Truth!
David Haas
If there is such then why is it possible for different intelligent people
of the same education and experience to observe the same event and come up
with two completely different explanations. For example, looking at a
beautiful nature scene one might say "look at God's handy work. Without
god this would not be possible" while the other might say " Look at
natures handy work isn't it amazing what nature can do given enough time"
Or… One of these people may say after seeing a loved one die after a long
and difficult illness… "I wish there had been a way to help the person die
a dignified painless death" While another might say "It is wrong to take
or help a person take his own life no matter how much pain and suffering
they are enduring"
How many scenarios like this can we come up with and how do you know that
your position is the correct or right position when there are people just
like you who have just the opposite take on a belief. Great philosophers
are not the answer. Old books aren't the answer. One religion has no more
credibility than another if you talk to the "competition" else each
wouldn't be equally sure they were 100% right. Now would they? So
what is absolute truth?
D. Haas
"Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence."
Joseph Wood Krutch
"Television - a medium. So called because it is neither
rare nor well done." Ernie Kovacs
"Life is a sewer. What you take out depends on what you put into it."
Tom Lehrer
Arjen Klaver
> What is it?
>
> If there is such then why is it possible for different intelligent people
> of the same education and experience to observe the same event and come up
> with two completely different explanations.
People can make errors. Full and total information on a event is
impossible. Therefore different interpretations can be given.
> For example, looking at a
> beautiful nature scene one might say "look at God's handy work. Without
> god this would not be possible" while the other might say " Look at
> natures handy work isn't it amazing what nature can do given enough time"
These can be 'somewhat' testable hypotheses. Do the test and find
which one is closer to the truth.
> Or… One of these people may say after seeing a loved one die after a long
> and difficult illness… "I wish there had been a way to help the person die
> a dignified painless death" While another might say "It is wrong to take
> or help a person take his own life no matter how much pain and suffering
> they are enduring"
Easily, the latter position is restrictive for the person dying, it
doesn't include his/her opinion on the case, even though (s)he is most
important. The first one is therefore better.
> How many scenarios like this can we come up with and how do you know that
> your position is the correct or right position when there are people just
> like you who have just the opposite take on a belief. Great philosophers
> are not the answer. Old books aren't the answer. One religion has no more
> credibility than another if you talk to the "competition" else each
> wouldn't be equally sure they were 100% right. Now would they? So
> what is absolute truth?
Quoting Peter van Velzen: "Think for Yourself".
Absolute truth in reality does not exist, while absolute knowledge
does not exist there. How can you find truth if you do not even have
all the knowledge, to be able to look at the case from all possible
viewpoints.
Only in very limited cases where the boundary conditions are clear,
and there is only a limited number of viewpoints, absolute truth
exist. I mean in for instance math, absolute truth exist. example:
sin(x)<2 when x is an integer.
Greetings,
Arjen Klaver
LANkrypt0
DH> <snip>
DH>
DH> How many scenarios like this can we come up with and how do you know that
DH> your position is the correct or right position when there are people just
DH> like you who have just the opposite take on a belief. Great philosophers
DH> are not the answer. Old books aren't the answer. One religion has no more
DH> credibility than another if you talk to the "competition" else each
DH> wouldn't be equally sure they were 100% right. Now would they? So
DH> what is absolute truth?
truth - as defined by dictionary.com
Pronunciation Key (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
In the examples you mentioned, people are stating opinions, which are
neither true nor false. Its just a different way of looking at something.
When talking about God vs nature, there is no right or wrong. The only
truth lies in your heart.
*-------*------------------*
LANkrypt0
#!/usr/is/a/geek
"Fool me once, shame on...
shame on you. Fool me... you
can't get fooled again."
-:President George W. Bush:-
*------------------*-------*
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, David Haas poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> What is it?
>
> If there is such then why is it possible for different intelligent people
> of the same education and experience to observe the same event and come up
> with two completely different explanations.
When complete information is not available then different
interpretations are possible.
...
