Re: According to the Word of God, you are "without excuse".
Ron O
> There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
> cause pain and suffering in other creatures. The Ebola virus is very
> good at liquefying human organs. It causes massive bleeding and death.
> The tapeworm has hooks that allow it to attach to the walls of the
> intestine and remain there as a parasite. The Plasmodium vivax protozoan
> lives in the Anopheles mosquito for a while before transferring by a
> mosquito bite to a human. There it causes malaria, a recurring disease
> that produces fever and sometimes death. There are many other examples.
>
> "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
> clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
> eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
> (Romans 1:20)
Part of the sermon seems to be missing.
Ron Okimoto
Jim
'Humans wrote the bible; God wrote life.'
Inez
What does the first bit have to do with the second? Are you saying
that Ebola and Malaria are such mighty proof of God that we have no
excuse not to believe?
Friar Broccoli
The poster (who has no record of ever posting before) is sending from
an apparently fictive domain called:
christschurch.mega
Might be Odin, fighting to restore Thor to His rightful place.
Desertphile
<pas...@christschurch.mega> wrote:
> There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
> cause pain and suffering in other creatures.
No: that's just the result, not the intent. Evolution has no mind
to intend actions.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Pastor D" <pas...@christschurch.mega> wrote in message
news:Xer6D754...@151.32.243.51...
> There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
> good at liquefying human organs. It causes massive bleeding and death.
> The tapeworm has hooks that allow it to attach to the walls of the
> intestine and remain there as a parasite. The Plasmodium vivax protozoan
> lives in the Anopheles mosquito for a while before transferring by a
> mosquito bite to a human. There it causes malaria, a recurring disease
> that produces fever and sometimes death. There are many other examples.
>
> "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
> clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
> eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
> (Romans 1:20)
There are no "examples" of designs in living things; that's only a delusion
in people who are fanatical about religion, and ignorant about reality.
Frank J
> There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
> cause pain and suffering in other creatures. The Ebola virus is very
> good at liquefying human organs. It causes massive bleeding and death.
> The tapeworm has hooks that allow it to attach to the walls of the
> intestine and remain there as a parasite. The Plasmodium vivax protozoan
> lives in the Anopheles mosquito for a while before transferring by a
> mosquito bite to a human. There it causes malaria, a recurring disease
> that produces fever and sometimes death. There are many other examples.
Like that (sub)species that flies planes into buildings, killing many
innocent organisms and themselves in the process.
Fredric L. Rice
>On May 18, 8:06�pm, Pastor D <past...@christschurch.mega> wrote:
>> There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
>> cause pain and suffering in other creatures. The Ebola virus is very
>> good at liquefying human organs. It causes massive bleeding and death.
>> The tapeworm has hooks that allow it to attach to the walls of the
>> intestine and remain there as a parasite. The Plasmodium vivax protozoan
>> lives in the Anopheles mosquito for a while before transferring by a
>> mosquito bite to a human. There it causes malaria, a recurring disease
>> that produces fever and sometimes death. There are many other examples.
>Like that (sub)species that flies planes into buildings, killing many
>innocent organisms and themselves in the process.
Or the (sub)species that invade innocent countries and murder half a
million innocent people to tryt to seize control of their oil under
the guise of responding to the acts of the first (sub)species.
---
Nobody needs Texas
Does belief in astrology cause insanity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm
Kermit
There used to be a poster called Pastor Dave in alt.atheism. But
perhaps this is somebody different. It will be hard to tell without
more data (i.e. more posts).
Kermit
John Stockwell
> There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
> cause pain and suffering in other creatures. The Ebola virus is very
> good at liquefying human organs. It causes massive bleeding and death.
> The tapeworm has hooks that allow it to attach to the walls of the
> intestine and remain there as a parasite. The Plasmodium vivax protozoan
> lives in the Anopheles mosquito for a while before transferring by a
> mosquito bite to a human. There it causes malaria, a recurring disease
> that produces fever and sometimes death. There are many other examples.
>
> "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
> clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
> eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
> (Romans 1:20)
Burma Shave.
SkyEyes
Got objective, verifiable evidence that a god - *any* god - actually
exists?
No?
Then I believe I'll remain an atheist, thanks.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Desertphile
Anyone who hears gods talking to them should probably be medicated
and looked after.
Friar Broccoli
Yes I remember Pastor Dave, although I forget where he ranked on the
nut scale, though my impression is he was no where near Adman or Tony.
I still think the "christschurch.mega" domain name is a dead give
away for a loki.
I just did a Google search for "christschurch.mega" (with the second
"s") and THIS thread was the ONLY exact hit.
Otto
news:7tj8v5ttb94il4l6t...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 20:06:49 -0400, Pastor D
> <pas...@christschurch.mega> wrote:
>
>> There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
>> cause pain and suffering in other creatures.
>
> No: that's just the result, not the intent. Evolution has no mind
> to intend actions.
This is because you see evolution as the result of a mechanical process
without idea or intention behind it.
Otto
Robert Camp
> "Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in news message
> news:7tj8v5ttb94il4l6t...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 20:06:49 -0400, Pastor D
>> <pas...@christschurch.mega> wrote:
>>
>>> There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
>>> cause pain and suffering in other creatures.
>>
>> No: that's just the result, not the intent. Evolution has no mind
>> to intend actions.
>
> This is because you see evolution as the result of a mechanical process
> without idea or intention behind it.
Which, lacking evidence to the contrary, is the only reasonable way to
interpret it. Unless, of course you're speaking other than
scientifically, in which case why bother mentioning it here?
You keep indulging in these little drive-by postings but never stay
long enough to discuss your point of view. If it's because you don't
care about it enough to defend your position then I have to wonder why
you offer it as often as you do?
RLC
Ray Martinez
These comments assume rightly that the evolutionary interpretation of
evidence presents no evidence of God. We could only wonder why
"Christians" accept the interpretation (and not a theistic
interpretation of the same evidence)? When queried one will find that
these so called "Christians" are not real Christians; rejecting
miracles, Divinity of Christ, accepting Atheist assumptions and
arguments about reality and the Bible.
Objective fact: real Atheists and real Christians completely disagree
concerning reality and the Bible.
Ray
Kermit
> "Desertphile" <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote in news messagenews:7tj8v5ttb94il4l6t...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Tue, 18 May 2010 20:06:49 -0400, Pastor D
> > <past...@christschurch.mega> wrote:
>
> >> There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
> >> cause pain and suffering in other creatures.
>
> > No: that's just the result, not the intent. Evolution has no mind
> > to intend actions.
>
> This is because you see evolution as the result of a mechanical process
> without idea or intention behind it.
Since there is no evidence for intent, that would be the simplest way
to think of it.
I can *imagine all sorts of purposes:
1. An extraterrestrial middle school science project.
2. A dream by the king of the gods, Brahma, or perhaps a game of hide-
and-go-seek with himself.
3. A game for advanced geeks in the 24th century.
4. A short test to determine which barely sentient entities should be
tortured forever, and which would be allowed to praise the creator
forever.
5. Etc.
Is there any reason to think there *is a purpose, and if so, what that
purpose would be?
>
> Otto
>
>
>
> > --
> >http://desertphile.org
> > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Kermit
cassandra
<snip to point>
> Objective fact: real Atheists and real Christians completely disagree
> concerning reality and the Bible.
Not even close. Some people who have no concept of reality claim to
be Christians. Most people who call themselves Christians have no
problem accepting scientific facts.
raven1
Would you like a single-malt to go with your haggis, Ray?
Desertphile
<rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2010-06-01 10:29:42 -0700, "Otto" <Ot...@ottolovesrisotto.org> said:
>
> > "Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in news message
> > news:7tj8v5ttb94il4l6t...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 18 May 2010 20:06:49 -0400, Pastor D
> >> <pas...@christschurch.mega> wrote:
> >>
> >>> There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
> >>> cause pain and suffering in other creatures.
> >> No: that's just the result, not the intent. Evolution has no mind
> >> to intend actions.
> > This is because you see evolution as the result of a mechanical process
> > without idea or intention behind it.
I do not "see" evolution that way: evolution is that way, even if
I did not exist.
> Which, lacking evidence to the contrary, is the only reasonable way to
> interpret it. Unless, of course you're speaking other than
> scientifically, in which case why bother mentioning it here?
