keep asserting that the bible contradicts evolution,
but you have never been able to demonstrate that this assertion
is true.
>
> You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
> to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
> Christianity teaches. But you do have to read the book and understand
> what you are reading.
>
> In this age too many Christians have become apathetic and pacifistic
> toward lost and dying humanity. They could care less that Satan is
> conducting a full-scale murder campaign against the inhabitants of
> this world.
>
> They don't want to hear about warfare or fighting against sin and
> Satan. All they want is a Christianity where everyone always feels
> warm and happy.
>
> Here is what the 'touchy-feely' Christians need to know. The entire
> purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification was to destroy the
> works of Satan and the corruption The Watchers placed on this earth.
>
> Meaningless church programs, social activities and fellowships while
> sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
> to the kingdom of Hell. Jesus tore the curtain so you can take the
> power that you need.
.
> Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
> spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
> years.
OK. OK, I now believe that all existing kinds spontaniously popped
into existence 5,000 years ago or something like that, together with
the millions of extinct species in the fossil record. Now that
my Lobotomy is finished it ALL MAKES SENSE!
Inez
> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
Both of these factoids are just figments of your fetid imagination.
You have no reason to believe either of them other than personal
preference.
> Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
> man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible. They are
> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
> God from the equation of creating.
God says you have to be an ignorant fathead? Is he still on about
that tree of knowledge thing?
Kleuskes & Moos
> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
I think it takes a pair of brass cojones to speculate on what Jesus
would or would not have done. Asserting it outright, does not take
brass, but high-grade stainless-steel ones.
> Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
> man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible. They are
> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
> God from the equation of creating.
Nope. It clarifies just HOW she did it. And the explanation science
came up with,is a lot more wondefull than the metaphorical story of
Genesis 1.
> You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
> to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
> Christianity teaches.
Ah... Pray tell.. What does the bible command us to do? Is it "Love
thy neighbour" or "Go and lie about the findings of science and
publish lengthy rants on all kinds of electronic forums on that
subject"?
> But you do have to read the book and understand what you are reading.
Well... Guess what.... Many people have without reaching the same
conclusion as you. In fact, there are many different opinions on what
is actually being told.
> In this age too many Christians have become apathetic and pacifistic
> toward lost and dying humanity.
Ummmm... Population statistics indicate humanity is thriving, alive
and kicking your pants.
> They could care less that Satan is conducting a full-scale murder campaign
> against the inhabitants of this world.
'Xcuse me? Are you talking about Darfur? Rwanda?
> They don't want to hear about warfare or fighting against sin and
> Satan.
Ummm... No. Not since your Fellow Christian Dubya Bush lied your way
into war. FIghting against Sin and Satan is a battlefield that lies in
your heart (See Matthew7:3-5)
> All they want is a Christianity where everyone always feels
> warm and happy.
And you want a christianity in which everybody is cold and unhappy?
> Here is what the 'touchy-feely' Christians need to know. The entire
> purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification was to destroy the
> works of Satan and the corruption The Watchers placed on this earth.
The Watchers? Jeremiah 4:17 or Daniel 4:16?
> Meaningless church programs, social activities and fellowships while
> sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
> to the kingdom of Hell.
And you believe you do? Are you smiting the Gates of Hell? Or is
someone else?
> Jesus tore the curtain so you can take the power that you need.
Ahh... Now i understand... You confuse Jesus with Rambo.
> Your origins are supernatural.
You would not know about any origins.
> Your origins are not biological matter spontaneous morphing into species
> after species over millions of years.
As the bible puts it: we come from dust and we will return to dust.
Sounds like the "evilutionists" got it right.
> it really is just THAT simple.
Yes.... You're the kind of person who has an easy solution to every
complex problem, which is wrong.
Kermit
> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
Personally, I consider dropping the torture of heretics and becoming
networks providing mutual social support to be a significant
improvement. I'm sorry you're upset that they don't fight learning.
>
> Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
> man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible.
Correct. Science is verifiable, and it works. Nothing wrong with
social networks per se, however.
> They are
> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
> God from the equation of creating.
Really? You haven't established that. You *have claimed that you see
things other people don't. Why do you think that others would find
these claims persuasive?
>
> You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
> to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
> Christianity teaches. But you do have to read the book and understand
> what you are reading.
Rorschach. Ink. Blots.
>
> In this age too many Christians have become apathetic and pacifistic
> toward lost and dying humanity. They could care less that Satan is
> conducting a full-scale murder campaign against the inhabitants of
> this world.
"The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. "
>
> They don't want to hear about warfare or fighting against sin and
> Satan. All they want is a Christianity where everyone always feels
> warm and happy.
You want the Taliban; they're down the hall on the left, third door.
The one marked "Hatred. Ignorance, and Despair"
>
> Here is what the 'touchy-feely' Christians need to know. The entire
> purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification was to destroy the
> works of Satan and the corruption The Watchers placed on this earth.
Funny that the Rabbi never mentioned the Watchers. I guess he didn't
have your special perception.
>
> Meaningless church programs, social activities and fellowships while
> sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
> to the kingdom of Hell.
Neither will delusions.
> Jesus tore the curtain so you can take the
> power that you need.
>
Sounds very Zen. But I think you must scare the congregations in your
home town. Won't they accept you as a prophet of God? Tsk.
> Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
> spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
> years.
That's what the evidence says.
>
> it really is just THAT simple.
Well, your mind is that simple, but the universe is not constrained
by your desires, education, or intelligence. Hell, it's not even
constrained by *mine :/
Kermit
Robert Camp
> On 14 dec, 18:10, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
>> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
>> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
>> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>
> I think it takes a pair of brass cojones to speculate on what Jesus
> would or would not have done. Asserting it outright, does not take
> brass, but high-grade stainless-steel ones.
Just in case the whole walking on water thing doesn't go too well, I suppose.
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:b2bbddc9-16e0-4ea2...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
True Scotsman.
.
Dan Listermann
"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c50fe676-f53b-4fd2...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
>> spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
>> years.
>
> OK. OK, I now believe that all existing kinds spontaniously popped
> into existence 5,000 years ago or something like that, together with
> the millions of extinct species in the fossil record. Now that
> my Lobotomy is finished it ALL MAKES SENSE!
>
He doesn't seem to be capable of discussing what "creation" was. Not
necessarily how it worked, even simply what happened. He cannot say whether
or not all species that ever existed were created at once and 99% have since
gone extinct, or whether or not species are created even today as
replacements for the extinct. He NEVER has addressed this question and I
strongly doubt he will this time either.
.
Kleuskes & Moos
In that case, other materials may be preferable...
dali_70
More ranting about how we should all remain ignorant sheep following
your lead, because after all you know what god wants. Wage war against
science and reason and label any opposition to your version of god as
evil incarnate in league with the devil. You sound like a christian
version of the taliban.
And you wonder why we laugh at you fucktards.
Paul J Gans
Of course. That 99% is a problem. The fossil record shows almost
the opposite. There are lots of creatures around NOW that were not
around back then. So either a creationist has to believe in
continuous creation OR that God scrubbed the record in order to
make us believe in lies.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
All-seeing-I
> "Friar Broccoli" <elia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I have discussed prior "eons" in the past. PAY ATTENTION.
Eric Root
> On 14 dec, 18:10, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
> > full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
> > ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
> > the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>
> I think it takes a pair of brass cojones to speculate on what Jesus
> would or would not have done. Asserting it outright, does not take
> brass, but high-grade stainless-steel ones.
>
That would be macro-cojones. In the case of the creationists, we are
talking about mere
micro-cojones, the only kind they recognize from personal experience.
(snip)
Eric Root
Eric Root
> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
> ambitions.
Creationists being a case in point.
> They accept science into the church which is something that
> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>
Why not? Isn't Jesus better than a typical person? Why would he not
embrace
science as the wonder of His Father's work? You insult Him by
pretending he would side
with stupidity.
> Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
> man's churches today.
It also doesn't have any business being plotted against in churches.
> They have no comparison to the bible.
They match physical reality much better, for one thing.
> They are
> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
> God from the equation of creating.
>
Then, as Augustine said, it is the duty of the Christian to adapt his
understanding of the Bible.
Plotting against science and pretending it is false when it isn't, is
not a moral option.
> You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
> to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
> Christianity teaches.
Prove it it. Show somewhere that normal Christianity commands us to
do something wrong, that
fundamentalist Christianity doesn't also have wrong.
> But you do have to read the book and understand
> what you are reading.
>
Understanding it doesn't allow us to pretend it's right when it's
wrong (or at least a literal
interpretation is wrong.)
> In this age too many Christians have become apathetic and pacifistic
> toward lost and dying humanity.
That would be creationists. Rather than doing anything to help, they
spend their time hating smart people
and trying to trick the gullible.
> They could care less that Satan is
> conducting a full-scale murder campaign against the inhabitants of
> this world.
>
That should be "couldn't care less," and it's the science-haters who
are stomach-groveling
stooges of Satan.
> They don't want to hear about warfare or fighting against sin and
> Satan. All they want is a Christianity where everyone always feels
> warm and happy.
>
Yeah, they need to wake up to the menace of fundamentalism.
> Here is what the 'touchy-feely' Christians need to know. The entire
> purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification was to destroy the
> works of Satan
Therefore, all good Christians need to fight the taint of creationism
and book-worship.
> and the corruption The Watchers placed on this earth.
>
The Watchers? You mean those guys with the big bald heads who wear
togas and aren't
allowed to interfere? The ones that warned Earth of the coming of
Galactus? I thought that
was just a comic book! Holey Cow!
> Meaningless church programs, social activities and fellowships while
> sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
> to the kingdom of Hell. Jesus tore the curtain so you can take the
> power that you need.
>
Amen! Down with Biblical literalism! Down with fundamentalism! Down
with creationism and
all the other stoogery of Satan!
Down
Down
Down
Down
Sizzle!
> Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
> spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
> years.
Just the origins of our bodies!
>
> it really is just THAT simple.
That would be you.
Eric Root
All-seeing-I
Follow my lead? No. I'm trying to put the book in your hand so you can
lead yourself.
SkyEyes
> purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification
That's "crucifixion," you blathering brainless idiot. There's no such
word as "crucification."
</editor mode>
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
All-seeing-I
> On Dec 14, 9:10�ｿｽam, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
> > full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
> > ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
> > the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>
> Personally, I consider dropping the torture of heretics and becoming
> networks providing mutual social support to be a significant
> improvement. I'm sorry you're upset that they don't fight learning.
It is not the learning that is the problem, It is what is being
learned.
> > Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
> > man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible.
>
> Correct. Science is verifiable, and it works. Nothing wrong with
> social networks per se, however.
Christ did not come to form a social network. Understand?
> > They are
> > directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
> > God from the equation of creating.
>
> Really? You haven't established that. You *have claimed that you see
> things other people don't. Why do you think that others would find
> these claims persuasive?
Don't blame me for your inabilities.
> > You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
> > to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
> > Christianity teaches. But you do have to read the book and understand
> > what you are reading.
>
> Rorschach. Ink. Blots.
Attention Span.
>
> > In this age too many Christians have become apathetic and pacifistic
> > toward lost and dying humanity. They could care less that Satan is
> > conducting a full-scale murder campaign against the inhabitants of
> > this world.
>
> "The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
> �ｿｽThe ceremony of innocence is drowned;
> �ｿｽThe best lack all conviction, while the worst
> �ｿｽAre full of passionate intensity. "
eh.. not in all cases. Defiantly not in this case.
> > They don't want to hear about warfare or fighting against sin and
> > Satan. All they want is a Christianity where everyone always feels
> > warm and happy.
>
> You want the Taliban; they're down the hall on the left, third door.
> The one marked "Hatred. Ignorance, and Despair"
you do not understand exaactly what the fight entails.
> > Here is what the 'touchy-feely' Christians need to know. The entire
> > purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification was to destroy the
> > works of Satan and the corruption The Watchers placed on this earth.
>
> Funny that the Rabbi never mentioned the Watchers. I guess he didn't
> have your special perception.