> How many scenarios like this can we come up with and how do you know that
> your position is the correct or right position when there are people just
> like you who have just the opposite take on a belief. Great philosophers
> are not the answer.
Why not?
> Old books aren't the answer.
Obviously.
...
> So what is absolute truth?
An absolute is independent of all influence. Absolute truth is somewhat
of a redundancy, as a "truth" whose truth value is dependent on
circumstance can hardly be considered a truth.
Regards,
Josef
Truth is the safest lie.
-- Jewish Proverb
JTEM
"David Haas" <dh...@nc.rr.com> wrote
> If there is such then why is it possible for different
> intelligent people of the same education and
> experience to observe the same event and come up
> with two completely different explanations.
"Interpretations."
> For example, looking at a beautiful nature scene one
> might say "look at God's handy work. Without god this
> would not be possible" while the other might say " Look
> at natures handy work isn't it amazing what nature can do
> given enough time"
They don't differ in the least bit on the scene. They agree
on what they see. If they are articulate they could both
describe it, communicate the scene to others.
Where they differ, as you describe it, is not on the scene.
They differ on what is not present within the scene... the
forces behind it... it's source... "Why?"
What is so strange about this is that the "Why" is totally
unnecessary. The two people, as you describe them, are
entirely passive. They play no role -- apart from
observation -- and both seem to enjoy the scene and have
no need for extrapolation.
> One of these people may say after seeing a loved one die
> after a long and difficult illness. "I wish there had been
> a way to help the person die a dignified painless death"
> While another might say "It is wrong to take or help a
> person take his own life no matter how much pain and
> suffering they are enduring"
What is missing is, "Why?"
What's ironic about this is that the "Why" is the very source
of the conflict in your first example, while it's completely
absent from the second.
Few people would disagree in principle that laymen should
never be granted the power to merely "Decide" when
someone dies. And, there's even a pretty good argument to
be made that doctors -- the people charged with saving
lives -- should never be handed the task of death. There is
something of a conflict in that one.
This doesn't mean that there aren't circumstances where death
is unavoidable, and the choice does in fact come down to the
manner of death...
If you can objectively determine "Why" something is wrong,
answer that question, you could establish criteria for
determining when it is "Right."
> So what is absolute truth?
I think of the "Truth" as yesterday... everything that happened...
everything that was said & done. We might not be very well
informed... we might not remember things so accurately... our
perceptions might change... our feelings about things might
change... our interpretations might change... but yesterday will
never change.
Mark Garbers
1. A scientific proof, ie a physical thing that does happen, and can be
verified by hard evidence. eg, gravity. This doesn't take much faith to
believe in, because we can physically see and feel it every day.
2. Spiritual truth. This gets a little (actually, a lot) harder to prove and
verify. Sometimes there is some physical truth to back up events which are
recorded, for example, in the Bible. But for the most part, it's a matter of
faith. This is up to the individual as to what they want to believe, but
just because they believe something doesn't make it right. I think that
there is one absolute truth, and some people are simply believing the wrong
thing. As far as i'm concerned, how people can think that this amazing
universe was created totally per chance is beyond me. But that is just my
opinion...
Mark.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There are only two ways to live your life.
One is as though nothing is a miracle,
the other is as though everything is a miracle."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David Haas" <dh...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.18977547b...@news-server.nc.rr.com...
> What is it?
>
> If there is such then why is it possible for different intelligent people
> of the same education and experience to observe the same event and come up
> with two completely different explanations. For example, looking at a
> beautiful nature scene one might say "look at God's handy work. Without
> god this would not be possible" while the other might say " Look at
> natures handy work isn't it amazing what nature can do given enough time"
> Or. One of these people may say after seeing a loved one die after a long
> and difficult illness. "I wish there had been a way to help the person die
Gould's Pupil
For the most part science is not concerned with faith issues; the
problem lies in that fundamentalist Christians are trying to force on
the public a notion of science that is totally erroneous. They want
you to take the stories in certain parts of the Bible as literal
indications of historical occurances, when in fact there is no
objective proof for such things. The only reason these people are
forcing this idea of the Genesis Creation story is to side step the
law on teaching religion in public school.