Indeed. Also, since evolution includes among other things,
semi-rando mutations and natural selection, speaking of "intent"
makes no sense and it is contrary to reason and observation.
> You keep indulging in these little drive-by postings but never stay
> long enough to discuss your point of view. If it's because you don't
> care about it enough to defend your position then I have to wonder why
> you offer it as often as you do?
His gods give him time share points in heaven when he behaves that
way.
> RLC
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Subject: Evolution is pro-Atheism (sic)
In the exact same sense that sunlight is pro-atheism (note correct
spelling).
snex
> On May 21, 2:10�pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 5:06�pm, Pastor D <past...@christschurch.mega> wrote:
>
> > > There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
> > > cause pain and suffering in other creatures. The Ebola virus is very
> > > good at liquefying human organs. It causes massive bleeding and death.
> > > The tapeworm has hooks that allow it to attach to the walls of the
> > > intestine and remain there as a parasite. The Plasmodium vivax protozoan
> > > lives in the Anopheles mosquito for a while before transferring by a
> > > mosquito bite to a human. There it causes malaria, a recurring disease
> > > that produces fever and sometimes death. There are many other examples.
>
> > > "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
> > > clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
> > > eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
> > > (Romans 1:20)
>
> > Got objective, verifiable evidence that a god - *any* god - actually
> > exists?
>
> > No?
>
> > Then I believe I'll remain an atheist, thanks.
>
> These comments assume rightly that the evolutionary interpretation of
> evidence presents no evidence of God.
so lets assume that evolution was never discovered or even heard of.
when you ask me where life came from, i just say "i dunno. neither do
you."
now where is your evidence of any gods?
<snip>
Reddfrogg
> On May 21, 2:10�pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 5:06�pm, Pastor D <past...@christschurch.mega> wrote:
>
> > > There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
> > > cause pain and suffering in other creatures. The Ebola virus is very
> > > good at liquefying human organs. It causes massive bleeding and death.
> > > The tapeworm has hooks that allow it to attach to the walls of the
> > > intestine and remain there as a parasite. The Plasmodium vivax protozoan
> > > lives in the Anopheles mosquito for a while before transferring by a
> > > mosquito bite to a human. There it causes malaria, a recurring disease
> > > that produces fever and sometimes death. There are many other examples.
>
> > > "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
> > > clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
> > > eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
> > > (Romans 1:20)
>
> > Got objective, verifiable evidence that a god - *any* god - actually
> > exists?
>
> > No?
>
> > Then I believe I'll remain an atheist, thanks.
>
> These comments assume rightly that the evolutionary interpretation of
> evidence presents no evidence of God.
Evolution doesn't provide evidence of God, but it doesn't provide
evidence that there is no God either. That is where you make your
mistake.
>We could only wonder why
> "Christians" accept the interpretation (and not a theistic
> interpretation of the same evidence)?
Because an honest and scientific "theistic" interpretation (ie, one
where on believes that God exists) still indicates that life
evolved. Remember, creationism is not an interpretation of the
"same evidence" It's a pre-conceived belief, that is held despite the
evidence.
There's no one one can observe the evidence, interpret it honestly,
and in a scientific manner, and come up with a creationist
conclusion. That's not to say the evidence requires one to reject a
belief in God. It's simply not possible to conclude for creationism
from the evidence.
>When queried one will find that
> these so called "Christians" are not real Christians; rejecting
> miracles, Divinity of Christ, accepting Atheist assumptions and
> arguments about reality and the Bible.
Of course, this is false. Science is not an "atheist assumption".
>
> Objective fact: real Atheists and real Christians completely disagree
> concerning reality and the Bible.
Ray, you have to remember that your own personal and bizarre fantasies
are not "objective fact".
DJT
Ray Martinez
And that answer presupposes eternal existence of matter (= Atheism).
> neither do
> you."
>
> now where is your evidence of any gods?
>
> <snip>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Genesis 1 & 2.
Western civilization, excluding the 150 year interruption of
Darwinism, has always accepted and recognized that the Textual
evidence and a nature that exhibits the concept of design and
organized complexity, proves the existence of Jehovah.
Snex: I've always wanted to tell you that I really enjoy reading the
debates that you and other Atheists engage in from time to time. You
regularly experience the fact that your brothers are brazen liars.
They distort and evade everything you say. The same leaves one
wondering why you are an Atheist? Is it because your parents were
Atheists? Are you unable to disentangle yourself from the emotional
attachment?
Ray
aganunitsi
So all of western civilization recognized the Textual evidence of
Jehovah, even when so much of it was busy worshiping other Gods?
snex
no it doesnt, it doesnt presuppose anything at all. you are claiming
to have an answer to the question "where did life (or if you prefer,
everything) come from?" it is not enough to just point at a book and
say it has the answer. you have to show WHY that answer is supposed to
be correct. you have to show how somebody can arrive at that answer by
doing the work independently. theists simply cannot do this. if all
copies of the bible and all memories of it were wiped out tomorrow,
christianity would not reappear, because one cannot be reasoned into
christianity. the same cannot be said about science. if all knowledge
of evolution were wiped out tomorrow, it would eventually be
rediscovered because it is true and independently verifiable by
anybody who just looks.
>
> > neither do
> > you."
>
> > now where is your evidence of any gods?
>
> > <snip>- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Genesis 1 & 2.
that is no more evidence of gods than the stories about zeus and
athena.
>
> Western civilization, excluding the 150 year interruption of
> Darwinism, has always accepted and recognized that the Textual
> evidence and a nature that exhibits the concept of design and
> organized complexity, proves the existence of Jehovah.
the same can be said about bleeding and applying leeches as medicine.
tradition is not an argument.
>
> Snex: I've always wanted to tell you that I really enjoy reading the
> debates that you and other Atheists engage in from time to time. You
> regularly experience the fact that your brothers are brazen liars.
> They distort and evade everything you say. The same leaves one
> wondering why you are an Atheist? Is it because your parents were
> Atheists? Are you unable to disentangle yourself from the emotional
> attachment?
>
> Ray
my parents are catholics, and i am an atheist because i can identify
bullshit arguments. all arguments offered in favor of theism are
bullshit arguments. you simply cannot get to theism starting from
reasonably acceptable first principles. here are some examples of
first principles that i consider reasonably acceptable: 1) logic is a
valid way to determine true statements from other known true
statements. 2) i can exist and observe the world, and my observations
are mostly correct. 3) when my observations are not correct, there is
some way of correcting them or determining that they were incorrect
and therefore i should discard them.
see if you can arrive at a conclusion of theism from using those 3
principles. you cant do it. you have never witnessed any of the
miracle claims described by the bible, you only witness the text
claiming they happened. but lots of texts say lots of things happened,
and you disbelieve in most of them. even if somebody were to show you
that reports of levitating hindu swamis were reliable, you would not
believe it until you saw them doing it yourself and tested it somehow.
why? because people simply dont levitate. we know that the world does
not work that way. and we also know that virgins dont give birth and
that men dont rise from the dead. until i SEE it, pointing at a book
does not make your case. that is the advantage of science. when
scientists claim something that seems absurd because we do not
experience it, they prove it by SHOWING it. until you show me an
actual miracle performed by your god, you just have nothing but empty
claims.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Translation: Only those Christians who share my personal delusions are
real Christians. Therefore it is obvious that real Christians disagree
with everyone else concerning reality, since real Christians are, by
definition, completely out of touch with it.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Otto" <Ot...@ottolovesrisotto.org> wrote in message
news:hu3g1v$vm0$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> "Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in news message
> news:7tj8v5ttb94il4l6t...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 20:06:49 -0400, Pastor D
>> <pas...@christschurch.mega> wrote:
>>
>>> There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
>>> cause pain and suffering in other creatures.
>>
>> No: that's just the result, not the intent. Evolution has no mind
>> to intend actions.
>
> This is because you see evolution as the result of a mechanical process
> without idea or intention behind it.
>
> Otto
That's because there is no real and valid evidence to support such an
ignorant claim.
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> so lets assume that evolution was never discovered or even heard of.
>> when you ask me where life came from, i just say "i dunno.
>
>And that answer presupposes eternal existence of matter (= Atheism).
Does it? Explain.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Snex: you have evaded the most important point made in my first
rebuttal: the fact that your Atheist brothers, when engaged in debate
with you, lie to your face by intentionally distorting and evading
what you actually say. I have seen them do it to you on many
occasions. This is WHY we are anti-evolutionists: Atheists cannot be
trusted; they will lie to your face.