The Rabbis that wrote the books about watchers beg to differ.
> > Meaningless church programs, social activities and fellowships while
> > sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
> > to the kingdom of Hell.
>
> Neither will delusions.
What is your delusion? evolution
>
> > Jesus tore the curtain so you can take the
> > power that you need.
>
> Sounds very Zen. But I think you must scare the congregations in your
> home town. Won't they accept you as a prophet of God? Tsk.
consider me your spiritual advisor
> > Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
> > spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
> > years.
>
> That's what the evidence says.
In a delusion
> > it really is just THAT simple.
>
> Well, your mind is that simple, �ｿｽbut the universe is not constrained
> by your desires, education, or intelligence. Hell, it's not even
> constrained by *mine :/
>
> Kermit
Your observations are the delusions
Jim
> Here is what the 'touchy-feely' Christians need to know. The entire
> purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification was to destroy the
> works of Satan and the corruption The Watchers placed on this earth.
>
> Meaningless church programs, social activities and fellowships while
> sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
> to the kingdom of Hell. Jesus tore the curtain so you can take the
> power that you need.
At what point does spiritual warfare become physical violence? You
seem to be preaching a Crusade here.
Christopher Denney
[snip standard creationist arrogance]
who gave YOU god's job?
Every church I ever went to it was god that got to decide what was a
sin, god that punishes sin _after death_.
Where do you get off deciding to take on god's job?
I thought that Christianity said the purpose of the birth of Jesus was
salvation, not destruction.
I think you are a messed up psychopath, dude; if somehow god really
does exist, you are in for a world of hurt.
Nashton
> On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
>> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
>> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
>> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>
> .
>
>> Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
>> man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible. They are
>> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
>> God from the equation of creating.
>
> You keep asserting that the bible contradicts evolution,
> but you have never been able to demonstrate that this assertion
> is true.
Right.
How many times have I asked you and others to attempt to reconcile the
determinism of the Bible with the randomness observed in nature? This is
not a matter of a specific verse, but a specific
theological/philosophical question about the differences between the
world view of metaphysical materialism and faith systems. Get real, they
are diametrically opposed.
This is a very simple question and I'm sure you are very capable of
understanding. When will you begin to address it?
Nashton
>
> As the bible puts it: we come from dust and we will return to dust.
> Sounds like the "evilutionists" got it right.
Oh dear, so now the ToE deals with abiogenesis and the creation of life
*and* speciation?
>
>> it really is just THAT simple.
>
> Yes.... You're the kind of person who has an easy solution to every
> complex problem, which is wrong.
Blah blah. Another ACTIVIST has posted more garbage. Nothing to see here.
>
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
>full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
>ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
>the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
For the umpteenth time you moron. JC was NOT the first christian.
Nazareth was also not inhabited at the time in question.
[snip more harpic nonsense.]
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Woland
Tell us about the aliens again.
Dan Listermann
Typical and hardly unexpected deflection . . . . GIVE US SOME ANSWERS, if
you dare . . . .
.
Dan Listermann
Which book? The "Book of the Dead?
.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>consider me your spiritual advisor
How many fingers am I holding up?
Nashton
> On Dec 14, 9:10 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
>> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
>> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
>> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>
> Personally, I consider dropping the torture of heretics and becoming
> networks providing mutual social support to be a significant
> improvement. I'm sorry you're upset that they don't fight learning.
The so-called Holy Inquisition is a myth.
Get a clue by reading up on it.
Stalin was real. Hitler was real.
>
>> Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
>> man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible.
>
> Correct. Science is verifiable, and it works. Nothing wrong with
> social networks per se, however.
Science is ever changing. Theories come and go. Misplaced activism will
always be with us.
>
>> They are
>> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
>> God from the equation of creating.
>
> Really? You haven't established that. You *have claimed that you see
> things other people don't. Why do you think that others would find
> these claims persuasive?
You will find that what people of various faiths perceive is quite
consistent. Same goes for evolutionists who are stuck in their belief
system and can't get out of it.
>
>> You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
>> to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
>> Christianity teaches. But you do have to read the book and understand
>> what you are reading.
>
> Rorschach. Ink. Blots.
Right.
>
>> In this age too many Christians have become apathetic and pacifistic
>> toward lost and dying humanity. They could care less that Satan is
>> conducting a full-scale murder campaign against the inhabitants of
>> this world.
>
> "The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
> The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
> The best lack all conviction, while the worst
> Are full of passionate intensity. "
>
>> They don't want to hear about warfare or fighting against sin and
>> Satan. All they want is a Christianity where everyone always feels
>> warm and happy.
>
> You want the Taliban; they're down the hall on the left, third door.
> The one marked "Hatred. Ignorance, and Despair"
You are nothing but a filthy liar. What connection is there between the
Taliban, you lying scum-bucket and Christianity?
>
>> Here is what the 'touchy-feely' Christians need to know. The entire
>> purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification was to destroy the
>> works of Satan and the corruption The Watchers placed on this earth.
>
> Funny that the Rabbi never mentioned the Watchers. I guess he didn't
> have your special perception.
>
>> Meaningless church programs, social activities and fellowships while
>> sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
>> to the kingdom of Hell.
>
> Neither will delusions.
>
>> Jesus tore the curtain so you can take the
>> power that you need.
>>
>
> Sounds very Zen. But I think you must scare the congregations in your
> home town. Won't they accept you as a prophet of God? Tsk.
I'm sure your knowledge of Zen is very impressive.
>
>> Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
>> spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
>> years.
>
> That's what the evidence says.
The evidence says many things and new evidence is discovered every day.
The axion of the ToE is immutable.
>
>> it really is just THAT simple.
>
> Well, your mind is that simple, but the universe is not constrained
> by your desires, education, or intelligence. Hell, it's not even
> constrained by *mine :/
It *is* constrained by our senses, our instruments and our current
knowledge.
>
> Kermit
Newsreaders are wonderful. Learn to use them.
>
Dan Listermann
"Nashton" <na...@no.ca> wrote in message news:hg6cmu$eqq$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>> You want the Taliban; they're down the hall on the left, third door.
>> The one marked "Hatred. Ignorance, and Despair"
>
> You are nothing but a filthy liar. What connection is there between the
> Taliban, you lying scum-bucket and Christianity?
>
Religious fundamentalism.
.
Prof Weird
> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
> ambitions.
What do you mean 'degenerating into' ? They pretty much started that
way - they are mutual admiration societies, gladhanding themselves for
being 'better' than everyone else (ie, anyone that doesn't drop to
their knees and gibber in mindless adoration the same Magical Sky
Pixies the 'True' Xtians grovel before).
> They accept science into the church which is something that
> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
You determined that HOW, exactly ?
What would you prefer they do - remain ignorant of the actual world
around them ? Have them keep looking every BACKWARDS to the ancient
past instead of the future ?
> Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
> man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible. They are
> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
> God from the equation of creating.
You seem to have this silly idea that your favorite 'interpretations'
of one particular ancient book of morality tales is a science text.
It is not.
> You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
> to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
> Christianity teaches.
Thank goodness ! Otherwise, we'd still have slaves, and disobedient
children would be stoned to death. Along with 'witches', false
prophets, people who worked on the Sabbath, people who wore mixed
fabrics, etc etc etc ...
> But you do have to read the book and understand
> what you are reading.
Translation : you must be as ignorant of the real world as people
thousands of years ago were, and call ANY event you don't understand
'supernatural'.
> In this age too many Christians have become apathetic and pacifistic
> toward lost and dying humanity. They could care less that Satan is
> conducting a full-scale murder campaign against the inhabitants of
> this world.
Which campaign would that be ? You 'determined' that other figment of
a deranged imagination (Satan) is behind it how ?
> They don't want to hear about warfare or fighting against sin and
> Satan. All they want is a Christianity where everyone always feels
> warm and happy.
As opposed to YOUR version, where everyone is terrified of their own
thoughts, and live their lives in groveling fear, self-loathing and
self-imposed idiocy. Where being a mindless sheep is considered a
good thing.
Sheep are good for two things - fleecing and eating.
> Here is what the 'touchy-feely' Christians need to know. The entire
> purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification was to destroy the
> works of Satan and the corruption The Watchers placed on this earth.
RiiIIiiIIiight ! And the ability to be 'saved' from our 'sins' had
nothing to do with it !
Your Magical Sky Pixie sacrificed himself to himself to save people
from something he created in the first place.
And, if your Gawd is so powerful, HOW could those Watchers succeed ?
Was God not paying attention ? Too lazy to stop them ? What ?
> Meaningless church programs, social activities and fellowships while
> sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
> to the kingdom of Hell. Jesus tore the curtain so you can take the
> power that you need.
The power to do what, simpleton ? Exterminate all who question the
words of Adman ?
> Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
> spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
> years.
You 'determined' that how ?
Oh, right - you pathologically NEED it to be true, so it must be true
(despite what the real world data shows).
http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/dtr/dtr.html
http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/fundy/fundy.html
Nashton
If you think that religion has anything to do with the insurgence of the
Taliban and not with power, you're as stupid as the rest of the idiot
posters that pollute this ng.
bpuharic
>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
>>> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
>>> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
>>> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>>
>> .
>>
>>> Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
>>> man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible. They are
>>> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
>>> God from the equation of creating.
>>
>> You keep asserting that the bible contradicts evolution,
>> but you have never been able to demonstrate that this assertion
>> is true.
>
>Right.
>
>How many times have I asked you and others to attempt to reconcile the
>determinism of the Bible with the randomness observed in nature?
because what is random to us is not random to god
christ you're not too bright, are you?
>
>This is a very simple question and I'm sure you are very capable of
>understanding. When will you begin to address it?
done.
now, tell us about where, in 2000 years, we can see a single success
of creationism, m'kay?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
>full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
>ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
>the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
so the creationist starts off with the 'i'm a better christian than
you are' so typical of creationsits...
>
>Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
>man's churches today
in your opinion. the pope and a billion christians disagree
.. They have no comparison to the bible. They are
>directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
>God from the equation of creating.
blah blah blah. your opinion. there are 38,000 denominations out
there. you're just one idiotic voice in a noisy chorus
>
>You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
>to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
>Christianity teaches. But you do have to read the book and understand
>what you are reading.
and here he continues telling us what a genius he is, how holy he
is...after, in another thread, telling us that infidels should be
killed
>
>They don't want to hear about warfare or fighting against sin and
>Satan. All they want is a Christianity where everyone always feels
>warm and happy.
whoops...sorry. he continues his paranoia in THIS thread...
>
>Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
>spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
>years.
meaningless drivel that, for 2000 years, led nowhere.
>
>it really is just THAT simple.
yes, im sure you think it is
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 14, 12:11�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 9:10�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>
>
>> > Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
>> > man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible.
>>
>> Correct. Science is verifiable, and it works. Nothing wrong with
>> social networks per se, however.
>
>Christ did not come to form a social network. Understand?
'where 2 or more are gathered in my name'
'forsake not the gathering of yourselves together'...
seems he did. but creationists don't know the ibble
bpuharic
>Kermit wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 9:10 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
>>> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
>>> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
>>> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>>
>> Personally, I consider dropping the torture of heretics and becoming
>> networks providing mutual social support to be a significant
>> improvement. I'm sorry you're upset that they don't fight learning.
>
>The so-called Holy Inquisition is a myth.
this is called 'revisionism'. a lie in the service of evil
>>
>> Correct. Science is verifiable, and it works. Nothing wrong with
>> social networks per se, however.
>
>Science is ever changing. Theories come and go. Misplaced activism will
>always be with us.
really? you mean we're going to say that atoms don't exist?
the problem you creationists have is that you're wrong,
BUT you have no way to tell this. science does.
>
>>
>>> They are
>>> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
>>> God from the equation of creating.
>>
>> Really? You haven't established that. You *have claimed that you see
>> things other people don't. Why do you think that others would find
>> these claims persuasive?