They are not concerned, really, with whether the story in Genesis
is true or not, they are trying to pass it off as a scientific fact
when they know there is no objective research or fact to back their
case. Scientists are not conspiring against the Christian religion,
as YMI and Jistakken, and Pastor Dave would have you believe. Many
scientists have no problem with believing as Christians; there is no
need to take literally the stories in Genesis, or references to how
the earth or the "Heavens" have been structured. The Bible is not a
textbook, it was never written as a textbook, and if the ancients
could have had the same ability to research and hypthesize about
Creation as we do today, they would have written the same thing. Not
from a scientific pov, but from an all embracing spiritual pov, that
regardless of the physical evidence and natural phenomenon having
rational explanations vis-a-vis geology, paleontology, chemistry,
physics, or astronomy; if an ancient writer had the honesty of
objective scientific method, he would be agreeing that God could do as
much through evolutionary processes and natural effects over millions
of millions of years, and because of that creation is still awe
inspiring. No ancient writer of the Bible would accept or condone the
false and agenda ridden pap of an oxymoronic system like the
pseudo-science of Creationism.
Again, the only reason Creationism challenges science at all is to
do an end run about the laws limiting the Church's role in public
places such as schools. If they want to believe this kind of utter
crap, they should leave it in their own so-called "Christian schools".
But I pity the students from these schools who want be doctors and
chemists and physicists when they grow up. With a background in
Creationism as the only science to go on, they won't get far.
--
=======================================================
Paul J. Chiasson
mailto:paul.c...@ns.sympatico.ca
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/paul.chiasson/
mailto:ai...@chebucto.ns.ca
=======================================================
... [M]yth is not fiction: it consists of facts that are continually
repeated and can be observed over and over again. It is something
that happens to man, and men have mythical fates just as much as the
Greek heroes do. The fact that the life of Christ is largely myth
does absolutely nothing to disprove its factual truth--quite the
contrary. I would even go so far as to say that the mythical
character of a life is just what expresses its universal validity.
_Answer to Job_, C. G.
Jung =======================================================
"Mark Garbers" <ma...@ananzi.co.za> wrote in message
news:3e3028ef$0$2...@hades.is.co.za...
Pastor Frank
news:2Z2Y9.881$d66.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> That's not the point, though.
>
> For the most part science is not concerned with faith issues; the
> problem lies in that fundamentalist Christians are trying to force on
> the public a notion of science that is totally erroneous. They want
> you to take the stories in certain parts of the Bible as literal
> indications of historical occurances, when in fact there is no
> objective proof for such things. The only reason these people are
> forcing this idea of the Genesis Creation story is to side step the
> law on teaching religion in public school.
>
know for certain about abiogenesis from a scientific standpoint.
> No ancient writer of the Bible would accept or condone the
> false and agenda ridden pap of an oxymoronic system like the
> pseudo-science of Creationism.
> Again, the only reason Creationism challenges science at all is to
> do an end run about the laws limiting the Church's role in public
> places such as schools. If they want to believe this kind of utter
> crap, they should leave it in their own so-called "Christian schools".
> But I pity the students from these schools who want be doctors and
> chemists and physicists when they grow up. With a background in
> Creationism as the only science to go on, they won't get far.
>
Again, let's talk about your scientific facts concerning abiogenesis and
see whether they are any more valid than our account of it in Genesis. After
that we can discuss you paranoia about religion being taught in schools, and
our fear of atheist censorship demands and curtailment of free speech.
--
Pastor Frank
THE MINIONS OF SATAN
Jesus in John 8:44: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your
father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in
the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he
speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Mt:6:21: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
Mt:12:34: O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?
for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
Mt:12:35: A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth
good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil
things.
Elmer Bataitis
> You are talking about abiogenesis, not evolution here. Tell us what you
> know for certain about abiogenesis from a scientific standpoint.
It's a fact Frank. Scientifically and biblically.