Of course this second rebuttal places you in a bad position, Snex. I
wouldn't be surprised if you did not respond. But the way Atheists
treat you in debate (lie to your face) dictates that they do the same
to Theists.
Ray
Devils Advocaat
Since the theory of evolution doesn't actually address the origin of
life your claim that evolution is pro-atheism isn't exactly true, and
you know it.
By the way, when is your evolution theory refuting publication going
to see the light of day?
And when are you going to present evidence to support your assertion
that new species are formed via "creation ex materia (from a clay-like
ground)"?
Kermit
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 5:06�pm, Pastor D <past...@christschurch.mega> wrote:
>
> > > There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
> > > cause pain and suffering in other creatures. The Ebola virus is very
> > > good at liquefying human organs. It causes massive bleeding and death.
> > > The tapeworm has hooks that allow it to attach to the walls of the
> > > intestine and remain there as a parasite. The Plasmodium vivax protozoan
> > > lives in the Anopheles mosquito for a while before transferring by a
> > > mosquito bite to a human. There it causes malaria, a recurring disease
> > > that produces fever and sometimes death. There are many other examples.
>
> > > "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
> > > clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
> > > eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
> > > (Romans 1:20)
>
> > Got objective, verifiable evidence that a god - *any* god - actually
> > exists?
>
> > No?
>
> > Then I believe I'll remain an atheist, thanks.
>
> These comments assume rightly that the evolutionary interpretation of
> evidence presents no evidence of God. We could only wonder why
> "Christians" accept the interpretation (and not a theistic
> interpretation of the same evidence)?
Hi, Ray!
Remind me again of the theistic interpretation for rain.
> When queried one will find that
> these so called "Christians" are not real Christians; rejecting
> miracles, Divinity of Christ, accepting Atheist assumptions and
> arguments about reality and the Bible.
I am an atheist, and I think the sun rises in the East. What is your
alternative take on this?
>
> Objective fact: real Atheists and real Christians completely disagree
> concerning reality and the Bible.
I missed the part where you established that you are privileged to
determine whether or not other people are Christian, when they say
they are.
> Ray
Kermit
Bill
You've got that one right, Ray, even if your definition of "real" is a
bit idiosyncratic. There are people who manage to hold both scientific
and Christian positions simultaneously, but it requires a lot of
compartmentalization. Although there are certainly individual
exceptions, the more accomplished a scientist someone is, the less
likely they are to be religious in any but the vaguest sense.
>
> Ray
cassandra
Actually, you both have that one wrong.
> even if your definition of "real" is a
> bit idiosyncratic. There are people who manage to hold both scientific
> and Christian positions simultaneously, but it requires a lot of
> compartmentalization. Although there are certainly individual
> exceptions, the more accomplished a scientist someone is, the less
> likely they are to be religious in any but the vaguest sense.
You conflate religion and Christianity. They are not the same,
especially in this context. You also seem to have a very arbitrary
and rigid understanding of both.
Reddfrogg
> On Jun 1, 12:41�pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > so lets assume that evolution was never discovered or even heard of.
> > when you ask me where life came from, i just say "i dunno.
>
> And that answer presupposes eternal existence of matter (= Atheism).
How is "eternal existence of matter" the same as atheism?
>
> > neither do
> > you."
>
> > now where is your evidence of any gods?
>
> > <snip>- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Genesis 1 & 2.
That's no more evidence of gods than the Norse Eddias are.
>
> Western civilization, excluding the 150 year interruption of
> Darwinism, has always accepted and recognized that the Textual
> evidence and a nature that exhibits the concept of design and
> organized complexity, proves the existence of Jehovah.
No. "Textual" evidence is not considered to be physical evidence of
anything. As for your assertion about nature exhibiting "the concept
of design", that's an assumption, not evidence. "Organized
complexity" can be, and often is produced by natural processes, so
it's not evidence of the existence of any god, much less one
particular one.
snip rest.
DJT
snex
theists also lie to my face in debates. people in general lie. i didnt
arrive at atheism because another atheist told me to. but when it
comes to theism, the only source is what other people say.
snex
> On Jun 1, 2:35�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Jun 1, 12:41�pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > Darwinism, has always accepted and recognized that the Textual
> > evidence and a nature that exhibits the concept of design and
> > organized complexity, proves the existence of Jehovah.
>
> No. �"Textual" evidence is not considered to be physical evidence of
> anything.
then one has to wonder just why YOU call yourself a christian. the
only "evidence" of christianity is the bible.
<snip>
Otto
news:bwgNn.88454$_84....@newsfe18.iad...
Who's ignorant ?
Do you think you have "real and valid evidence" to support the opposite
claim ?
Otto
Otto
news:2010060110461216807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
> On 2010-06-01 10:29:42 -0700, "Otto" <Ot...@ottolovesrisotto.org> said:
>
>> "Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in news message
>> news:7tj8v5ttb94il4l6t...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 20:06:49 -0400, Pastor D
>>> <pas...@christschurch.mega> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
>>>> cause pain and suffering in other creatures.
>>>
>>> No: that's just the result, not the intent. Evolution has no mind
>>> to intend actions.
>>
>> This is because you see evolution as the result of a mechanical process
>> without idea or intention behind it.
>
> Which, lacking evidence to the contrary, is the only reasonable way to
> interpret it. Unless, of course you're speaking other than scientifically,
> in which case why bother mentioning it here?
I disagree. Why is it "the only reasonable way" ? There is no evidence
either *for* it. His statement is based on nothing, unless it's convential
"truth".
>
> You keep indulging in these little drive-by postings but never stay long
> enough to discuss your point of view. If it's because you don't care about
> it enough to defend your position then I have to wonder why you offer it
> as often as you do?
I'm forced to go to public libraries, I have neither computer nor internet
connection. What makes you say firstly that I don't defend my position, and
secondly that I don't care enough about it ? It's just a practical problem,
and a problem of time I am able to put into this.
Otto
Otto
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 10:46:12 -0700, Robert Camp
> <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-06-01 10:29:42 -0700, "Otto" <Ot...@ottolovesrisotto.org> said:
>>
>> > "Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in news message
>> > news:7tj8v5ttb94il4l6t...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 18 May 2010 20:06:49 -0400, Pastor D
>> >> <pas...@christschurch.mega> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
>> >>> cause pain and suffering in other creatures.
>
>> >> No: that's just the result, not the intent. Evolution has no mind
>> >> to intend actions.
>
>> > This is because you see evolution as the result of a mechanical process
>> > without idea or intention behind it.
>
> I do not "see" evolution that way: evolution is that way, even if
> I did not exist.
You don't see it that way ? So, who or what is it which is posting ? Is it
evolution itself ? No, of course not, it's you.
>
>> Which, lacking evidence to the contrary, is the only reasonable way to
>> interpret it. Unless, of course you're speaking other than
>> scientifically, in which case why bother mentioning it here?
>
> Indeed. Also, since evolution includes among other things,
> semi-rando mutations and natural selection, speaking of "intent"
> makes no sense and it is contrary to reason and observation.
So you object to speak of "intent" ? Why ? Is there any proof that "intent"
(as something emanating from conscious beings as opposed to matter) has not
and never has had anything to do with the existence of life and where it is
heading ?
Otto
>
>> You keep indulging in these little drive-by postings but never stay
>> long enough to discuss your point of view. If it's because you don't
>> care about it enough to defend your position then I have to wonder why
>> you offer it as often as you do?
>
> His gods give him time share points in heaven when he behaves that
> way.
My "Gods" have nothing to do with it.
The simple fact is, you are unable to actually back up that statement of
yours to which I replied. Could you please reply directly to me rather than
in a reply to someone else's post, BTW ? Thanks.
Otto
Robert Camp
> "Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> wrote in news message
> news:2010060110461216807-robertlcamp@hotmailcom...
>> On 2010-06-01 10:29:42 -0700, "Otto" <Ot...@ottolovesrisotto.org> said:
>>
>>> "Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in news message
>>> news:7tj8v5ttb94il4l6t...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 20:06:49 -0400, Pastor D
>>>> <pas...@christschurch.mega> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
>>>>> cause pain and suffering in other creatures.
>>>>
>>>> No: that's just the result, not the intent. Evolution has no mind
>>>> to intend actions.