>
>You will find that what people of various faiths perceive is quite
>consistent. Same goes for evolutionists who are stuck in their belief
>system and can't get out of it.
in a sense that's true. islamist fundies and christian fundies do tend
to hate science
>>
>> You want the Taliban; they're down the hall on the left, third door.
>> The one marked "Hatred. Ignorance, and Despair"
>
>You are nothing but a filthy liar. What connection is there between the
>Taliban, you lying scum-bucket and Christianity?
-they both hate science
-the both think knowledge should be banned
-they both think religion is the only source of knowledge about the
world
-they both think people should be forced to be religious
anything else?
Burkhard
> Kermit wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 9:10 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
>>> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
>>> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
>>> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>>
>> Personally, I consider dropping the torture of heretics and becoming
>> networks providing mutual social support to be a significant
>> improvement. I'm sorry you're upset that they don't fight learning.
>
> The so-called Holy Inquisition is a myth.
So when Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) in his function as Head of
the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gave for the first time
academics access to some of the key documents of the inquisition,
including maps of Jewish ghettos, the Inquisition's comments on the work
of Ariosto etc,he was part of an elaborate hoax?
And the Constitution Licet ab initio by Pope Paul III that established
the "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition" is a fake?
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
You have made wild claims without any evidence. Whenever pressed you
run away - a common trait in a coward like you.
As I keep saying, you really should be shunned. However, as I've also
said many times that would give you an easy way out - a way to escape
and not face up to at least these two examples of your past stupid
claims.
1) That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
[Message-ID: <e3xDk.44738$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net>]
2) That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
[Message-ID: <3Olyk.31543$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>]
Now, all you have to do is justify them, with evidence of course, or
finally admit you were a fool to make them.
Or are you just going to go on being a cowardly lying troll?
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Mark Isaak
A show of hands, please. . .
How many of you do not already have a Bible or have online access to one?
How many of you want to go where All-seeing-I is?
I expect no hands to go up. Your comments are pointless.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
> On Dec 14, 10:10�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification
>
> That's "crucifixion," you blathering brainless idiot. There's no such
> word as "crucification."
I dunno. The word looks useful for describing the process of turning
something into cabbage.
Ye Old One
This from the idiot that claimed "All drugs are derived from the ToE."
Not very bright are you NashtOff?
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Kleuskes & Moos
> Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>
> > As the bible puts it: we come from dust and we will return to dust.
> > Sounds like the "evilutionists" got it right.
>
> Oh dear, so now the ToE deals with abiogenesis and the creation of life
> *and* speciation?
Ah... But i did not say anything about ToE. I merely mentioned those
pesky non-creationists by the vernicular ASI seems to be familiar
with.
> >> it really is just THAT simple.
>
> > Yes.... You're the kind of person who has an easy solution to every
> > complex problem, which is wrong.
>
> Blah blah. Another ACTIVIST has posted more garbage. Nothing to see here.
XLAT: Umm... Ah.... Well.... What can i say.... ummmm... (whispers)
you're right, but don't quote me on that.
Ye Old One
>On Dec 14, 12:11�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 9:10�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
>> > full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
>> > ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
>> > the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>>
>> Personally, I consider dropping the torture of heretics and becoming
>> networks providing mutual social support to be a significant
>> improvement. I'm sorry you're upset that they don't fight learning.
>
>It is not the learning that is the problem, It is what is being
>learned.
>
>
>> > Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
>> > man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible.
>>
>> Correct. Science is verifiable, and it works. Nothing wrong with
>> social networks per se, however.
>
>Christ did not come to form a social network. Understand?
Did he come?
The majority of the world say no.
>
>> > They are
>> > directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
>> > God from the equation of creating.
>>
>> Really? You haven't established that. You *have claimed that you see
>> things other people don't. Why do you think that others would find
>> these claims persuasive?
>
>Don't blame me for your inabilities.
>
>> > You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
>> > to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
>> > Christianity teaches. But you do have to read the book and understand
>> > what you are reading.
>>
>> Rorschach. Ink. Blots.
>
>Attention Span.
You lack one.
[snip more Mudbrain stupidity.]
Kleuskes & Moos
> Dan Listermann wrote:
> > "Nashton" <n...@no.ca> wrote in messagenews:hg6cmu$eqq$1...@aioe.org...
> >>> You want the Taliban; they're down the hall on the left, third door.
> >>> The one marked "Hatred. Ignorance, and Despair"
> >> You are nothing but a filthy liar. What connection is there between the
> >> Taliban, you lying scum-bucket and Christianity?
>
> > Religious fundamentalism.
>
> > .
>
> If you think that religion has anything to do with the insurgence of the
> Taliban and not with power, you're as stupid as the rest of the idiot
> posters that pollute this ng.
In fact, there's only a few.... Ummm... There's ASI, there's you...
There's good 'ol paggers....
Shit, we're running low on cretins...
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>Kermit wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 9:10 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
>>> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
>>> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
>>> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>>
>> Personally, I consider dropping the torture of heretics and becoming
>> networks providing mutual social support to be a significant
>> improvement. I'm sorry you're upset that they don't fight learning.
>
>The so-called Holy Inquisition is a myth.
Was it?
>Get a clue by reading up on it.
Yes, you should.
>
>Stalin was real. Hitler was real.
And, sadly for the world, religion has been real for far too long.
>
>>
>>> Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
>>> man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible.
>>
>> Correct. Science is verifiable, and it works. Nothing wrong with
>> social networks per se, however.
>
>Science is ever changing.
Mmmmm. Not really. It learns and improves when new information comes
along, but it is rare these days that really major shifts take place.
> Theories come and go.
They are usually built on and improved.
> Misplaced activism will
>always be with us.
>
>>
>>> They are
>>> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
>>> God from the equation of creating.
>>
>> Really? You haven't established that. You *have claimed that you see
>> things other people don't. Why do you think that others would find
>> these claims persuasive?
>
>You will find that what people of various faiths perceive is quite
>consistent.
Is it? I think you need to learn a little about religion.
> Same goes for evolutionists who are stuck in their belief
>system and can't get out of it.
>
>>
>>> You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
>>> to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
>>> Christianity teaches. But you do have to read the book and understand
>>> what you are reading.
>>
>> Rorschach. Ink. Blots.
>
>Right.
>
>>
>>> In this age too many Christians have become apathetic and pacifistic
>>> toward lost and dying humanity. They could care less that Satan is
>>> conducting a full-scale murder campaign against the inhabitants of
>>> this world.
>>
>> "The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
>> The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
>> The best lack all conviction, while the worst
>> Are full of passionate intensity. "
>>
>>> They don't want to hear about warfare or fighting against sin and
>>> Satan. All they want is a Christianity where everyone always feels
>>> warm and happy.
>>
>> You want the Taliban; they're down the hall on the left, third door.
>> The one marked "Hatred. Ignorance, and Despair"
>
>You are nothing but a filthy liar.
No, NashtOff, that is a lie.
> What connection is there between the
>Taliban, you lying scum-bucket and Christianity?
Quite a lot.
Ok. Christianity has grown up a bit, Islam has a lot further to go,
creationists have even further to go.
He has.
--
Bob.
NashtOff - the moron who claimed "All drugs are derived from the ToE."
Ye Old One
Then it is time we educated the creationist idiots like you.
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
>>> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
>>> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
>>> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>
>> .
>
>>> Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
>>> man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible. They are
>>> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
>>> God from the equation of creating.
>
>> You keep asserting that the bible contradicts evolution,
>> but you have never been able to demonstrate that this assertion
>> is true.
>
> Right.
>
> How many times have I asked you and others to attempt to reconcile the
> determinism of the Bible with the randomness observed in nature?
If you agree that there is "randomness OBSERVED in nature" then
perhaps you are misinterpreting scripture, since truth cannot
contradict truth. (I am pretty sure that is not what you
intended to say, so take the foregoing as a joke.) Anyway ...
There are many ways to deal with this issue, but my position is
that believers in a personal God are NOT required to believe
that the variation on which Natural Selection acts is generated
randomly. If you believe that God intervenes regularly in your
life, it is perfectly consistent for you to likewise believe
that He intervenes in the evolutionary process. As I understand
it, the following is basically what Theological Evolution is all
about:
1) Accept the 4 billion year age of the earth.
2) Accept
a) the fossil record
b) the DNA evidence
c) the morphologic (physical charactistics) evidence
all of which clearly indicate a tree of common descent
(including regular speciation)
3) Accept that Natural Selection acts on variation in
the population
4) Deny that some, most or all variation arises randomly
but insist rather that God is directing that variation as
He is directing your life.
By following the above you accept the evidence which is clear
and unambiguous and reject "random variation" which really is
the product of a world view and cannot be proven, any more than
anyone here can prove that God does not intervene in your life.
(Note that this is basically Michel Behe's position)
> This is not a matter of a specific verse, but a specific
> theological/philosophical question about the differences
> between the world view of metaphysical materialism and faith
> systems. Get real, they are diametrically opposed.
The only thing which is diametrically opposed is variation
arising from random mutation, which the Theological Evolution
model does not require you to accept. The evolution of species
over time and the tree of common descent are clearly the method
God choose to create the life we see on earth, and they are in
no way in opposition to faith.
> This is a very simple question and I'm sure you are very
> capable of understanding. When will you begin to address it?
In the above I tried very hard to directly address this
question. Do you believe I did address it?
Burkhard
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:10:13 -0800, SkyEyes wrote:
>
>> On Dec 14, 10:10 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification
>> That's "crucifixion," you blathering brainless idiot. There's no such
>> word as "crucification."
>
> I dunno. The word looks useful for describing the process of turning
> something into cabbage.
>
process by which cities turn into clones of Las Cruces, new Mexico.
(comp. "desertification")
Dan Listermann
"Nashton" <na...@no.ca> wrote in message news:hg6dpk$fvj$2...@aioe.org...
I would think that you could easily see that religious fundamentalism is
very much about power.
.
Eric Root
>
In other words, creationism is a bloodthirsty ethic?
(snip)
Eric Root
Nashton
> On Dec 14, 3:23 pm, Nashton <n...@no.ca> wrote:
>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>> On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
>>>> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
>>>> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
>>>> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>>> .
>>>> Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
>>>> man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible. They are
>>>> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
>>>> God from the equation of creating.
>>> You keep asserting that the bible contradicts evolution,
>>> but you have never been able to demonstrate that this assertion
>>> is true.
>> Right.
>>
>> How many times have I asked you and others to attempt to reconcile the
>> determinism of the Bible with the randomness observed in nature?
>
> If you agree that there is "randomness OBSERVED in nature" then
> perhaps you are misinterpreting scripture, since truth cannot
> contradict truth. (I am pretty sure that is not what you
> intended to say, so take the foregoing as a joke.) Anyway ...
Wha...
>
> There are many ways to deal with this issue, but my position is
> that believers in a personal God are NOT required to believe
> that the variation on which Natural Selection acts is generated
> randomly.
Nonsense. That would require direct divine regular intervention and in
that case, the randomness and probability issues would all go down the
toilet, along with the scientific method. The scientific method is all
we have to discover the material aspect of our existence and to better
our lives, when we're not making bombs.
The theoretical model in science is a metaphysically materialistic one,
where matter acts in total randomness. No ifs, buts or maybes.
If you believe that God intervenes regularly in your
> life, it is perfectly consistent for you to likewise believe
> that He intervenes in the evolutionary process. As I understand
> it, the following is basically what Theological Evolution is all
> about:
In that case, you would have to provide evidence of this intervention
for it to be scientific. You have no such evidence. All you have is a
clumsy and squarely inadequate means of trying to explain away the
paradoxical and oxymoronic mutual relationship between determinism and
the lack of determinism on which the foundations of science are built
upon. You threw the bath water and the baby out the window.
>
> 1) Accept the 4 billion year age of the earth.
Did anyone give you the impression that I don't?
> 2) Accept
> a) the fossil record
> b) the DNA evidence
Nested hierarchy is just that. It could have been inherent at the time
of creation, built in, if you wish. According to your explanation, if
you're a theist, you ought not have any problem explaining this, given
your view that God intervened in regular intervals to produce evolution.