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
Thomas McDonald
<snip>
> Again, let's talk about your scientific facts concerning abiogenesis and
> see whether they are any more valid than our account of it in Genesis. After
> that we can discuss you paranoia about religion being taught in schools, and
> our fear of atheist censorship demands and curtailment of free speech.
> --
> Pastor Frank
Frank,
Can we discuss what exactly you'd like taught in public
schools about religion?
Assuming that you are willing to do so, perhaps you could
start by telling us what religious education you think is
appropriate for public schools.
Tom McDonald
<snip>
Rev J Semerko
theory banned, only the gen 1 story taught as creation of the world. But
then that is also different from the Gen 2 story on the creation of the
world.
Also the 10 commandments of the Bible would have to be taught. But what
about all the other good teachings found in all the other Faiths / Religions
of the World? Those would also be deemed illegal by fundamentalists, as they
are concidered "heresy" by fundamentalists who are too intolerant to learn
about others. Let alone have Inter-Faith dialogue or Inter-Faith services.
As one fundamentalist minister was suspended for taking part in the huge
Inter-Faith service right after Sept 11, 2001.
Fundamentalism is the cancer of the World.
Rev J Semerko
"Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
news:BHgY9.597$kJ6....@reggie.win.bright.net...
Thomas McDonald
> "pastor" frank and other fundamentalist ministers would want the Darwin
> theory banned, only the gen 1 story taught as creation of the world. But
> then that is also different from the Gen 2 story on the creation of the
> world.
>
> Also the 10 commandments of the Bible would have to be taught. But what
> about all the other good teachings found in all the other Faiths / Religions
> of the World? Those would also be deemed illegal by fundamentalists, as they
> are concidered "heresy" by fundamentalists who are too intolerant to learn
> about others. Let alone have Inter-Faith dialogue or Inter-Faith services.
> As one fundamentalist minister was suspended for taking part in the huge
> Inter-Faith service right after Sept 11, 2001.
>
> Fundamentalism is the cancer of the World.
>
> Rev J Semerko
>
J,
And yet, oddly, I still want to read what Dave has to say.
I'm funny like that.
Tom McDonald
Libertarius
>
> "pastor" frank and other fundamentalist ministers
===>He does not appear to be any sort of minister, just
one who assumed that label for himself. -- L.
Pastor Frank
news:BHgY9.597$kJ6....@reggie.win.bright.net...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
> >
and
> > see whether they are any more valid than our account of it in Genesis.
After
> > that we can discuss you paranoia about religion being taught in schools,
and
> > our fear of atheist censorship demands and curtailment of free speech.
>
> schools about religion?
> Assuming that you are willing to do so, perhaps you could
> start by telling us what religious education you think is
> appropriate for public schools.
> Tom McDonald
>
parents, NOT the government in cahoots with atheists.
Look at Europe, where religion is a compulsory subject in schools, and
were twice a week representatives of every faith can come and teach the
children who are signed up for it by their parents. Yes Tom, even atheists
have the opportunity to teach their children the doctrines of Secular
Humanism in schools, -you would love it.
When are you going to discuss the scientific fact of abiogenesis and why
Genesis has been proved wrong?
--
Pastor Frank
Jesus in Mk 12:30: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength:
this is the first commandment.
31: And the second is alike, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
JISTASKKIN
"Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
news:1043544...@arakis.wincom.net...
> "Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
> news:BHgY9.597$kJ6....@reggie.win.bright.net...
> > Pastor Frank wrote:
> > >
> > > Again, let's talk about your scientific facts concerning
abiogenesis
> and
> > > see whether they are any more valid than our account of it in Genesis.
> After
> > > that we can discuss you paranoia about religion being taught in
schools,
> and
> > > our fear of atheist censorship demands and curtailment of free speech.
> >
> > Can we discuss what exactly you'd like taught in public
> > schools about religion?
> > Assuming that you are willing to do so, perhaps you could
> > start by telling us what religious education you think is
> > appropriate for public schools.
> > Tom McDonald
> >
> What should be taught their children should be the decision of the
> parents, NOT the government in cahoots with atheists.
Amen!!!