>>>
>>> This is because you see evolution as the result of a mechanical process
>>> without idea or intention behind it.
>>
>> Which, lacking evidence to the contrary, is the only reasonable way to
>> interpret it. Unless, of course you're speaking other than scientifically,
>> in which case why bother mentioning it here?
>
> I disagree. Why is it "the only reasonable way" ? There is no evidence
> either *for* it. His statement is based on nothing, unless it's convential
> "truth".
It's the only reasonable way because, as I said, there is no evidence
to the contrary (i.e., evidence that there is something personal or
intentional involved in evolution). His statement is based on exactly
that fact. If you want to all it "conventional," that's fine, but at
least have the awareness to recognize how any particular "truth" might
get to the point of being considered conventional.
In any case, the point here is that this isn't just a matter of your
interpretation vs. someone else's. Observing that there is nothing
purposeful behind evolution is not an interpretation, it's a default
position that can only be changed by data which demonstrate otherwise.
Thus the challenge is for you to present some observation(s) that you
think qualify as evidence for the existence of intentional intervention
in evolution.
>> You keep indulging in these little drive-by postings but never stay long
>> enough to discuss your point of view. If it's because you don't care about
>> it enough to defend your position then I have to wonder why you offer it
>> as often as you do?
>
> I'm forced to go to public libraries, I have neither computer nor internet
> connection. What makes you say firstly that I don't defend my position, and
> secondly that I don't care enough about it ? It's just a practical problem,
> and a problem of time I am able to put into this.
You've posted similar sentiments many times but never responded to
replies. So as far as I've been able to tell you've been unwilling to
defend your position and I was asking why this might be. I apologize
for appearing to jump to conclusions, your situation is clearly one
that makes it more difficult for you to spend the time answering a lot
of questions. But don't you think it might be worth spending some of
what little time you have expanding upon your position just a bit,
rather than making assertions that are left unsupported?
RLC
Mike Lyle
come in handy when you want to muddy the waters for the unsophisticated.
You presumably have better reason than that to entertain the idea of a
conscious being or beings of the kind you refer to..?
[...]
--
Mike.
JTEM
cassandra <cassandra99...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Objective fact: real Atheists and real Christians
> > completely disagree concerning reality and the Bible.
>
> Not even close.
It isn't entirely false. The differences between the
atheistic view of the universe and the traditional
Christian view are enormous.
cassandra
Please describe what you mean by "atheistic view", "traditional
Christian view", and what understand to be a "contemporary Christian
view", with particular attention to those elements of each that you
feel are relevant to the topic at hand. Assuming of course that you
believe your comments are relevant to the topic at hand, and that you
agree on what the topic at hand actually is.
Ray Martinez
ToE also rules out Deism. Christians are, of course, Theists.
Ray
> By the way, when is your evolution theory refuting publication going
> to see the light of day?
>
> And when are you going to present evidence to support your assertion
> that new species are formed via "creation ex materia (from a clay-like
> ground)"?- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:35:58 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
>
> >> so lets assume that evolution was never discovered or even heard of.
> >> when you ask me where life came from, i just say "i dunno.
>
> >And that answer presupposes eternal existence of matter (= Atheism).
>
> Does it? Explain.
By saying "don't know where life came or originated from" is
equivalent to saying that matter has always existed. ToE says matter
somehow caused life. Matter is then assumed to have had eternal
existence because no God exists to have caused its existence (=
Atheism ideology).
If you disagree, then how does the Atheist explain the origin of
matter?
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Doe: "Even though there is no evidence of natural selection or
evolution I accept and support Darwin's theory."
By your reasoning, Kermit, you must accept the fact that John Doe is a
real Darwinist. John Doe says so, which, according to your logic, is
the only criteria needed to establish membership.
Ray
snex
> On Jun 1, 6:36 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:35:58 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> so lets assume that evolution was never discovered or even heard of.
> > >> when you ask me where life came from, i just say "i dunno.
>
> > >And that answer presupposes eternal existence of matter (= Atheism).
>
> > Does it? Explain.
>
> By saying "don't know where life came or originated from" is
> equivalent to saying that matter has always existed.
no, it isnt. its saying you dont know the answer. goofball. claiming
to know the answer when you dont is lying, and that is what christians
do.
> ToE says matter
> somehow caused life. Matter is then assumed to have had eternal
> existence because no God exists to have caused its existence (=
> Atheism ideology).
>
> If you disagree, then how does the Atheist explain the origin of
> matter?
atheists dont need to explain the origin of anything. matter is here.
we see it, we interact with it. nobody sees god or interacts with god,
so it is the theist's job to do the explaining.
Ray Martinez
I agree: scientists that receive the most recognition are Atheist. And
before the rise of Darwinism, just the opposite was true. Everything
depends on who controls the microphone and the reigns of power. The
real question is: what really caused Atheists to gain power and
control of the microphone?
Theist scholars have answered this question. The answer evokes instant
rage comparable to a volcano.
Ray
cassandra
<snip to point>
> The
> real question is: what really caused Atheists to gain power and
> control of the microphone?
God did it?
Desertphile
wrote:
There is not such a thing as a "atheistic view of the universe."
As for "traditional Christian views," there's dozens of them.
Dana Tweedy
> On Jun 1, 6:36 pm, raven1<quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:35:58 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> so lets assume that evolution was never discovered or even heard of.
>>>> when you ask me where life came from, i just say "i dunno.
>>
>>> And that answer presupposes eternal existence of matter (= Atheism).
>>
>> Does it? Explain.
>
> By saying "don't know where life came or originated from" is
> equivalent to saying that matter has always existed.
Actually, it's just saying "I don't know". Not knowing is not
equivalent to saying it always existed.
> ToE says matter
> somehow caused life.
Actually, the theory of evolution doesn't say how life was caused.
Abiogenesis is the study of how life began. The "somehow" involves
chemistry, another field of study.
> Matter is then assumed to have had eternal
> existence because no God exists to have caused its existence (=
> Atheism ideology).
If you wish to establish, in a scientific manner, that God caused
everything to exist, you need to show some evidence to support your
position.
If you want to believe that God caused everything to exist, that's a
religious belief.
>
> If you disagree, then how does the Atheist explain the origin of
> matter?
Atheists, like anyone else, can explain the origin of matter by pointing
out the Big Bang theory.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Actually, it does not. The theory of evolution simply explains the
evidence. How one cares to square one's religious beliefs with the
findings of science is up to the individual.
> Christians are, of course, Theists.
So are deists, for that matter. Deism is a form of theism.
DJT
Caranx latus
As an atheist myself, Ray, I don't explain the origin of matter. I
leave that as an exercise for other people who are inclined to study
the matter. I neither know nor care where matter came from.
Dana Tweedy
On the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence that supports natural
selection, and evolution.
>
> By your reasoning, Kermit, you must accept the fact that John Doe is a
> real Darwinist.
Actually, it would appear that your "John Doe" is just misinformed. If
he thinks there is no evidence for natural selection, or evolution, he's
just wrong.
I'm not sure what a "real Darwinist" would be, but it appears that
your hypothetical is missing not only the point, but a great deal of
evidence.
However, accepting a scientific theory is a matter of evidence.
Believing a religious position is a matter of faith. The comparison is
not valid.
> John Doe says so, which, according to your logic, is
> the only criteria needed to establish membership.
Here one sees why Ray fails basic logic. Trying to compare acceptance
of a scientific theory, which is based on evidence, and belief in a
religious tenet, which is held on faith alone is obviously invalid.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
There's no evidence that scientists who are atheist receive more
"recognition" than those who are not. No scientific prize committee
I'm aware of has a religious test for their awards.
> And
> before the rise of Darwinism, just the opposite was true.
Of course, this is not true.
> Everything
> depends on who controls the microphone and the reigns of power.
Not in science. What matters is who has the best explanation for the
evidence.
> The
> real question is: what really caused Atheists to gain power and
> control of the microphone?
Begging the question. Atheists don't have control of the 'microphone'.
>
> Theist scholars have answered this question.
Ray, the "question" is bogus, and whatever made up "answer" you have is
equally bogus.
> The answer evokes instant
> rage comparable to a volcano.
If laughter is the same as rage, perhaps.
DJT
raven1
Really? What did they say the answer is?
raven1
How do you figure? The ToE would appear to be ideally suited for the
non-intervening God of Deism: God set life in motion and let it evolve
from there.