> c) the morphologic (physical charactistics) evidence
> all of which clearly indicate a tree of common descent
> (including regular speciation)
More of a mangled bush than a tree.
> 3) Accept that Natural Selection acts on variation in
> the population
It does in a micro-evolutive sense.
> 4) Deny that some, most or all variation arises randomly
> but insist rather that God is directing that variation as
> He is directing your life.
No, IMV, we are missing the big picture. Our senses, capacity to reason
and to explain are inferior to God's "thinking" and his actions will
forever be a mystery. What you are saying is absurd.
>
> By following the above you accept the evidence which is clear
> and unambiguous and reject "random variation" which really is
> the product of a world view and cannot be proven, any more than
> anyone here can prove that God does not intervene in your life.
> (Note that this is basically Michel Behe's position)
You are joking, right? Random variation is the world view of the
scientific method. Probability is the foundation of science. Do you know
anything about science?
>
>> This is not a matter of a specific verse, but a specific
>> theological/philosophical question about the differences
>> between the world view of metaphysical materialism and faith
>> systems. Get real, they are diametrically opposed.
>
> The only thing which is diametrically opposed is variation
> arising from random mutation, which the Theological Evolution
> model does not require you to accept. The evolution of species
> over time and the tree of common descent are clearly the method
> God choose to create the life we see on earth, and they are in
> no way in opposition to faith.
That is your creative adaptation of scripture and the issue of
determinism vs non determinism is most definitely not solved. if
anything, you have shown that in order to reconcile the 2 notions, you
need to destroy the construct that is science and the scientific method.
>
>> This is a very simple question and I'm sure you are very
>> capable of understanding. When will you begin to address it?
>
> In the above I tried very hard to directly address this
> question. Do you believe I did address it?
You certainly did and you also proved my point(s) in the process.
You can't have it both ways.
You cannot accept God, the one described in Scripture and try to kneed
the notion of determinism into the framework of the scientific method
without destroying science.
Thanks.
SortingItOut
> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>
> man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible. They are
> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
> God from the equation of creating.
>
> to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
> Christianity teaches. But you do have to read the book and understand
> what you are reading.
>
> toward lost and dying humanity. They could care less that Satan is
> conducting a full-scale murder campaign against the inhabitants of
> this world.
>
> Satan. All they want is a Christianity where everyone always feels
> warm and happy.
>
> purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification was to destroy the
> works of Satan and the corruption The Watchers placed on this earth.
>
> sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
> power that you need.
Ok, so church programs, social activities, and fellowships don't
destroy the works of Satan, damage the kingdom of Hell, or fight
against sin and Satan. Can you give a few examples of how we are to
go about accomplishing these goals you're talking about? Is this war
actually win-able?
And when you win this war against Satan and Hell, what then? Is life
perfect again? Will there be any new goals? What do we do for the
next trillion years?
I'm serious. I really don't get it. Please explain.
>
> Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
> spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
> years.
>
Andre Lieven
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:08:46 -0800, All-seeing-I wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 1:21�pm, dali_70 <w_e_coyot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 14, 12:10�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >> More ranting about how we should all remain ignorant sheep following
> >> your lead, because after all you know what god wants. Wage war against
> >> science and reason and label any opposition to your version of god as
> >> evil incarnate in league with the devil. You sound like a christian
> >> version of the taliban.
>
> >> And you wonder why we laugh at you fucktards.
>
> > Follow my lead? No. I'm trying to put the book in your hand so you can
> > lead yourself.
>
> A show of hands, please. . .
>
> How many of you do not already have a Bible or have online access to one?
Yes.
> How many of you want to go where All-seeing-I is?
Hell, no.
> I expect no hands to go up. �Your comments are pointless.
Other than to other cretinoids such as NashPound...
Andre
bpuharic
gee. i guess it's martians, then, right?
the taliban seem to think they're religious
bpuharic
>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
>>
>> If you agree that there is "randomness OBSERVED in nature" then
>> perhaps you are misinterpreting scripture, since truth cannot
>> contradict truth. (I am pretty sure that is not what you
>> intended to say, so take the foregoing as a joke.) Anyway ...
>
>Wha...
>
>>
>> There are many ways to deal with this issue, but my position is
>> that believers in a personal God are NOT required to believe
>> that the variation on which Natural Selection acts is generated
>> randomly.
>
>Nonsense. That would require direct divine regular intervention and in
>that case, the randomness and probability issues would all go down the
>toilet, along with the scientific method.
well, you finally get it. creationism does that, doesnt it? it doesn't
matter whether god forbids speciation OR he screws around like tiger
woods with nature. in either case science is destroyed.
The scientific method is all
>we have to discover the material aspect of our existence and to better
>our lives, when we're not making bombs.
and that is true. it's one reason creationism is false
>
> If you believe that God intervenes regularly in your
>> life, it is perfectly consistent for you to likewise believe
>> that He intervenes in the evolutionary process. As I understand
>> it, the following is basically what Theological Evolution is all
>> about:
>
>In that case, you would have to provide evidence of this intervention
>for it to be scientific.
and you have to do so likewise for creationism. where's the evidence?
You have no such evidence. All you have is a
>clumsy and squarely inadequate means of trying to explain away the
>paradoxical and oxymoronic mutual relationship between determinism and
>the lack of determinism on which the foundations of science are built
>upon. You threw the bath water and the baby out the window.
you don't know much about chemistry and replication, do you? mutations
are OBSERVABLE
it doesnt MATTER whether you like 'em or not. it's absolutely
irrelevant. they are a fact.
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
Jesus was not from Nazareth, and he was not a Christian. If he
existed, he was Jewish.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Dan Listermann <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:c50fe676-f53b-4fd2...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>> Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
> >>> spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
> >>> years.
> >>
> >> OK. OK, I now believe that all existing kinds spontaniously popped
> >> into existence 5,000 years ago or something like that, together with
> >> the millions of extinct species in the fossil record. Now that
> >> my Lobotomy is finished it ALL MAKES SENSE!
> >He doesn't seem to be capable of discussing what "creation" was. Not
> >necessarily how it worked, even simply what happened. He cannot say whether
> >or not all species that ever existed were created at once and 99% have since
> >gone extinct, or whether or not species are created even today as
> >replacements for the extinct. He NEVER has addressed this question and I
> >strongly doubt he will this time either.
> Of course. That 99% is a problem. The fossil record shows almost
> the opposite. There are lots of creatures around NOW that were not
> around back then. So either a creationist has to believe in
> continuous creation OR that God scrubbed the record in order to
> make us believe in lies.
My favorite example, at the moment, are the Platyhelminthes:
according to the fossil record, the Platyhelminthes all just
suddenly appeared a few days ago, if not sooner.
Desertphile
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 12:10 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
> >> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
> >> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
> >> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
> >
> > .
> >
> >> Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
> >> man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible. They are
> >> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
> >> God from the equation of creating.
> >
> > You keep asserting that the bible contradicts evolution,
> > but you have never been able to demonstrate that this assertion
> > is true.
> Right.
>
> How many times have I asked you and others to attempt to reconcile the
> determinism of the Bible with the randomness observed in nature?
Well, the ignorant savages who wrote the Bible were wrong. (SHRUG)
So what?
> This is
> not a matter of a specific verse, but a specific
> theological/philosophical question about the differences between the
> world view of metaphysical materialism and faith systems. Get real, they
> are diametrically opposed.
"Metaphysical materialism" is what everyone observes to be true,
even you.
Desertphile
> Dan Listermann wrote:
> > "Nashton" <na...@no.ca> wrote in message news:hg6cmu$eqq$1...@aioe.org...
> >>> You want the Taliban; they're down the hall on the left, third door.
> >>> The one marked "Hatred. Ignorance, and Despair"
> >> You are nothing but a filthy liar. What connection is there between the
> >> Taliban, you lying scum-bucket and Christianity?
> > Religious fundamentalism.
> If you think that religion has anything to do with the insurgence of the
> Taliban and not with power....
That is what all religions are: the weilding of political power.
If not for Constantine the Great using the Christian Death Cult as
a weapon, Christianity would not exist.
Desertphile
wrote:
> Nashton wrote:
> > Kermit wrote:
> >> On Dec 14, 9:10 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >>> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
> >>> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
> >>> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
> >>> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
> >>
> >> Personally, I consider dropping the torture of heretics and becoming
> >> networks providing mutual social support to be a significant
> >> improvement. I'm sorry you're upset that they don't fight learning.
> > The so-called Holy Inquisition is a myth.
> So when Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) in his function as Head of
> the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gave for the first time
> academics access to some of the key documents of the inquisition,
> including maps of Jewish ghettos, the Inquisition's comments on the work
> of Ariosto etc,he was part of an elaborate hoax?
>
> And the Constitution Licet ab initio by Pope Paul III that established
> the "Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition" is a fake?
Yes: it's all a vast conspiracy, and we know this because a
"massage 'therapist'" said so.
Desertphile
<skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 10:10�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification
> That's "crucifixion," you blathering brainless idiot. There's no such
> word as "crucification."
Yes, but "crucification" is damn funny, and that's why All-
seething-sty isn't kill-filed.
> </editor mode>
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Desertphile
<eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:10:13 -0800, SkyEyes wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 10:10�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >> purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification
> >
> > That's "crucifixion," you blathering brainless idiot. There's no such
> > word as "crucification."
> I dunno. The word looks useful for describing the process of turning
> something into cabbage.
Not even cabbage these days is cabbage. Damn evolution!
Baron Bodissey
<snip>
>
> > The only thing which is diametrically opposed is variation
> > arising from random mutation, which the Theological Evolution
> > over time and the tree of common descent are clearly the method
> > God choose to create the life we see on earth, and they are in
> > no way in opposition to faith.
>
> That is your creative adaptation of scripture and the issue of
> determinism vs non determinism is most definitely not solved. if
> anything, you have shown that in order to reconcile the 2 notions, you
> need to destroy the construct that is science and the scientific method.
>
Not necessarily. A co-worker of mine believes that God is directly
responsible for everything that happens. He is a Ph.D. research
scientist who accepts and uses the theory of evolution, and produces
work in no way distinguishable from what any other scientist in our
group produces. *Operationally*, his science is identical to the
science I, as an atheist, do. And I'm totally cool with that. I wonder
just exactly HOW he is destroying "the construct that is science and
the scientific method."
Science requires METHODOLOGICAL materialism, not PHILOSOPHICAL
materialism.
Baron Bodissey
The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but
that they know so many things that ain't so.
� Mark Twain
Friar Broccoli
> On Dec 14, 8:13 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > > The only thing which is diametrically opposed is variation
> > > arising from random mutation, which the Theological Evolution
> > > over time and the tree of common descent are clearly the method
> > > God choose to create the life we see on earth, and they are in
> > > no way in opposition to faith.
>
> > That is your creative adaptation of scripture and the issue of
> > determinism vs non determinism is most definitely not solved. if
> > anything, you have shown that in order to reconcile the 2 notions, you
> > need to destroy the construct that is science and the scientific method.
>
> <snip>
.
> Not necessarily. A co-worker of mine believes that God is directly
> responsible for everything that happens. He is a Ph.D. research
> scientist who accepts and uses the theory of evolution, and produces
> work in no way distinguishable from what any other scientist in our
> group produces. *Operationally*, his science is identical to the
> science I, as an atheist, do. And I'm totally cool with that. I wonder
> just exactly HOW he is destroying "the construct that is science and
> the scientific method."
>
> Science requires METHODOLOGICAL materialism, not PHILOSOPHICAL
> materialism.
Just want to thank you for this comment. Since it is one of the
points I want to make it is useful to have a low profile example.
I will try to prepare my own response this evening.
To Nashton: If you are reading this, do you know what an
"argument from consequences" is? And if so, do you agree that
the consequences of evolution are not related to whether the
evidence indicates it is true or not?
TomS
<8d7d6c71-ab36-42a4...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, Baron
Bodissey stated..."
[...snip...]