> Look at Europe, where religion is a compulsory subject in schools, and
> were twice a week representatives of every faith can come and teach the
> children who are signed up for it by their parents. Yes Tom, even atheists
> have the opportunity to teach their children the doctrines of Secular
> Humanism in schools, -you would love it.
> When are you going to discuss the scientific fact of abiogenesis and
why
> Genesis has been proved wrong?
And all of God's people said AMEN!!!!
Thomas McDonald
> "Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
> news:BHgY9.597$kJ6....@reggie.win.bright.net...
>
>>Pastor Frank wrote:
>>
>>> Again, let's talk about your scientific facts concerning abiogenesis
>
> and
>
>>>see whether they are any more valid than our account of it in Genesis.
>
> After
>
>>>that we can discuss you paranoia about religion being taught in schools,
>
> and
>
>>>our fear of atheist censorship demands and curtailment of free speech.
>>
>>Can we discuss what exactly you'd like taught in public
>>schools about religion?
>>Assuming that you are willing to do so, perhaps you could
>>start by telling us what religious education you think is
>>appropriate for public schools.
>>Tom McDonald
>>
>
> What should be taught their children should be the decision of the
> parents, NOT the government in cahoots with atheists.
Frank,
Should whatever the parents decide is appropriate WRT
religion be taught to students in the public schools?
> Look at Europe, where religion is a compulsory subject in schools, and
> were twice a week representatives of every faith can come and teach the
> children who are signed up for it by their parents. Yes Tom, even atheists
> have the opportunity to teach their children the doctrines of Secular
> Humanism in schools, -you would love it.
Do you think that I'm an atheist? If so, why?
> When are you going to discuss the scientific fact of abiogenesis and why
> Genesis has been proved wrong?
Well, Frank, we agree that abiogenisis occurred. You think
God did it *poof*; I think it is more likely that God did it
a different way; but we both agree that there was a time
when there was no life, and that life somehow arose from
non-living matter.
I don't think Genesis has been proven wrong. What makes
you think that I think that?
Tom McDonald
Libertarius
Used to be called Hot Springs.
Many people still call it that. -- L.
Busterboo/Sharon
message news:3E336341.28FE6FB@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> Nice little town.
> Used to be called Hot Springs.
> Many people still call it that. -- L.
Who in the world are you talking to Libertarius?
--
«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»
How Good Are Those YEC Arguments? By Dave Matson
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/index.shtml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»«»
Thomas McDonald
> "Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
> message news:3E336341.28FE6FB@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
>
>>Nice little town.
>>Used to be called Hot Springs.
>>Many people still call it that. -- L.
>
>
> Who in the world are you talking to Libertarius?
>
> --
>
Sharon,
Truth or Consequences is a town in New Mexico; it was
renamed to its current name after the TV gameshow.
Tom McDonald
Busterboo/Sharon
"Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
news:RLJY9.621$kJ6....@reggie.win.bright.net...
> Busterboo/Sharon wrote:
> > "Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
> > message news:3E336341.28FE6FB@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> >
> >>Nice little town.
> >>Used to be called Hot Springs.
> >>Many people still call it that. -- L.
> >
> >
> > Who in the world are you talking to Libertarius?
> >
> > --
> >
>
> Sharon,
>
> Truth or Consequences is a town in New Mexico; it was
> renamed to its current name after the TV gameshow.
>
> Tom McDonald
Thank you... yes, I'm familiar with it (the new name).
--
Libertarius
>
> "Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
> message news:3E336341.28FE6FB@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> > Nice little town.
> > Used to be called Hot Springs.
> > Many people still call it that. -- L.
>
> Who in the world are you talking to Libertarius?
===>Just broadcasting ;-) -- L.
Libertarius
>
> Busterboo/Sharon wrote:
> > "Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
> > message news:3E336341.28FE6FB@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> >
> >>Nice little town.
> >>Used to be called Hot Springs.
> >>Many people still call it that. -- L.
> >
> >
> > Who in the world are you talking to Libertarius?
> >
> > --
> >
>
> Sharon,
>
> Truth or Consequences is a town in New Mexico; it was
> renamed to its current name after the TV gameshow.