>Christians are, of course, Theists.
Was this matter in dispute?
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jun 1, 6:36�pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:35:58 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> so lets assume that evolution was never discovered or even heard of.
>> >> when you ask me where life came from, i just say "i dunno.
>>
>> >And that answer presupposes eternal existence of matter (= Atheism).
>>
>> Does it? Explain.
>
>By saying "don't know where life came or originated from" is
>equivalent to saying that matter has always existed.
What a bizarre non sequitur. The statement "I don't know where life
cam or originated from" somehow equates to "I know that matter has
always existed"? In what universe, Ray?
>ToE says matter
>somehow caused life.
The ToE says nothing about the origin of life one way or another, Ray,
it describes how it diversified since then. You already know this. Why
do you keep repeating assertions that you know to be false?
>Matter is then assumed to have had eternal
>existence because no God exists to have caused its existence (=
>Atheism ideology).
Outside of a few "steady state" cranks, I doubt you'll find anyone who
makes such a claim to the eternal existence of matter, whether atheist
or theist.
>If you disagree, then how does the Atheist explain the origin of
>matter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Bill
> On Jun 2, 10:15 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > even if your definition of "real" is a
> > bit idiosyncratic. There are people who manage to hold both scientific
> > and Christian positions simultaneously, but it requires a lot of
> > compartmentalization. Although there are certainly individual
> > exceptions, the more accomplished a scientist someone is, the less
> > likely they are to be religious in any but the vaguest sense.
>
> especially in this context.
I have noticed that there are other religions then Christianity. In
fact I live in a majority Muslim country (Indonesia) and run projects
in a majority Buddhist country (Cambodia). The majority of vocally
religious folks on TO are Christians, though, so it's easy to speak
loosely. If by "especially in this context" you mean, in the context
of the compatibility of science and religion, then I disagree with
you. Non-Christian religions have the same problems with science as
Christian ones. (Hackles up yet?).
�>You also seem to have a very arbitrary
> and rigid understanding of both.
I don't know about arbitrary and rigid, but I'll explain what I mean.
Religion is the belief that there is an invisible Person (or persons)
who have great power to affect our lives and whose attitude to us can
be affected by our prayers and our deeds. (I'm sure the hackles are up
now). But, you say, that's not true of all religions, or even of all
forms of Christianity. Many people cite Buddhism as a counterexample,
even claiming that it's basically a philosophy of life and that Buddha
is not only not a God but may not even have believed in God. Sure,
that is what a professional Buddhist theologian might tell you. But
the actual practice of the huge majority of Buddhists involves, among
other things, asking Buddha to help them recover from illness, make
money, find a spouse for their kids, etc. Similarly, you'll find
Christian theologians who will pooh-pooh the "primitive
anthropromorphic image of God" and claim that, of course, God is an
omniscient/omnipotent principle, nothing like an old man with a beard.
But then they'll go to church and remind the omniscient principle of
the universe that Mrs. Jones is suffereing from renal failure and that
there's a war going on somewhere and that the farmers need rain. My
point is that regardless of what the theologians of any particular
faith say, the practice of the vast majority of religious people
implies a belief that God is an invisible person of great power whom
you can influence by prayers and good deeds. These beliefs are founded
on the authority of tradition and sacred books (and don't think that a
Buddhist doesn't hold the same reverence for the words of the sutras
that a muslim holds for the Koran or a fundamentalist Christian for
the Bible).
Science is based on (experiaunce and none auctoritee) as the Wife of
Bath would say. It conflicts with all those religions in two ways.
First, most religions, except when carefully held in check by cautious
theologians, make claims about the world which are patently false,
miracles, global floods, answered prayers, golden tablets bearing the
second testament of Jesus Christ. Those claims are either false, or
carefully devised to be unfalsifiable. Second, the constant practice
of science creates in the scientists an ingrained anti-
authoritarianism that makes religion hard to swallow. Spend every day
for 20 or 30 years trying to figure out why your results might not
mean what you want them to mean, why you might be wrong, what the
reviewers of a paper you write might find weak in your argument, and
then try to suspend critical judgment when you read about the raising
of Lazarus or hear people promise you an eternity in heaven.
Religion is also part of a huge and beautiful culture, be it
Christianity and the St. Matthew Passion or Buddhism and Angor Wat.
Lots of what is beautiful and valuable in most cultures is connected
to religion. So it's not easy to blow it off, even as a scientist. And
so you'll find lots of smart people finding ways to try to harmonize
religion and a realistic view of the world. Often that involves making
God such an abstraction that He no longer conflicts with anything
observable. You can take your wonder at the size and intelligibility
of the universe and call that God if you want. But all that that God
has in common with the practice of 99.999% of religious people is the
word. A sort of general purpose Spinozan Deus sive Natura doesn't
conflict with science at all. That what I meant above by "not
religious in any but the vaguest sense."
You were right about one thing, though, Cassandra, they should have
left that wooden horse on the beach - but then, nobody ever listens to
you.
Desertphile
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The real question is: what really caused Atheists (sic)
> to gain power and control of the microphone?
They didn't. You cult fruitcakes still run the world.
Ernest Major
<7c12a3b5-e05f-4fab...@q23g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> writes
>
>cassandra <cassandra99...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Objective fact: real Atheists and real Christians
>> > completely disagree concerning reality and the Bible.
>>
But Ray seems to agree with the atheists that the earth orbits the sun,
and disagree with that "real Christian" Tony Pagano.
>> Not even close.
>
>It isn't entirely false. The differences between the
>atheistic view of the universe and the traditional
>Christian view are enormous.
>
Completely disagree is a long way beyond enormous differences. Ray
presumably agrees with atheists that Obama is the President of the
United States, but disagrees with the considerable proportion of
Christians (I don't think he counts most of them as real Christians) who
think that he isn't.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<4596af5b-c3b0-4d1e...@z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>> so lets assume that evolution was never discovered or even heard of.
>> when you ask me where life came from, i just say "i dunno.
>
>And that answer presupposes eternal existence of matter (= Atheism).
It doesn't. I don't know where life came from. (Spontaneous abiogenesis
seems a decent working hypothesis.) I do not presuppose the eternal
existence of matter. (I'm agnostic on that point - the evidence says
that those parts of the universe casually connected with the
contemporary Earth were once very much denser, very much smaller and
very much hotter, but our models do not allow to say what was there
before that point, if anything was there before that point, or even if
there was a before.)
But perhaps Ray will conclude that I'm a Christian.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<aa6f6e16-6926-422a...@k17g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
Perhaps the Ray Martinez Theory of Evolution rules out Deism, but that
doesn't apply to the scientific theory of evolution. The scientific
theory of evolution is independent of the whether or not the universe
was created, or whether life originated by spontaneous abiogenesis,
supernatural abiogenesis, or some other process.
>
>> By the way, when is your evolution theory refuting publication going
>> to see the light of day?
>>
>> And when are you going to present evidence to support your assertion
>> that new species are formed via "creation ex materia (from a clay-like
>> ground)"?- Hide quoted text -
And explain the origin of the tetraploid cytotype of Primula kewensis,
inter alia.
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<90b43388-21f2-420d...@m4g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> writes
>> When queried one will find that
>> these so called "Christians" are not real Christians; rejecting
>> miracles, Divinity of Christ, accepting Atheist assumptions and
>> arguments about reality and the Bible.
>
>alternative take on this?
No, atheist heliocentrists think that the horizon sinks towards the east
- it's only true Christian Paganists who think that the sun rises.
:-)
Ray, as far as I can tell, is an atheist heliocentrist.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Contradiction: You declare yourself an Atheist THEN you declare
yourself to be an Agnostic ("I neither know nor care where matter came
from").
Atheism has always taken a clear position on the origin of matter.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Church disagrees: our faith is based on evidence and facts.
Anyone who claims membership in a group and then says that the agenda
is not based on claims of fact, the same is known as a "wolf in sheeps
clothing" or a "double agent."
Ray
raven1
Cite?
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
They are suffering a punishment from God----that's why the Atheism
agenda has succeeded in America and England. Since the death of
Christ, God does not kill by lightning or the earth opening up. Now He
sends strong delusion. This explains how "Christians" could implement
the Atheism agenda. This explains how a "Christian" Judge (like Judge
Jones) could accept an award by an Atheist organization for his Dover
decision and not see the insult----and worst of all: his status among
the damned. God kills by delusion because it is not final. If some
real Christian were to fast and pray for their soul then God could
remove the delusion.