>Not necessarily. A co-worker of mine believes that God is directly
>responsible for everything that happens. He is a Ph.D. research
>scientist who accepts and uses the theory of evolution, and produces
>work in no way distinguishable from what any other scientist in our
>group produces. *Operationally*, his science is identical to the
>science I, as an atheist, do. And I'm totally cool with that. I wonder
>just exactly HOW he is destroying "the construct that is science and
>the scientific method."
>
>Science requires METHODOLOGICAL materialism, not PHILOSOPHICAL
>materialism.
This sounds like "occasionalism". From the Wikipedia article:
"Occasionalism is a philosophical theory about causation which says
that created substances cannot be efficient causes of events. Instead,
all events are taken to be caused directly by God himself. (A related
theory, which has been called 'occasional causation', also denies a
link of efficient causation between mundane events, but may differ as
to the identity of the true cause that replaces them).[1] The theory
states that the illusion of efficient causation between mundane events
arises out of God's habitual causing of one event after another.
However, there is no necessary connection between the two: it is not
that the first event causes God to cause the second event: rather, God
first causes one and then causes the other."
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Rolf
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:10:35 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
>> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
>> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
>> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something
>> that the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>
>
Right, that was Paul. He was instrumental in creating the Christian
religion. The Jesus myth must have been created within or very closely
associated with the Qumran sect.
> Nazareth was also not inhabited at the time in question.
>
> [snip more harpic nonsense.]
>
>
>
>
> Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
>
> Science causes disease.
>
> That 3.5% actually means 25%...
>
> That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
>
> That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
>
> That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
> some facet of some religion...
>
> To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
>
> To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
> rock...
>
> That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
> laugh]
>
> And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
>
> That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
> East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
> and his sons rebuilt mankind.
>
> Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
>
> Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
>
> The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
> there, many books have been written on the subject...
>
>
> Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
> Certainly I don't.
Friar Broccoli
> "On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:58:12 -0800 (PST), in article
> Bodissey stated..."
> [...snip...]
>
> >Not necessarily. A co-worker of mine believes that God is directly
> >responsible for everything that happens. He is a Ph.D. research
> >scientist who accepts and uses the theory of evolution, and produces
> >work in no way distinguishable from what any other scientist in our
> >group produces. *Operationally*, his science is identical to the
> >science I, as an atheist, do. And I'm totally cool with that. I wonder
> >just exactly HOW he is destroying "the construct that is science and
> >the scientific method."
>
> >Science requires METHODOLOGICAL materialism, not PHILOSOPHICAL
> >materialism.
>
> This sounds like "occasionalism". From the Wikipedia article:
>
> "Occasionalism is a philosophical theory about causation which says
> that created substances cannot be efficient causes of events. Instead,
> all events are taken to be caused directly by God himself. (A related
> theory, which has been called 'occasional causation', also denies a
> link of efficient causation between mundane events, but may differ as
> to the identity of the true cause that replaces them).[1] The theory
> states that the illusion of efficient causation between mundane events
> arises out of God's habitual causing of one event after another.
> However, there is no necessary connection between the two: it is not
> that the first event causes God to cause the second event: rather, God
> first causes one and then causes the other."
Which is what happens in a computer simulation.
Devils Advocaat
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:07:09 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >consider me your spiritual advisor
>
> How many fingers am I holding up?
Would it be a singular middle digit?
Ye Old One
Chemistry is not random. And, except at the quantum level, nor is
physics.
>
> If you believe that God intervenes regularly in your
>> life, it is perfectly consistent for you to likewise believe
>> that He intervenes in the evolutionary process. As I understand
>> it, the following is basically what Theological Evolution is all
>> about:
>
>In that case, you would have to provide evidence of this intervention
>for it to be scientific. You have no such evidence.
None of us think you fictional character does anything.
>All you have is a
>clumsy and squarely inadequate means of trying to explain away the
>paradoxical and oxymoronic mutual relationship between determinism and
>the lack of determinism on which the foundations of science are built
>upon. You threw the bath water and the baby out the window.
Nope.
>
>
>>
>> 1) Accept the 4 billion year age of the earth.
>
>Did anyone give you the impression that I don't?
>
>> 2) Accept
>> a) the fossil record
>> b) the DNA evidence
>
>Nested hierarchy is just that. It could have been inherent at the time
>of creation, built in, if you wish.
It has been a growing and evolving thing for nearly 4 billion years.
> According to your explanation, if
>you're a theist, you ought not have any problem explaining this, given
>your view that God intervened in regular intervals to produce evolution.
>
>> c) the morphologic (physical charactistics) evidence
>> all of which clearly indicate a tree of common descent
>> (including regular speciation)
>
>More of a mangled bush than a tree.
Far less mangled than your logic.
>
>> 3) Accept that Natural Selection acts on variation in
>> the population
>
>It does in a micro-evolutive sense.
There is only one form of evolution.
>
>> 4) Deny that some, most or all variation arises randomly
>> but insist rather that God is directing that variation as
>> He is directing your life.
>
>No, IMV, we are missing the big picture. Our senses, capacity to reason
>and to explain are inferior to God's "thinking" and his actions will
>forever be a mystery. What you are saying is absurd.
What you are saying seems to get more and more like you buddy Mudbrain
every day.
>
>
>>
>> By following the above you accept the evidence which is clear
>> and unambiguous and reject "random variation" which really is
>> the product of a world view and cannot be proven, any more than
>> anyone here can prove that God does not intervene in your life.
>> (Note that this is basically Michel Behe's position)
>
>You are joking, right? Random variation is the world view of the
>scientific method.
No it isn't.
>Probability is the foundation of science. Do you know
>anything about science?
Far more than you ever will.
>
>>
>>> This is not a matter of a specific verse, but a specific
>>> theological/philosophical question about the differences
>>> between the world view of metaphysical materialism and faith
>>> systems. Get real, they are diametrically opposed.
>>
>> The only thing which is diametrically opposed is variation
>> arising from random mutation, which the Theological Evolution
>> model does not require you to accept. The evolution of species
>> over time and the tree of common descent are clearly the method
>> God choose to create the life we see on earth, and they are in
>> no way in opposition to faith.
>
>That is your creative adaptation of scripture and the issue of
>determinism vs non determinism is most definitely not solved. if
>anything, you have shown that in order to reconcile the 2 notions, you
>need to destroy the construct that is science and the scientific method.
>
>>
>>> This is a very simple question and I'm sure you are very
>>> capable of understanding. When will you begin to address it?
>>
>> In the above I tried very hard to directly address this
>> question. Do you believe I did address it?
>
>You certainly did and you also proved my point(s) in the process.
You never have any real points.
>
>You can't have it both ways.
>
>You cannot accept God, the one described in Scripture and try to kneed
>the notion of determinism into the framework of the scientific method
>without destroying science.
>
>Thanks.
All-Seeing-I
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:08:46 -0800, All-seeing-I wrote:
> >> On Dec 14, 12:10�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >> your lead, because after all you know what god wants. Wage war against
> >> science and reason and label any opposition to your version of god as
> >> evil incarnate in league with the devil. You sound like a christian
> >> version of the taliban.
>
> >> And you wonder why we laugh at you fucktards.
>
> > Follow my lead? No. I'm trying to put the book in your hand so you can
> > lead yourself.
>
> A show of hands, please. . .
>
> How many of you do not already have a Bible or have online access to one?
>
>
Oh course, you do have to read the damn thing.
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:0079e6ad-aece-4c0a...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
There is little amusement in the mumblings of bronze age goat herders.
.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Ye Old One wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:10:35 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>> <ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>
>>> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
>>> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
>>> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something
>>> that the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>>
>> For the umpteenth time you moron. JC was NOT the first christian.
>>
>Right, that was Paul. He was instrumental in creating the Christian
>religion. The Jesus myth must have been created within or very closely
>associated with the Qumran sect.
And Paul appears not to have considered JC a person who had lived.
>
>> Nazareth was also not inhabited at the time in question.
>>
>> [snip more harpic nonsense.]
>>
--
Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't
make an exception for the last one.
heekster
I do have two hands.
Mark Isaak
Rest assured that I skip at least 3/4 of your posts.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Kermit
> On Dec 14, 12:11�ｿｽpm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 9:10�ｿｽam, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
> > > full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
> > > ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
> > > the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>
> > networks providing mutual social support to be a significant
> > improvement. I'm sorry you're upset that they don't fight learning.
>
> learned.
>
You give every indication of not understanding the concept of
learning. Anyone who is properly educated (any decent university and
even some public high schools) knows that education involves not so
much *what you learn (although you need knowledge to be competent in
any particular field) but learning *how to learn.
You still haven't grasped that learning often involves unlearning
things which are untrue. And the way one learns newer, better things,
is by accumulating data, sharing ideas, testing those ideas, and
reading or listening to experts in the field. Not to mindlessly parrot
authority, but to avoid reinventing the wheel.
If you cannot admit that learning involves changing one's beliefs
about what is true if new data indicates it, you are in no position to
educate yourself, let alone anyone else.
> > > Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
> > > man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible.
>
> > Correct. Science is verifiable, and it works. Nothing wrong with
> > social networks per se, however.
>
> Christ did not come to form a social network. Understand?
>
I don't care. As an outsider, I find touchy-feely churches a damn
sight better than hell and brimstone churches. They make better
neighbors, and are usually better people.
> > > They are
> > > directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
> > > God from the equation of creating.
>
> > Really? You haven't established that. You *have claimed that you see
> > things other people don't. Why do you think that others would find
> > these claims persuasive?
>
> Don't blame me for your inabilities.
I'm not blaming you at all. I am grateful that I made the effort many
years back to extricate myself from this superstitious miasma of
confusion. It wasn't easy.
>
> > > You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
> > > to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
> > > Christianity teaches. But you do have to read the book and understand
> > > what you are reading.
>
> > Rorschach. Ink. Blots.
>
> Attention Span.
I'm sorry; were those words too long for you?
When myths are vague, verses many and conflicting, and claims
unverifiable, then it is easy to read anything one needs (or fears)
into holy books. Look at the number of Christian sects alone, all of
them populated by sincere seekers and believers.
>
>
>
> > > In this age too many Christians have become apathetic and pacifistic
> > > toward lost and dying humanity. They could care less that Satan is
> > > conducting a full-scale murder campaign against the inhabitants of
> > > this world.
>
> > "The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
> > �ｿｽThe ceremony of innocence is drowned;
> > �ｿｽThe best lack all conviction, while the worst
> > �ｿｽAre full of passionate intensity. "
>
> eh.. not in all cases. Defiantly not in this case.
Limbaugh. Beck. Hannity. Teabaggers. Pat Robertson. Passionate people
make me nervous, even when they're on my side on a particular issue.
>
> > > They don't want to hear about warfare or fighting against sin and
> > > Satan. All they want is a Christianity where everyone always feels
> > > warm and happy.
>
> > You want the Taliban; they're down the hall on the left, third door.
> > The one marked "Hatred. Ignorance, and Despair"
>
> you do not understand exaactly what the fight entails.
Sure I do. It's folks who have a direct line to God (Ask 'em!) who
want to run the show, with little or not input from the rest of us.
It's pig-ignorant fools who hate scholars and scientists. It's people
who use "elitist" as a dirty word, and consider themselves crippled by
civil behavior (which they call "political correctness").
It is barbarity against civilization. It is my great-grandfather
helping to establish a church for the sole purpose of maintaining
slavery.
>
> > > Here is what the 'touchy-feely' Christians need to know. The entire
> > > purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification was to destroy the
> > > works of Satan and the corruption The Watchers placed on this earth.
>
> > Funny that the Rabbi never mentioned the Watchers. I guess he didn't
> > have your special perception.
>
> The Rabbis that wrote the books about watchers beg to differ.
>
No input from Joshua ben Yahweh?
> > > Meaningless church programs, social activities and fellowships while
> > > sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
> > > to the kingdom of Hell.
>
> > Neither will delusions.
>
> What is your delusion? evolution
Science works.