>
> Tom McDonald
===>YOU WIN! ;-)
(Current temp. 45, high tomorrow 65).
Libertarius
====================
Pastor Frank
news:hJEY9.11688$W3.13...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> "pastor" frank and other fundamentalist ministers would want the Darwin
> theory banned, only the gen 1 story taught as creation of the world. But
> then that is also different from the Gen 2 story on the creation of the
> world.
> Also the 10 commandments of the Bible would have to be taught. But what
> about all the other good teachings found in all the other Faiths /
Religions
> of the World? Those would also be deemed illegal by fundamentalists, as
they
> are concidered "heresy" by fundamentalists who are too intolerant to learn
> about others. Let alone have Inter-Faith dialogue or Inter-Faith services.
> As one fundamentalist minister was suspended for taking part in the huge
> Inter-Faith service right after Sept 11, 2001.
> Fundamentalism is the cancer of the World.
> Rev J Semerko
>
What is taught in schools should be decided by the parents of those they
are responsible for, NOT by the government in cahoots with atheists. Look at
Europe where religion is compulsory subject in schools. Twice a week a
representative of each religion will get a classroom for a period, to teach
the tenets of their religion to the children whose parents signed up for it.
Yes, "Rev." even atheists parents get the opportunity to have secular
humanist principles taught to their kids. These teachers even get paid for
it out of tax revenue.
In Europe, parents have freedom of choice about what is taught their
kids in schools, which American parents don't have -yet.
Pastor Frank
message news:3E3327DB.716EF715@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> Rev J Semerko wrote:
> >
> > "pastor" frank and other fundamentalist ministers
>
> ===>He does not appear to be any sort of minister, just
> one who assumed that label for himself. -- L.
>
fide Reverend, but Pastor Frank is no Pastor. If you don't change soon from
trashing and flaming to praising and worshipping, you will only dig yourself
an early grave, because your hate is eating you alive.
Jesus miraculously changes hate to love and that is why we praise and
worship Him. He is awaiting you.
Libertarius
>
> "Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
> message news:3E3327DB.716EF715@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> > Rev J Semerko wrote:
> > >
> > > "pastor" frank and other fundamentalist ministers
> >
> > ===>He does not appear to be any sort of minister, just
> > one who assumed that label for himself. -- L.
> >
> There you go again spreading your Satanic lies, that Semerko is a bona
> fide Reverend,
===>See what a LIAR you are (Satanic????)
YOU, phony "pastor" Sheepherder?
I never made any statement about Semerko's being or not
being
a "Reverend". But it is clear you are no "pastor" except in
your
own twisted mind. -- L.
Alan Hobson
<snip>
> Again, let's talk about your scientific facts concerning abiogenesis and
> see whether they are any more valid than our account of it in Genesis. After
> that we can discuss you paranoia about religion being taught in schools, and
> our fear of atheist censorship demands and curtailment of free speech.
> --
"Our" account in genesis, Frank? I thought you didn't believe in the
OT and called it Judaism?
**Begin quote of Pastor Frank**
Why to you keep quoting Judaism? We are Christians, that means
followers of Jesus Christ of the NT.
You compare two different religions. Stick to Christ and His Holy
Spirit will reveal all truth to you.
**End quote**
Have you had an epiphany and suddenly decided that the OT is true?
-Alan
aa#1608
Pastor Frank
> Pastor Frank wrote:
> > "Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
> > news:BHgY9.597$kJ6....@reggie.win.bright.net...
> >>Pastor Frank wrote:
> >>
> >>> Again, let's talk about your scientific facts concerning
abiogenesis
> > and
> >>>see whether they are any more valid than our account of it in Genesis.
> > After
> >>>that we can discuss you paranoia about religion being taught in
schools,
> > and
> >>>our fear of atheist censorship demands and curtailment of free speech.
> >>
> >>Can we discuss what exactly you'd like taught in public
> >>schools about religion?
> >>Assuming that you are willing to do so, perhaps you could
> >>start by telling us what religious education you think is
> >>appropriate for public schools.