Ray
Ray Martinez
The objective position of ToE is Atheism. Evolution is not a creation
theory.
> The ToE would appear to be ideally suited for the
> non-intervening God of Deism: God set life in motion and let it evolve
> from there.
>
Where is the Book of Deism?
How does ToE support the work of Diety (Deism)?
Evidence?
> >Christians are, of course, Theists.
>
> Was this matter in dispute?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dana Tweedy thinks Theism and Deism are synonyms. He refuses to
acknowledge a stark difference and he refuses to acknowledge what that
difference is because he cannot explain how Theists (Christians) could
support Deism, which is **asserted** to be compatible with ToE. Of
course ToE is pro-Atheism in its objective position. "Christian"
evolutionists are morons, buffoons.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 11:46:30 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> >On Jun 1, 6:36 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:35:58 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> so lets assume that evolution was never discovered or even heard of.
> >> >> when you ask me where life came from, i just say "i dunno.
>
> >> >And that answer presupposes eternal existence of matter (= Atheism).
>
> >> Does it? Explain.
>
> >By saying "don't know where life came or originated from" is
> >equivalent to saying that matter has always existed.
>
> What a bizarre non sequitur. The statement "I don't know where life
> cam or originated from" somehow equates to "I know that matter has
> always existed"? In what universe, Ray?
>
> >ToE says matter
> >somehow caused life.
>
> The ToE says nothing about the origin of life one way or another, Ray,
> it describes how it diversified since then. You already know this. Why
> do you keep repeating assertions that you know to be false?
>
> >Matter is then assumed to have had eternal
> >existence because no God exists to have caused its existence (=
> >Atheism ideology).
>
> Outside of a few "steady state" cranks, I doubt you'll find anyone who
> makes such a claim to the eternal existence of matter, whether atheist
> or theist.
>
Carl Sagan is not considered a crank.
> >If you disagree, then how does the Atheist explain the origin of
> >matter?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
The Big Bang (something out of nothing) is EXACTLY what the Bible
says: God spoke the universe into existence out of nothing.
The real position of Atheism is Saganism.
Ray
aganunitsi
Everyone dies, so what the hell does "God kills by delusion" mean? He
kills you sooner than he would otherwise? But it isn't final... a
temporary death? Are you saying that we can fast and pray in
Purgatory, or something?
Or are you simply using the wrong word again and doing a terrible job
of explaining a theory that you haven't even put together yet? You
don't do off-the-cuff well.
Dana Tweedy
He's saying he doesn't care about where matter comes from. How is that
a contradiction from atheism?
>
> Atheism has always taken a clear position on the origin of matter.
Such as?
DJT
Ernest Major
<a3da4e27-dc8a-47d9...@u3g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
If you're going to define Atheism in that manner you're going to have to
give up accusing people of being Atheists. There may be as few as zero
Atheists participating in talk.origins.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<a3c52bbe-4ccf-4700...@r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
In 1908 relativity deniers were not cranks; in 2008 they were. Even if
Carl Sagan made such a claim (evidence would not go amiss) that doesn't
refute that claim that current steady state advocates are cranks.
>
>> >If you disagree, then how does the Atheist explain the origin of
>> >matter?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
>
>The Big Bang (something out of nothing) is EXACTLY what the Bible
>says: God spoke the universe into existence out of nothing.
>
>The real position of Atheism is Saganism.
Fide WIkipedia, Sagan was a self-professed agnostic. Furthermore it
appears that Sagan accepted Big Bang cosmology.
>
>Ray
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Caranx latus
> On Jun 3, 2:19 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 2:46 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 6:36 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:35:58 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> > > > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> so lets assume that evolution was never discovered or even heard of.
> > > > >> when you ask me where life came from, i just say "i dunno.
>
> > > > >And that answer presupposes eternal existence of matter (= Atheism).
>
> > > > Does it? Explain.
>
> > > By saying "don't know where life came or originated from" is
> > > equivalent to saying that matter has always existed. ToE says matter
> > > somehow caused life. Matter is then assumed to have had eternal
> > > existence because no God exists to have caused its existence (=
> > > Atheism ideology).
>
> > > If you disagree, then how does the Atheist explain the origin of
> > > matter?
>
> > As an atheist myself, Ray, I don't explain the origin of matter. I
> > leave that as an exercise for other people who are inclined to study
> > the matter. I neither know nor care where matter came from.
>
> yourself to be an Agnostic ("I neither know nor care where matter came
> from").
>
> Atheism has always taken a clear position on the origin of matter.
Okay, I get it, Ray. You don't know what atheism is, not that that
hasn't been clear all along.
Atheism is one thing and one thing only: a lack of a belief in the
existence of any gods. That's it, Ray. Do you see the "theism" part of
the word? I *know* that you know what that means. That's all that
atheism has to do with. Nothing. Else.
Contrary to your fantasies, atheism is not some grand all-encompassing
world view. It's a simple statement regarding a lack of a belief in
the existence of gods.
Dana Tweedy
And Carl Sagan never claimed that matter was always here. He accepted
the Big Bang theory.
>
>>> If you disagree, then how does the Atheist explain the origin of
>>> matter?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
>
> The Big Bang (something out of nothing) is EXACTLY what the Bible
> says: God spoke the universe into existence out of nothing.
Odd then that the vast majority of atheists, as well as other educated
persons, accept the Big Bang theory. Your earlier claim was that
atheists would never accept anything that could potentially suggest the
existence of God.
Care to admit you were wrong?
>
> The real position of Atheism is Saganism.
What is "Saganism"? Carl Sagan accepted the idea of the Big Bang.
Perhaps you meant Hoyle?
DJT
haiku jones
We *are* talking about this Carl Sagan, correct?:
We gaze across billions of light-years of space to view
the Universe shortly after the Big Bang, and plumb the
fine structure of matter. (Pale Blue Dot)
>
> > >If you disagree, then how does the Atheist explain the origin of
> > >matter?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
>
> The Big Bang (something out of nothing) is EXACTLY what the Bible
> says: God spoke the universe into existence out of nothing.
And the Big Bang (something out of nothing) is EXACTLY what
the Maori say that Io did when he created Ranginui and
Papatuanuku, Sky Father and Earth Mother.
Ray's inexorable logic has convinced me to become
a practicing Ioist. If the Maori will have me, that is.
Dana Tweedy
No, it's not. The "objective position" of any scientific theory makes
no mention of God, or gods.
> Evolution is not a creation
> theory.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Such theories don't make mention of
God, or gods. That doesn't mean that God, or gods cannot exist, or
that God could not have used evolution as his means of creation.
>
>> The ToE would appear to be ideally suited for the
>> non-intervening God of Deism: God set life in motion and let it evolve
>> from there.
>>
>
> Where is the Book of Deism?
Where is the "Book of Theism"? There are many books written by
theists, and many books telling about some god, or gods. There's no one
book that sums up all theism, or deism, or other positions.
>
> How does ToE support the work of Diety (Deism)?
The purpose of science is to advance knowledge, not support any
particular deity.
>
> Evidence?
You seem to be a bit confused here, Ray. Your assertion was that
evolution ruled out deism. Adding support, and ruling out something
are quite different ideas.
Where's your evidence that evolution rules out the idea that a deity
exists?
>
>>> Christians are, of course, Theists.
>>
>> Was this matter in dispute?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Dana Tweedy thinks Theism and Deism are synonyms.
Actually, Ray, as I've explained before, deism is a form of theism.
It's groups within groups. There are many ideas that fit within the
definition of "theism", and deism is one of them.
> He refuses to
> acknowledge a stark difference and he refuses to acknowledge what that
> difference is because he cannot explain how Theists (Christians) could
> support Deism,
There isn't any "stark difference". Deism is a form of theism, ie a
belief that some kind of supernatural being exists. Also, as for
explaining "how theists can support deism", that's not a question anyone
has asked.
Christanity is a religion, ie a form of theism. Deism, is another
form of theism. There's no reason why one form of theism must support
another form.
Part of the problem is that Ray seems to be defining "theism" in his
own idiosyncratic way. I'm trying to use the common definition of the
term.
> which is **asserted** to be compatible with ToE.
Likewise, Ray asserts that the theory of evolution is not compatible
with "theism". This is contradicted by a large number of theists who
do accept the theory of evolution.