Tell me again - how do you tell the difference between your special
perceptions and delusion? Oh, that's right. You can't.
>
>
>
> > > Jesus tore the curtain so you can take the
> > > power that you need.
>
> > Sounds very Zen. But I think you must scare the congregations in your
> > home town. Won't they accept you as a prophet of God? Tsk.
>
> consider me your spiritual advisor
I rejected the spiritual advisor I was given at birth. I rejected the
guy wearing a sheet at the Atlantic City rock Festival in 1969. My
wooden dummy is my spiritual advisor. He is a harsh master, but has
never lied to me, and has given me no tasks too hard for me, nor too
easy.
>
> > > Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
> > > spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
> > > years.
>
> > That's what the evidence says.
>
> In a delusion
Why should I trust anyone who says that reality is a delusion?
>
> > > it really is just THAT simple.
>
> > Well, your mind is that simple, �ｿｽbut the universe is not constrained
> > by your desires, education, or intelligence. Hell, it's not even
> > constrained by *mine :/
>
> > Kermit
>
> Your observations are the delusions
See?
Kermit
All-Seeing-I
> On Dec 14, 12:10�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification was to destroy the
> > works of Satan and the corruption The Watchers placed on this earth.
>
> > sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
> > power that you need.
>
> <snip>
>
> At what point does spiritual warfare become physical violence? �You
> seem to be preaching a Crusade here.
Maybe you have brain damage
Kermit
> Kermit wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 9:10 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >> Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
> >> full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
> >> ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
> >> the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>
> > Personally, I consider dropping the torture of heretics and becoming
> > networks providing mutual social support to be a significant
> > improvement. I'm sorry you're upset that they don't fight learning.
>
>
> Stalin was real. Hitler was real.
Stalin rejected evolutionary science, just like you. Hitler never
mentioned biolgical evolution or Darwin in Mein Kampf. He mentioned
God pretty often.
But even were one or both of these a professional biologist, what
would that say about the *truth of evolutionary science? Mengele was
evil, yes? But nobody rejects medical science for his sake.
>
>
>
> >> Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
> >> man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible.
>
> > Correct. Science is verifiable, and it works. Nothing wrong with
> > social networks per se, however.
>
> Science is ever changing. Theories come and go. Misplaced activism will
> always be with us.
Three non sequitors.
>
>
>
> >> They are
> >> directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
> >> God from the equation of creating.
>
> > Really? You haven't established that. You *have claimed that you see
> > things other people don't. Why do you think that others would find
> > these claims persuasive?
>
> You will find that what people of various faiths perceive is quite
> consistent. Same goes for evolutionists who are stuck in their belief
> system and can't get out of it.
Yeah. We believe that reality isn't insane, and that if a model works,
it's pretty good.
>
>
>
> >> You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
> >> to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
> >> Christianity teaches. But you do have to read the book and understand
> >> what you are reading.
>
> > Rorschach. Ink. Blots.
>
> Right.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> In this age too many Christians have become apathetic and pacifistic
> >> toward lost and dying humanity. They could care less that Satan is
> >> conducting a full-scale murder campaign against the inhabitants of
> >> this world.
>
> > "The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
> > �ｿｽThe ceremony of innocence is drowned;
> > �ｿｽThe best lack all conviction, while the worst
> > �ｿｽAre full of passionate intensity. "
>
> >> They don't want to hear about warfare or fighting against sin and
> >> Satan. All they want is a Christianity where everyone always feels
> >> warm and happy.
>
> > You want the Taliban; they're down the hall on the left, third door.
> > The one marked "Hatred. Ignorance, and Despair"
>
> You are nothing but a filthy liar. What connection is there between the
> Taliban, you lying scum-bucket and Christianity?
>
Ahem. "You will find that what people of various faiths perceive is
quite consistent."
Who was it who said that? I wouldn't have gone that far myself. I see
little resemblance between the Taliban and, say the Unitarians, or the
Quakers, or B'nai B'rith.
I was comparing the Taliban to Christian fundamentalists, especially
the Dominionists and their kind. Like those who want to destroy
science education, and merge the US government with their particular
brand of religion, who would bring Old Testament law into the 21st
century. It was clear from the context where ASI was castigating the
sane, civilized, and reasonable Christians, and wistfully comparing
them to rigid, unscientific, and intolerant Christians. Like you, ASI
himself, and the late Jerry Falwell. My late grandfather, for that
matter.
>
>
>
>
> >> Here is what the 'touchy-feely' Christians need to know. The entire
> >> purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification was to destroy the
> >> works of Satan and the corruption The Watchers placed on this earth.
>
> > Funny that the Rabbi never mentioned the Watchers. I guess he didn't
> > have your special perception.
>
> >> Meaningless church programs, social activities and fellowships while
> >> sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
> >> to the kingdom of Hell.
>
> > Neither will delusions.
>
> >> Jesus tore the curtain so you can take the
> >> power that you need.
>
> > Sounds very Zen. But I think you must scare the congregations in your
> > home town. Won't they accept you as a prophet of God? Tsk.
>
> I'm sure your knowledge of Zen is very impressive.
I know nothing about Zen. But there I go, bragging again.
>
>
>
> >> Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
> >> spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
> >> years.
>
> > That's what the evidence says.
>
> The evidence says many things and new evidence is discovered every day.
> The axion of the ToE is immutable.
>
>
>
> >> it really is just THAT simple.
>
> > Well, your mind is that simple, �ｿｽbut the universe is not constrained
> > by your desires, education, or intelligence. Hell, it's not even
> > constrained by *mine :/
>
> It *is* constrained by our senses, our instruments and our current
> knowledge.
Yes, you say that, but then assert that whole fields of science are
filled with idiots and liars, but never offer supporting evidence
these wide-sweeping claims.
>
>
>
> > Kermit
>
> Newsreaders are wonderful. Learn to use them.
Problem with my posts? Besides the content...
Kermit
Kermit
I assume, tentaively, that there was a Jesus at the inception of the
cult, which Paul later took over. But I doubt there was much left of
him after Paul got though with him.
Kermit
Kermit
wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:19:06 -0800, Mark Isaak
>
> <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:10:13 -0800, SkyEyes wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 10:10�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > >> purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification
>
> > > That's "crucifixion," you blathering brainless idiot. �There's no such
> > > word as "crucification."
> > I dunno. �The word looks useful for describing the process of turning
> > something into cabbage.
>
> Not even cabbage these days is cabbage. Damn evolution!
It's still the cabbage kind.
If you're so smart, let's see you morph a cabbage into something
completely different - like soup!
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Kermit
All-Seeing-I
> On Dec 14, 12:07 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 12:11 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 9:10 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Many churches have, for the most part, degenerated into social clubs
> > > > full of people caring about nothing but themselves and their own
> > > > ambitions. They accept science into the church which is something that
> > > > the original Christian, Jesus of Nazareth would never have done.
>
> > > Personally, I consider dropping the torture of heretics and becoming
> > > networks providing mutual social support to be a significant
> > > improvement. I'm sorry you're upset that they don't fight learning.
>
> > It is not the learning that is the problem, It is what is being
> > learned.
>
> You give every indication of not understanding the concept of
> learning. Anyone who is properly educated (any decent university and
> even some public high schools) knows that education involves not so
> much *what you learn (although you need knowledge to be competent in
> any particular field) but learning *how to learn.
>
> You still haven't grasped that learning often involves unlearning
> things which are untrue. And the way one learns newer, better things,
> is by accumulating data, sharing ideas, testing those ideas, and
> reading or listening to experts in the field. Not to mindlessly parrot
> authority, but to avoid reinventing the wheel.
>
> If you cannot admit that learning involves changing one's beliefs
> about what is true if new data indicates it, you are in no position to
> educate yourself, let alone anyone else.
Who gets to decide what is learned and what should be unlearned
Kermit?
You advocate opening the door for any type of brainwashing that wants
to walk in.
Hitler was able to mobilize an entire country with the philosophy of
unlearning, book burning and re-education.
Would you have everything that mankind has learned over many millenium
be replaced with a theory that is not shown to be conclusive?
Insanity is what that is.
>
> > > > Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
> > > > man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible.
>
> > > Correct. Science is verifiable, and it works. Nothing wrong with
> > > social networks per se, however.
>
> > Christ did not come to form a social network. Understand?
>
> I don't care. As an outsider, I find touchy-feely churches a damn
> sight better than hell and brimstone churches. They make better
> neighbors, and are usually better people.
In some ways they do serve a purpose. In fact, there are preachers
that have built entire careers on motivational speaking
That does NOT mean they are conveying Jesus' message clearly.
Jesus did not come to start a social club. Really.
> > > > They are
> > > > directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
> > > > God from the equation of creating.
>
> > > Really? You haven't established that. You *have claimed that you see
> > > things other people don't. Why do you think that others would find
> > > these claims persuasive?
>
> > Don't blame me for your inabilities.
>
> I'm not blaming you at all. I am grateful that I made the effort many
> years back to extricate myself from this superstitious miasma of
> confusion. It wasn't easy.
And the struggle to return will be harder.
>
> > > > You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
> > > > to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
> > > > Christianity teaches. But you do have to read the book and understand
> > > > what you are reading.
>
> > > Rorschach. Ink. Blots.
>
> > Attention Span.
>
> I'm sorry; were those words too long for you?
You lack attention span. Was my point too short for you?
> When myths are vague, verses many and conflicting, and claims
> unverifiable, then it is easy to read anything one needs (or fears)
> into holy books. Look at the number of Christian sects alone, all of
> them populated by sincere seekers and believers.
If you did not gravitate toward those 'touchy-feely' churches you
would realize that many bible teachers have a single almost identical
view of what Jesus was saying. Jesus was a rather smart man. He left
parables that could transmit the same message to many personalties.
One could not draw the kind of crowds he drew without being an
effective speaker. Your problem seems to be you were exposed to the
far right Christians as a youth, and then to the far left as an
adult.
If you spent the same amount of effort researching exactly what the
bible means as you have spent on man made explanations for origins,
the biblical version would be more clear to you.
Find center. The center is usually closest to the truth.
>
>
>
> > > > In this age too many Christians have become apathetic and pacifistic
> > > > toward lost and dying humanity. They could care less that Satan is
> > > > conducting a full-scale murder campaign against the inhabitants of
> > > > this world.
>
> > > "The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
> > > The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
> > > The best lack all conviction, while the worst
> > > Are full of passionate intensity. "
>
> > eh.. not in all cases. Defiantly not in this case.
>
> Limbaugh. Beck. Hannity. Teabaggers. Pat Robertson. Passionate people
> make me nervous, even when they're on my side on a particular issue.
My opinion is they are selling hate and controversy for a living and
television ratings. With the exception of Robertson. He is just a
lier. Robertson spent much of his time in the very early 80's telling
people Armageddon was going to happen in the 90's. to build his 700
club donations. He was quite elaborate about it too --with an easel,
charts and all sorts of dates and rationalizations and bible mumbo-
jumbo. Don't take my word for it. His television shows are taped.
I am sure in their minds they think they are doing some good. But they
are the ones that are helping drive people away from the exact word
that is in the bible. In their own right, they are just as dangerous
as any of the wolf's in sheep's clothing that Jesus said would come in
his name teaching.
But they are not representative of all passionate people either. And
they do not seem to want to intentionally deceive people.Greed and
money will cause people to rationalize their behavior.
Here is my point. If one depends on people such as Hannity, or
Robertson or Darwin for the real truth, then they are a follower. That
is what they want you to be. They need followers to achieve TV
ratings, donations and book sales respectively.
The kind of truth that you want cannot be found with TV personalities
or historical book authors like Darwin.
The only one you can depend on to discover real truth is yourself and
other like minded peope that want the same.
You do want truth, don't you? Or are you comfortable with what could
be a deception for man's origins?
> > > > They don't want to hear about warfare or fighting against sin and
> > > > Satan. All they want is a Christianity where everyone always feels
> > > > warm and happy.
>
> > > You want the Taliban; they're down the hall on the left, third door.