Ray's particular religious beliefs may indeed by incompatible with
the theory of evolution, but that only means that one particular set of
beliefs held by one particular person. As it happens, the theory of
evolution explains the fact of evolution. That evolution happens is
established beyond any reasonable doubt.
If a person chooses to live in denial, there's nothing I can do to
stop him.
> Of
> course ToE is pro-Atheism in its objective position.
Of course, the theory of evolution, like any scientific theory, is not
"pro atheism". Atheism is a religious position, and is not supported
by science any more than any other religious position.
> "Christian"
> evolutionists are morons, buffoons.
And again, when Ray loses an argument, he's left with name calling.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Which church, Ray? Can you give a single established church which
defines faith as "evidence and facts"?
If you claim your belief is based on evidence and facts, why do you keep
running away from any discussion of that evidence and facts?
>
> Anyone who claims membership in a group and then says that the agenda
> is not based on claims of fact, the same is known as a "wolf in sheeps
> clothing" or a "double agent."
John 20:292
"Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me?
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
You seem to be saying that Christ himself was a "wolf in sheeps
clothing" Ray. Is that your intent?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
That's a rather odd thing for God to do, Ray. Why would God punish
persons who doubt by adding to their doubt? Why not provide evidence
that erases that doubt?
Did Jesus punish Thomas for doubting, or did he provide Thomas with
evidence?
> Since the death of
> Christ, God does not kill by lightning or the earth opening up.
Why not?
> Now He
> sends strong delusion.
How do you know that you aren't the one with the strong delusion?
> This explains how "Christians" could implement
> the Atheism agenda.
It's a rather far fetched explanation. A much better explanation is
that there isn't any "atheism agenda".
> This explains how a "Christian" Judge (like Judge
> Jones) could accept an award by an Atheist organization for his Dover
> decision and not see the insult
Judge Jones didn't accept an award any "atheist organization", and there
wasn't any insult.
> ----and worst of all: his status among
> the damned. God kills by delusion because it is not final.
Again, a rather odd thing for God to do. Maybe it's you who is deluded
here.
> If some
> real Christian were to fast and pray for their soul then God could
> remove the delusion.
So, Ray, why not try it? Maybe your delusion would be removed, and
you'd stop opposing God's will.
DJT
Dick C.
news:a3c52bbe-4ccf-4700...@r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 3, 3:31 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 11:46:30 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> Outside of a few "steady state" cranks, I doubt you'll find anyone
>> who makes such a claim to the eternal existence of matter, whether
>> atheist or theist.
>>
>
> Carl Sagan is not considered a crank.
Are you saying that Sagan believed in a steady state universe?
Care to provide some cites? Or do you not know what steady state
means, or did you confuse Sagan with someone else?
haiku jones
Ah, but the award was from a bunch of geologists.
And geologists, as everyone knows, are just
evolutionists in sheeps' clothing. I mean,
they believe in "plate tectonics" and "continental
drift" and I don't know what-all...which flies
in the face of Ray's Dictum: old science is
the best science.
SkyEyes
> Ray's inexorable logic has convinced me to become
> a practicing Ioist. If the Maori will have me, that is.
Depends on how good you look in a grass skirt.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
haiku jones
> On Jun 4, 4:37 pm, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ray's inexorable logic has convinced me to become
> > a practicing Ioist. If the Maori will have me, that is.
> Depends on how good you look in a grass skirt.
Well...you know how they try to tell you that
the Maori extinguished the Moa?
Actually, not true. Were you aware that
birds can die of laughter?
Desertphile
> On Jun 3, 2:19�pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 2:46 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 1, 6:36 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:35:58 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >
> > > > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >> so lets assume that evolution was never discovered or even heard of.
> > > > >> when you ask me where life came from, i just say "i dunno.
> >
> > > > >And that answer presupposes eternal existence of matter (= Atheism).
> >
> > > > Does it? Explain.
> >
> > > By saying "don't know where life came or originated from" is
> > > equivalent to saying that matter has always existed. ToE says matter
> > > somehow caused life. Matter is then assumed to have had eternal
> > > existence because no God exists to have caused its existence (=
> > > Atheism ideology).
> >
> > > If you disagree, then how does the Atheist explain the origin of
> > > matter?
> >
> > As an atheist myself, Ray, I don't explain the origin of matter. I
> > leave that as an exercise for other people who are inclined to study
> > the matter. I neither know nor care where matter came from.- Hide quoted text -
> Contradiction: You declare yourself an Atheist (sic) THEN you declare
> yourself to be an Agnostic (sic) ("I neither know nor care where matter came
> from").
Ahnostics are atheists, idiot.
> Atheism has always taken a clear position on the origin of matter.
Atheism isn't a position, idiot: it's the lack of one.
> Ray
Garamond Lethe
> On Jun 1, 9:57 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 2:18 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 3:35 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 1, 12:41 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 1, 12:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 21, 2:10 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 18, 5:06 pm, Pastor D <past...@christschurch.mega> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > There are many organisms that appear to be specifically designed to
> > > > > > > > cause pain and suffering in other creatures. The Ebola virus is very
> > > > > > > > good at liquefying human organs. It causes massive bleeding and death.
> > > > > > > > The tapeworm has hooks that allow it to attach to the walls of the
> > > > > > > > intestine and remain there as a parasite. The Plasmodium vivax protozoan
> > > > > > > > lives in the Anopheles mosquito for a while before transferring by a
> > > > > > > > mosquito bite to a human. There it causes malaria, a recurring disease
> > > > > > > > that produces fever and sometimes death. There are many other examples.
>
> > > > > > > > "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
> > > > > > > > clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
> > > > > > > > eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
> > > > > > > > (Romans 1:20)
>
> > > > > > > Got objective, verifiable evidence that a god - *any* god - actually
> > > > > > > exists?
>
> > > > > > > No?
>
> > > > > > > Then I believe I'll remain an atheist, thanks.
>
> > > > > > These comments assume rightly that the evolutionary interpretation of
> > > > > > evidence presents no evidence of God.
>
> > > > > when you ask me where life came from, i just say "i dunno.
>
> > > > And that answer presupposes eternal existence of matter (= Atheism).
>
> > > to have an answer to the question "where did life (or if you prefer,
> > > everything) come from?" it is not enough to just point at a book and
> > > say it has the answer. you have to show WHY that answer is supposed to
> > > be correct. you have to show how somebody can arrive at that answer by
> > > doing the work independently. theists simply cannot do this. if all
> > > copies of the bible and all memories of it were wiped out tomorrow,
> > > christianity would not reappear, because one cannot be reasoned into
> > > christianity. the same cannot be said about science. if all knowledge
> > > of evolution were wiped out tomorrow, it would eventually be
> > > rediscovered because it is true and independently verifiable by
> > > anybody who just looks.
>
> > > > > neither do
> > > > > you."
>
> > > > > now where is your evidence of any gods?
>
> > > > > <snip>- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> > > that is no more evidence of gods than the stories about zeus and
> > > athena.
>
> > > > Western civilization, excluding the 150 year interruption of
> > > > Darwinism, has always accepted and recognized that the Textual
> > > > evidence and a nature that exhibits the concept of design and
> > > > organized complexity, proves the existence of Jehovah.
>
> > > the same can be said about bleeding and applying leeches as medicine.
> > > tradition is not an argument.
>
> > > > Snex: I've always wanted to tell you that I really enjoy reading the
> > > > debates that you and other Atheists engage in from time to time. You
> > > > regularly experience the fact that your brothers are brazen liars.
> > > > They distort and evade everything you say. The same leaves one
> > > > wondering why you are an Atheist? Is it because your parents were
> > > > Atheists? Are you unable to disentangle yourself from the emotional
> > > > attachment?
>
> > > > Ray
>
> > > my parents are catholics, and i am an atheist because i can identify
> > > bullshit arguments. all arguments offered in favor of theism are
> > > bullshit arguments. you simply cannot get to theism starting from
> > > reasonably acceptable first principles. here are some examples of
> > > first principles that i consider reasonably acceptable: 1) logic is a
> > > valid way to determine true statements from other known true
> > > statements. 2) i can exist and observe the world, and my observations
> > > are mostly correct. 3) when my observations are not correct, there is
> > > some way of correcting them or determining that they were incorrect
> > > and therefore i should discard them.
>
> > > see if you can arrive at a conclusion of theism from using those 3
> > > principles. you cant do it. you have never witnessed any of the
> > > miracle claims described by the bible, you only witness the text
> > > claiming they happened. but lots of texts say lots of things happened,
> > > and you disbelieve in most of them. even if somebody were to show you
> > > that reports of levitating hindu swamis were reliable, you would not
> > > believe it until you saw them doing it yourself and tested it somehow.
> > > why? because people simply dont levitate. we know that the world does
> > > not work that way. and we also know that virgins dont give birth and
> > > that men dont rise from the dead. until i SEE it, pointing at a book
> > > does not make your case. that is the advantage of science. when
> > > scientists claim something that seems absurd because we do not
> > > experience it, they prove it by SHOWING it. until you show me an
> > > actual miracle performed by your god, you just have nothing but empty
> > > claims.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > rebuttal: the fact that your Atheist brothers, when engaged in debate
> > with you, lie to your face by intentionally distorting and evading
> > what you actually say. I have seen them do it to you on many
> > occasions. This is WHY we are anti-evolutionists: Atheists cannot be
> > trusted; they will lie to your face.
>
> > Of course this second rebuttal places you in a bad position, Snex. I
> > wouldn't be surprised if you did not respond. But the way Atheists
> > treat you in debate (lie to your face) dictates that they do the same
> > to Theists.
>
> > Ray
.
> theists also lie to my face in debates. people in general lie.
"it's no secret that a liar won't believe anyone else."
> i didnt
> arrive at atheism because another atheist told me to. but when it
> comes to theism, the only source is what other people say.
raven1
Carl Sagan did not make such a claim.
>> >If you disagree, then how does the Atheist explain the origin of
>> >matter?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
>
>The Big Bang (something out of nothing) is EXACTLY what the Bible
>says: God spoke the universe into existence out of nothing.
>
>The real position of Atheism is Saganism.
I'm curious as to what you think Sagan's position was.
raven1
No, it isn't. Why do you continue to repeat this falsehood?
>Evolution is not a creation
>theory.
Correct. It describes how life diversified as it arose. Your point
being?
>> The ToE would appear to be ideally suited for the
>> non-intervening God of Deism: God set life in motion and let it evolve
>> from there.
>>
>
>Where is the Book of Deism?
Deists would say it's the "Book of Nature". Do you even know what
Deism is, Ray?
>How does ToE support the work of Diety (Deism)?
Re-read the above. Deists believe in a First Cause who set the
universe in motion, and stepped back to let it run. Perfectly
compatible with the ToE.
>Evidence?
>
>> >Christians are, of course, Theists.
>>
>> Was this matter in dispute?
>>
>Dana Tweedy thinks Theism and Deism are synonyms.
I find this unlikely. Cite?
>He refuses to
>acknowledge a stark difference and he refuses to acknowledge what that
>difference is because he cannot explain how Theists (Christians) could
>support Deism, which is **asserted** to be compatible with ToE. Of
>course ToE is pro-Atheism in its objective position.
Of course it isn't.
> "Christian"
>evolutionists are morons, buffoons.
Or perhaps you're just wrong, as usual.
raven1
What theist scholars have asserted this? Gene Scott?
BTW, since you're apparently the only "real Christian", why aren't you
busy fasting and praying?
Ray Martinez
"The Cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be" ("Cosmos"
1980:1).
Ray
> >> >If you disagree, then how does the Atheist explain the origin of
> >> >matter?
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
>
> >The Big Bang (something out of nothing) is EXACTLY what the Bible
> >says: God spoke the universe into existence out of nothing.
>
> >The real position of Atheism is Saganism.
>
> I'm curious as to what you think Sagan's position was.- Hide quoted text -
raven1
Holy crap! You can't be serious. Sagan is defining the word "cosmos",
not claiming the eternal existence of matter (nor of the cosmos, for
that matter).
raven1
Typo: "*after* it arose".
Ernest Major
<5eb30eb1-e997-4933...@z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
That is not a claim of the "eternal existence of matter". If you could
cure yourself of your addiction to false dichotomies your foot would be
a lesser impediment to your conversation.
>
>Ray
>
>> >> >If you disagree, then how does the Atheist explain the origin of
>> >> >matter?
>>
>> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
>>
>> >The Big Bang (something out of nothing) is EXACTLY what the Bible
>> >says: God spoke the universe into existence out of nothing.
>>
>> >The real position of Atheism is Saganism.
>>
>> I'm curious as to what you think Sagan's position was.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
johnbee
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GT3FPsgz...@meden.invalid...
<all removed>
The eternal existence of matter is not something which is 'believed in' by
Carl Sagan or anyone else. It is not very difficult to understand that in
fact all matter decays. I refer to 'matter' as anything with mass. So if
the universe lasts long enough, eventually there will be no matter left.
However, if the universe does not last so long, then in fact matter will, at
the end of time, have lasted eternally - in the sense which some
dictionaries have for the word eternal, as existing for all time, though
not, of course in the sense of an infinite length of time because that is
impossible.
Religious people believe things, non-religious people should in my opinion
try to avoid using the word believe because it encourages religious people
to think that their imaginations are equally as valid as are science
discoveries.
Dana Tweedy
Note that in the above quote, Sagan didn't claim that the Cosmos had no
beginning. It's fairly clear that Sagan did believe that the present
universe began with the "Big Bang".
Sagan did suggest that the current universe may be part of a continuing
cycle of expansion/contraction, but to say he claimed "eternal existence
of matter" is badly mis-stating Sagan's belief.
It's also important to differentiate Sagan's personal beliefs and
what he felt was scientific. Sagan would have been among the first to
point out his speculations about the cyclic nature of the universe was
not science.
DJT
Richard Clayton
To be fair, Ray's just applying technique Christian fundamentalists
apply to determine whether a position is "biblical." Scan the Bible,
find a quote that sounds like it can be used to prop up your position
(just ignore the actual context) and bam, you're good to go.
Want to prove Jesus is a laissez-faire capitalist? 1 Timothy 5:18: "The
worker deserves his wages." See, God likes capitalism!
What's that? You want to know what Jesus thinks of minimum wage? Matthew
20:1-2: "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out
early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to
pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard." A
denarius was basically a dime, boy, and God said that's all those day
laborers should get. Are you smarter than GOD, young man? I didn't think
so! But you know who thinks they're smarter than God? COMMUNISTS! And
minimum wage is a communist idea!
Sound ridiculous? Of course it is. Neither of these passages is actually
*about* economics. But this is how fundagelicals think: Insisting a book
of the Bible should be considered /in toto/, preferably with an eye to
the culture in which is was written, smacks of those liberal,
false-Christian pastors.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
John S. Wilkins
> What's that? You want to know what Jesus thinks of minimum wage? Matthew
> 20:1-2: "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out
> early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to
> pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard." A
> denarius was basically a dime, boy, and God said that's all those day
> laborers should get. Are you smarter than GOD, young man? I didn't think
> so! But you know who thinks they're smarter than God? COMMUNISTS! And
> minimum wage is a communist idea!
>
> Sound ridiculous? Of course it is. Neither of these passages is actually
> *about* economics. But this is how fundagelicals think: Insisting a book
> of the Bible should be considered /in toto/, preferably with an eye to
> the culture in which is was written, smacks of those liberal,
> false-Christian pastors.
I wonder if they think they can buy a quart of wheat or two quarts of
barley for a dime (Rev 6:6)...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Richard Clayton
> Richard Clayton<richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What's that? You want to know what Jesus thinks of minimum wage? Matthew
>> 20:1-2: "For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out
>> early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to
>> pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard." A
>> denarius was basically a dime, boy, and God said that's all those day
>> laborers should get. Are you smarter than GOD, young man? I didn't think
>> so! But you know who thinks they're smarter than God? COMMUNISTS! And
>> minimum wage is a communist idea!
>>
>> Sound ridiculous? Of course it is. Neither of these passages is actually
>> *about* economics. But this is how fundagelicals think: Insisting a book
>> of the Bible should be considered /in toto/, preferably with an eye to
>> the culture in which is was written, smacks of those liberal,
>> false-Christian pastors.
>
> I wonder if they think they can buy a quart of wheat or two quarts of
> barley for a dime (Rev 6:6)...
It wouldn't be the silliest mangling of Revelation I've heard.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." � Rudyard Kipling