> > > The one marked "Hatred. Ignorance, and Despair"
>
> > you do not understand exaactly what the fight entails.
>
> Sure I do. It's folks who have a direct line to God (Ask 'em!) who
> want to run the show, with little or not input from the rest of us.
> It's pig-ignorant fools who hate scholars and scientists. It's people
> who use "elitist" as a dirty word, and consider themselves crippled by
> civil behavior (which they call "political correctness").
>
> It is barbarity against civilization. It is my great-grandfather
> helping to establish a church for the sole purpose of maintaining
> slavery.
You are not looking deep enough into the issue. If the bible is right,
the battle goes way- Way- beyond what any of us can comprehend from
this perspective and with our current perception.
> > > > Here is what the 'touchy-feely' Christians need to know. The entire
> > > > purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification was to destroy the
> > > > works of Satan and the corruption The Watchers placed on this earth.
>
> > > Funny that the Rabbi never mentioned the Watchers. I guess he didn't
> > > have your special perception.
>
> > The Rabbis that wrote the books about watchers beg to differ.
>
> No input from Joshua ben Yahweh?
You are overly skeptical about some things while giving a free pass to
others. Why.
>
> > > > Meaningless church programs, social activities and fellowships while
> > > > sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
> > > > to the kingdom of Hell.
>
> > > Neither will delusions.
>
> > What is your delusion? evolution
>
> Science works.
What percentage? Why all the revisions.
>
> Tell me again - how do you tell the difference between your special
> perceptions and delusion? Oh, that's right. You can't.
>
I'm not the follower. You are.
>
>
> > > > Jesus tore the curtain so you can take the
> > > > power that you need.
>
> > > Sounds very Zen. But I think you must scare the congregations in your
> > > home town. Won't they accept you as a prophet of God? Tsk.
>
> > consider me your spiritual advisor
>
> I rejected the spiritual advisor I was given at birth. I rejected the
> guy wearing �a sheet at the Atlantic City rock Festival in 1969. My
> wooden dummy is my spiritual advisor. He is a harsh master, but has
> never lied to me, and has given me no tasks too hard for me, nor too
> easy.
Stop being so easily lied to and you will not have to take a wooden
dummy as an advisor.
>
> > > > Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
> > > > spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
> > > > years.
>
> > > That's what the evidence says.
>
> > In a delusion
>
> Why should I trust anyone who says that reality is a delusion?
>
Our reality could be the illusion. That seems to be what the apostle
Paul thinks. His reasons make sense.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>Who gets to decide what is learned and what should be unlearned
>Kermit?
>
>You advocate opening the door for any type of brainwashing that wants
>to walk in.
>
>Hitler was able to mobilize an entire country with the philosophy of
>unlearning, book burning and re-education.
the creationist/taliban wannabee is getting more desperate. his
references and allusions to hitler are getting more frequent.
>
>Would you have everything that mankind has learned over many millenium
>be replaced with a theory that is not shown to be conclusive?
what theory in science is conclusive
you make lots of noise. you never make a point.
>
>Insanity is what that is.
insanity is doing the same wrong thing for 2000 years. that's called
creationism
>>
>> I don't care. As an outsider, I find touchy-feely churches a damn
>> sight better than hell and brimstone churches. They make better
>> neighbors, and are usually better people.
>
>In some ways they do serve a purpose. In fact, there are preachers
>that have built entire careers on motivational speaking
>
>That does NOT mean they are conveying Jesus' message clearly.
>
>Jesus did not come to start a social club. Really.
'where 2 or more are gathered in my name'
'forsake not the assembling of yourselves together'...
passages from the bible. apparently the creationist hasnt read it.
>
>
>> When myths are vague, verses many and conflicting, and claims
>> unverifiable, then it is easy to read anything one needs (or fears)
>> into holy books. Look at the number of Christian sects alone, all of
>> them populated by sincere seekers and believers.
>
>If you did not gravitate toward those 'touchy-feely' churches you
>would realize that many bible teachers have a single almost identical
>view of what Jesus was saying
so if we ignore the differences in christianity, then there are no
differences.
gee. who coulda guesse?
.. Jesus was a rather smart man. He left
>parables that could transmit the same message to many personalties.
>One could not draw the kind of crowds he drew without being an
>effective speaker. Your problem seems to be you were exposed to the
>far right Christians as a youth, and then to the far left as an
>adult.
jesus didn't speak. we have no speeches left by him. nothing. we have
3rd had reports, passed on orally and embellished.
hardly the 'word of god'
>
>If you spent the same amount of effort researching exactly what the
>bible means as you have spent on man made explanations for origins,
>the biblical version would be more clear to you.
so you guys have been saying for 2000 years
it's why, i suppose, there are 38,000 xtian denominations.
>
>Find center. The center is usually closest to the truth.
and the center of biology is evolution.
>
>The only one you can depend on to discover real truth is yourself and
>other like minded peope that want the same.
>
>You do want truth, don't you? Or are you comfortable with what could
>be a deception for man's origins?
and for 2000 years creationists preached the deception of creationism.
>
>>
>> > > > Meaningless church programs, social activities and fellowships while
>> > > > sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
>> > > > to the kingdom of Hell.
>>
>> > > Neither will delusions.
>>
>> > What is your delusion? evolution
>>
>> Science works.
>
>What percentage? Why all the revisions.
it works perhaps 10% of the time. vs 0% of the time for creationism
big difference
and science learns. it knows when it's wrong
creationism has no way to tell when it's wrong
Boikat
There's no doubt that you do, Mr Cambrian mammal = Trilobite.
Boikat
Ye Old One
In your case the is absolutely no doubt.
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Anything that is as wrong as creationism is should have been banned by
law years ago.
>
>Insanity is what that is.
You are the insane one Mudbrain.
>
>>
>> > > > Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
>> > > > man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible.
>>
>> > > Correct. Science is verifiable, and it works. Nothing wrong with
>> > > social networks per se, however.
>>
>> > Christ did not come to form a social network. Understand?
>>
>> I don't care. As an outsider, I find touchy-feely churches a damn
>> sight better than hell and brimstone churches. They make better
>> neighbors, and are usually better people.
>
>In some ways they do serve a purpose. In fact, there are preachers
>that have built entire careers on motivational speaking
>
>That does NOT mean they are conveying Jesus' message clearly.
>
>Jesus did not come to start a social club. Really.
Did he come at all?
>
>
>> > > > They are
>> > > > directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
>> > > > God from the equation of creating.
>>
>> > > Really? You haven't established that. You *have claimed that you see
>> > > things other people don't. Why do you think that others would find
>> > > these claims persuasive?
>>
>> > Don't blame me for your inabilities.
>>
>> I'm not blaming you at all. I am grateful that I made the effort many
>> years back to extricate myself from this superstitious miasma of
>> confusion. It wasn't easy.
>
>And the struggle to return will be harder.
Nobody with an IQ would want to return.
>
>>
>> > > > You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
>> > > > to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
>> > > > Christianity teaches. But you do have to read the book and understand
>> > > > what you are reading.
>>
>> > > Rorschach. Ink. Blots.
>>
>> > Attention Span.
>>
>> I'm sorry; were those words too long for you?
>
>You lack attention span. Was my point too short for you?
>
>
>> When myths are vague, verses many and conflicting, and claims
>> unverifiable, then it is easy to read anything one needs (or fears)
>> into holy books. Look at the number of Christian sects alone, all of
>> them populated by sincere seekers and believers.
>
>If you did not gravitate toward those 'touchy-feely' churches you
>would realize that many bible teachers have a single almost identical
>view of what Jesus was saying.
Do they?
> Jesus was a rather smart man.
If, indeed, he ever existed.
> He left
>parables that could transmit the same message to many personalties.
>One could not draw the kind of crowds he drew without being an
>effective speaker.
There is no evidence he ever drew a crowd.
>Your problem seems to be you were exposed to the
>far right Christians as a youth, and then to the far left as an
>adult.
>
>If you spent the same amount of effort researching exactly what the
>bible means as you have spent on man made explanations for origins,
>the biblical version would be more clear to you.
But still just as wrong.
[snip more Mudbrain stupidity.]
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Kermit
Wow. this is almost a conversation. Not that we're getting anywhere.
> Who gets to decide what is learned and what should be unlearned
> Kermit?
Reality. In science, we test our ideas against reality. The
observations are verifiable. Sure, it *could all be one big illusion,
as you insist, but we seem to have the illusion of science *working.
If you are right, why don't you even have that much?
If we ever discuss this face to face, I could (with permission!) apply
a couple of shin kicks; nothing crippling, just the sort of bumps we
get in class. You'd start moving your feet back pretty quickly, I'd
wager. Why is that? Because shin kicks are as real as it gets.
That's why science works. It uses those kind of repeatable
observations, and testable models.
My partner throws a punch as he kicks my shins.
I notice pain.
I guard my shins.
Pain stops in the legs.
Repeat as often as necessary.
ASI claims it's all an illusions. Claims that kicks don't really hurt.
Claims that he has special perception.
I remain unconvinced.
See how it works? When you assert that the evidence we are all
familiar with doesn't exist, we can only shake our heads sadly at the
human condition.
>
> You advocate opening the door for any type of brainwashing that wants
> to walk in.
How so? Looking at the world around us, testing our assumptions,
accepting challenges from the skeptical scientists, is as real as it
gets. In what way is it brainwashing?
>
> Hitler was able to mobilize an entire country with the philosophy of
> unlearning, book burning and re-education.
Yes. And you will offer no evidence that he was educating his people
in science. Hitler was utterly disinterested in science, except where
it could contribute to weapons technology.
Stalin forbade Darwinist-derived theory, because it didn't fit his
ideology. Millions starved to death, partly because of Lysenko's
unfortunate interference with crop production.
>
> Would you have everything that mankind has learned over many millenium
> be replaced with a theory that is not shown to be conclusive?
No theory is conclusive. Would you replace replicable confirmation
with desperate insistence that all is perfect and unquestionable?
Why yes, yes you would. And do.
Curiously, your absolutely certain knowledge is different from the
absolutely certain knowledge I was raised with in many ways, and *very
different from the absolutely certain knowledge of Sunni clerics or
Hindu literalists.
>
> Insanity is what that is.
Yeah, yeah. Crazy us, relying of reality and testing our ideas, when
we could just accept the word of some stranger off the internet.
>
>
>
> > > > > Evolution and Science has no place to being under consideration in
> > > > > man's churches today. They have no comparison to the bible.
>
> > > > Correct. Science is verifiable, and it works. Nothing wrong with
> > > > social networks per se, however.
>
> > > Christ did not come to form a social network. Understand?
>
> > I don't care. As an outsider, I find touchy-feely churches a damn
> > sight better than hell and brimstone churches. They make better
> > neighbors, and are usually better people.
>
> In some ways they do serve a purpose. In fact, there are preachers
> that have built entire careers on motivational speaking
Yes. Sometimes they are even effective.
>
> That does NOT mean they are conveying Jesus' message clearly.
Sure. But then, neither are they fighting science or history
education.
> Jesus did not come to start a social club. Really.
I believe you. But it's pretty much impossible to tell what he *did
intend, for Christianity is largely built around the teachings of
Paul.
Anyway, what does any of that have to do with the origins of humans?
The record of physical evidence is pretty clear,
>
> > > > > They are
> > > > > directly opposed to what the bible says and both indirectly removes
> > > > > God from the equation of creating.
>
> > > > Really? You haven't established that. You *have claimed that you see
> > > > things other people don't. Why do you think that others would find
> > > > these claims persuasive?
>
> > > Don't blame me for your inabilities.
>
> > I'm not blaming you at all. I am grateful that I made the effort many
> > years back to extricate myself from this superstitious miasma of
> > confusion. It wasn't easy.
>
> And the struggle to return will be harder.
No, it won't be, since I have no intention of doing so. Now, throwing
a punch without wobbling... *that's hard.
Why would I want to return to superstition and ignorance? I couldn't
even if I wanted to. That's one of the many things related to this
dialog that you don't get. Sane humans can't just change their
perceptions or world view by a direct act of will.
What on Earth could convince me that it's all an illusion? If there
were gods, one of them could convince me that I can't trust my senses.
None has, yet. Either they don't care, or they don't exist.
>
>
>
> > > > > You don't have to be a genius to see that what the Bible commands us
> > > > > to do is altogether different from what the modern version of
> > > > > Christianity teaches. But you do have to read the book and understand
> > > > > what you are reading.
>
> > > > Rorschach. Ink. Blots.
>
> > > Attention Span.
>
> > I'm sorry; were those words too long for you?
>
> You lack attention span. Was my point too short for you?
No, just that you are ignoring the fact that you have no way of
knowing if you are wrong (if that even means anything in this
context).
>
> > When myths are vague, verses many and conflicting, and claims
> > unverifiable, then it is easy to read anything one needs (or fears)
> > into holy books. Look at the number of Christian sects alone, all of
> > them populated by sincere seekers and believers.
>
> If you did not gravitate toward those 'touchy-feely' churches you
> would realize that many bible teachers have a single almost identical
> view of what Jesus was saying. Jesus was a rather smart man. He left
Or Paul did...
> parables that could transmit the same message to many personalties.
"I am speaking for god. I know what He wants you to do. Give me money
(or your daughters)."
Yes. We've all seen some of those personalities at work, and heard the
common theme of their messages.
> One could not draw the kind of crowds he drew without being an
> effective speaker.
All we know of the crowds are written a generation or more later, by
members of his cult. There are no contemporary documents supporting
his existence. I assume he existed, for cults usually form around
personalities. But he didn't make much impression outside his little
circle.
> Your problem seems to be you were exposed to the
> far right Christians as a youth, and then to the far left as an
> adult.
Also the Upanishads, the Sutras, the Bardo Thodal, the Egyptian Book
of the Dead. the Norse and Greek myths, and others. I am still fond of
Zen Buddhism. Um, in a dispassionate, remote sort of way...
>
> If you spent the same amount of effort researching exactly what the
> bible means as you have spent on man made explanations for origins,
> the biblical version would be more clear to you.
I have other things to do now. Books to read, a garden to grow, a
wooden dummy to slap, video games to play. I still have many of the
books on the shelves. When the apocalypse comes, I'll have something
to read.
>
> Find center. The center is usually closest to the truth.
My center says:
"Breathe slow and deep, drop the shoulders, lower one point. Practice
as though you are fighting for your life; fight as though you are
practicing."
>
>
>
> > > > > In this age too many Christians have become apathetic and pacifistic
> > > > > toward lost and dying humanity. They could care less that Satan is
> > > > > conducting a full-scale murder campaign against the inhabitants of
> > > > > this world.
>
> > > > "The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
> > > > The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
> > > > The best lack all conviction, while the worst
> > > > Are full of passionate intensity. "
>
> > > eh.. not in all cases. Defiantly not in this case.
>
> > Limbaugh. Beck. Hannity. Teabaggers. Pat Robertson. Passionate people
> > make me nervous, even when they're on my side on a particular issue.
>
> My opinion is they are selling hate and controversy for a living and
> television ratings. With the exception of Robertson. He is just a
> lier. Robertson spent much of his time in the very early 80's telling
> people Armageddon was going to happen in the 90's. to build his 700
> club donations. He was quite elaborate about it too --with an easel,
> charts and all sorts of dates and rationalizations and bible mumbo-
> jumbo. Don't take my word for it. His television shows are taped.
I believe you.
Heh. Didn't think I'd ever say, did you?
>
> I am sure in their minds they think they are doing some good. But they
> are the ones that are helping drive people away from the exact word
> that is in the bible. In their own right, they are just as dangerous
> as any of the wolf's in sheep's clothing that Jesus said would come in
> his name teaching.
Perhaps they would honestly say the same about you.
>
> But they are not representative of all passionate people either. And
> they do not seem to want to intentionally deceive people.Greed and
> money will cause people to rationalize their behavior.
Yes. Or a need to feel important, or the fear of death.
>
> Here is my point. If one depends on people such as Hannity, or
> Robertson or Darwin for the real truth, then they are a follower. That
> is what they want you to be. They need followers to achieve TV
> ratings, donations and book sales respectively.
You're right! We should follow you, instead!
Oh, wait.
>
> The kind of truth that you want cannot be found with TV personalities
> or historical book authors like Darwin.
It is found in reality, not self-deception.
>
> The only one you can depend on to discover real truth is yourself and
> other like minded peope that want the same.
I am not reliable.
<shakes head sadly>
I must depend on feedback from others and from physical reality to
avoid fooling myself.
The dummy lets me know; it never lies to me. If I hit it incorrectly,
I get *immediate and *clear feedback. It keeps me honest. Science does
the same thing, if somewhat less painfully.
>
> You do want truth, don't you? Or are you comfortable with what could
> be a deception for man's origins?
Oh, I want the truth for everything that is interesting to me.
<Oooh, shiny!>
Sorry, I spent my early life and adolescence wading through
superstitions and myths. No interest in doing it much more.
Why do you think your fantasies are more reliable than reality? How do
you determine the difference between divine inspiration and delusion?
You have never explained how you tell the difference. I am afraid that
you cannot, and that doesn't inspire anyone to take your claims
seriously.
>
> > > > > They don't want to hear about warfare or fighting against sin and
> > > > > Satan. All they want is a Christianity where everyone always feels
> > > > > warm and happy.
>
> > > > You want the Taliban; they're down the hall on the left, third door.
> > > > The one marked "Hatred. Ignorance, and Despair"
>
> > > you do not understand exaactly what the fight entails.
>
> > Sure I do. It's folks who have a direct line to God (Ask 'em!) who
> > want to run the show, with little or not input from the rest of us.
> > It's pig-ignorant fools who hate scholars and scientists. It's people
> > who use "elitist" as a dirty word, and consider themselves crippled by
> > civil behavior (which they call "political correctness").
>
> > It is barbarity against civilization. It is my great-grandfather
> > helping to establish a church for the sole purpose of maintaining
> > slavery.
>
> You are not looking deep enough into the issue. If the bible is right,
> the battle goes way- Way- beyond what any of us can comprehend from
> this perspective and with our current perception.
And if the Norse myths are right, you have missed the boat completely,
and will never spend the afterlife training and feasting, nor join the
gods to fight the frost giants at the end.
>
> > > > > Here is what the 'touchy-feely' Christians need to know. The entire
> > > > > purpose of Jesus' birth, ministry and crucification was to destroy the
> > > > > works of Satan and the corruption The Watchers placed on this earth.
>
> > > > Funny that the Rabbi never mentioned the Watchers. I guess he didn't
> > > > have your special perception.
>
> > > The Rabbis that wrote the books about watchers beg to differ.
>
> > No input from Joshua ben Yahweh?
>
> You are overly skeptical about some things while giving a free pass to
> others. Why.
Some things have verifiable evidence to support them. Some things are
asserted by people who assert that the world is all an illusion, with
no reason to believe them.
>
>
>
> > > > > Meaningless church programs, social activities and fellowships while
> > > > > sitting in comfortable pews Sunday after Sunday will never do damage
> > > > > to the kingdom of Hell.
>
> > > > Neither will delusions.
>
> > > What is your delusion? evolution
>
> > Science works.
>
> What percentage? Why all the revisions.
All of it. *All current theories have been tested; that's why they're
accepted. *All.
Do you think that when Einstein came up with his two seminal papers,
that military ballistics suddenly stopped working?
> Why all the revisions.
New information. Learning. Why should I take seriously the statements
of a man who cannot understand the nature of learning?
>
>
>
> > Tell me again - how do you tell the difference between your special
> > perceptions and delusion? Oh, that's right. You can't.
>
> I'm not the follower. You are.
So... you can't tell the difference.
>
>
>
> > > > > Jesus tore the curtain so you can take the
> > > > > power that you need.
>
> > > > Sounds very Zen. But I think you must scare the congregations in your
> > > > home town. Won't they accept you as a prophet of God? Tsk.
>
> > > consider me your spiritual advisor
>
> > I rejected the spiritual advisor I was given at birth. I rejected the
> > guy wearing �a sheet at the Atlantic City rock Festival in 1969. My
> > wooden dummy is my spiritual advisor. He is a harsh master, but has
> > never lied to me, and has given me no tasks too hard for me, nor too
> > easy.
>
> Stop being so easily lied to and you will not have to take a wooden
> dummy as an advisor.
But *it doesn't lie to me. If you're ever in a gym, and see a heavy
bag, walk up to it and give it your best shot. I'll warn you now, if
you haven't worked them before, you will get hurt. The physical world
doesn't lie to us.
>
>
>
> > > > > Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
> > > > > spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
> > > > > years.
>
> > > > That's what the evidence says.
>
> > > In a delusion
>
> > Why should I trust anyone who says that reality is a delusion?
>
> Our reality could be the illusion. That seems to be what the apostle
> Paul thinks. His reasons make sense.
Could be, could be.
And Heaven could be overseen by glitter ponies, and Titan occupied by
flying pigs. You have never given anyone a reason to think so.
Science works.
Kermit
Walter Bushell
Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Dan Listermann <d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> >"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:c50fe676-f53b-4fd2...@z7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>> Your origins are supernatural. Your origins are not biological matter
> >>> spontaneous morphing into species after species over millions of
> >>> years.
> >>
> >> OK. OK, I now believe that all existing kinds spontaniously popped
> >> into existence 5,000 years ago or something like that, together with
> >> the millions of extinct species in the fossil record. Now that
> >> my Lobotomy is finished it ALL MAKES SENSE!
> >>
>
> >He doesn't seem to be capable of discussing what "creation" was. Not
> >necessarily how it worked, even simply what happened. He cannot say whether
> >or not all species that ever existed were created at once and 99% have since
> >gone extinct, or whether or not species are created even today as
> >replacements for the extinct. He NEVER has addressed this question and I
> >strongly doubt he will this time either.
>
> Of course. That 99% is a problem. The fossil record shows almost
> the opposite. There are lots of creatures around NOW that were not
> around back then. So either a creationist has to believe in
> continuous creation OR that God scrubbed the record in order to
> make us believe in lies.
Or The True Dog is more like Aphrodite than the Dog drol of the Bible.
Result a glorious mess, much like we see around us.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Paul J Gans
Are you talking about Congress again?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Steven L.
wrote in message news:ts0ei5t5dhtjphpp8...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:22:22 -0400, Nashton <na...@no.ca> wrote:
>
> > Dan Listermann wrote:
> > > "Nashton" <na...@no.ca> wrote in message news:hg6cmu$eqq$1...@aioe.org...
> > >>> You want the Taliban; they're down the hall on the left, third door.
> > >>> The one marked "Hatred. Ignorance, and Despair"
> > >> You are nothing but a filthy liar. What connection is there between the
> > >> Taliban, you lying scum-bucket and Christianity?
>
> > > Religious fundamentalism.
>
> > If you think that religion has anything to do with the insurgence of the
> > Taliban and not with power....
>
> That is what all religions are: the weilding of political power.
> If not for Constantine the Great using the Christian Death Cult as
> a weapon, Christianity would not exist.
So the dominant religion in the world today would be Mithraism instead.
Mithraism would be no improvement over Christianity.
(OK, Mithraism might be an improvement over Islam.)
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Devils Advocaat
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 04:51:27 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
>
> >On 14 Dec, 21:47, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 12:07:09 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> >> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >> >consider me your spiritual advisor
>
> >> How many fingers am I holding up?
>
> >Would it be a singular middle digit?
>
> I do have two hands.
But for the most provocative effect it is only necessary to raise the
middle digit of the hand sinister :)
heekster
Johnny seemed to rock fairly well with the right hand.
Gotta have the right attitude.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>consider me your spiritual advisor
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zhGNg-SCMVk/SAkfD1V--OI/AAAAAAAABBM/jIOVez0S67I/s400/2.jpg
Walter Bushell
Congress and especially Sexual Congress, not to mention Fiscal Congress.