> >>Tom McDonald
> >
> > What should be taught their children should be the decision of the
> > parents, NOT the government in cahoots with atheists.
>
> religion be taught to students in the public schools?
>
> > Look at Europe, where religion is a compulsory subject in schools,
and
> > were twice a week representatives of every faith can come and teach the
> > children who are signed up for it by their parents. Yes Tom, even
atheists
> > have the opportunity to teach their children the doctrines of Secular
> > Humanism in schools, -you would love it.
>
> Do you think that I'm an atheist? If so, why?
>
> > When are you going to discuss the scientific fact of abiogenesis and
why
> > Genesis has been proved wrong?
>
> Well, Frank, we agree that abiogenisis occurred. You think
> God did it *poof*; I think it is more likely that God did it
> a different way; but we both agree that there was a time
> when there was no life, and that life somehow arose from
> non-living matter.
>
> I don't think Genesis has been proven wrong. What makes
> you think that I think that?
>
The person I answered thought it was wrong. He was really fuming at the
fact, that creation was being taught in some schools. Glad you don't.
Pastor Frank
news:d1d6cbe3.03012...@posting.google.com...
> "Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
news:<10434052...@arakis.wincom.net>...
> >
and
> > see whether they are any more valid than our account of it in Genesis.
After
> > that we can discuss you paranoia about religion being taught in schools,
and
> > our fear of atheist censorship demands and curtailment of free speech.
>
> OT and called it Judaism?
> **Begin quote of Pastor Frank**
> Why to you keep quoting Judaism? We are Christians, that means
> followers of Jesus Christ of the NT.
> You compare two different religions. Stick to Christ and His Holy
> Spirit will reveal all truth to you.
> **End quote**
> Have you had an epiphany and suddenly decided that the OT is true?
> -Alan
> aa#1608
>
where the OT differs from Christ, i.e. divorce, violent retribution etc.
etc. (see below) we are to stick to Christ's commandments, not the OTs.
--
Pastor Frank
THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST
Jesus in Matthew. 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye
for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40: And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let
him have thy cloke also.
41: And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee
turn not thou away.
43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy.
44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you,
and persecute you;
45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he
maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on
the just and on the unjust.
46: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even
the publicans the same?
47: And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do
not even the publicans so?
48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect.
---------------------
His teaching is a humongous step up from Judaism's Exodus 21:23-24
"If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth
for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound,
stripe for stripe."
phobos
> What should be taught their children should be the decision of the
> parents, NOT the government in cahoots with atheists.
OK... so, here's a class of kids, let's say there are 30 of them. Of
these 30, we have 10 whose parents are Catholics, seven whose parents
are Protestants of varying stripe, three whose parents are Hindus,
five whose parents are Muslim, three whose parents are atheists, one
whose parents are Jewish and one whose parents are Wiccans. Now, what
do we teach them? Do we have
a) a bastardised science class in which we remove all mention of
evolution because two of the Protestants and one of the Muslims
objected, and also remove all mention of physics because the Wiccans
believe in magic, and we furthermore drop any discussion of food
chains because some of these animals might be the Hindus' dead
relatives reincarnated and that might be upsetting for them
or b) a science class in which we teach the best results found by
scientists regardless of the religion of the participants, and a
separate class on religion in which we examine the varying beliefs and
cultures that exist in modern society
Personally, I'd go with 'b'.
> Look at Europe, where religion is a compulsory subject in schools, and
> were twice a week representatives of every faith can come and teach the
> children who are signed up for it by their parents. Yes Tom, even atheists
> have the opportunity to teach their children the doctrines of Secular
> Humanism in schools, -you would love it.
Where in Europe do you have in mind? It's not one country yet;
education policy is still set by state governments and not by
Brussels.
Thomas McDonald
Phobos,
I'd also like to read Frank's answer to your question about
what ought to be taught in public schools.
As for religious education in European public schools, I
think I recall reading that the religious classes are not
based on the denominational wishes of the school's students'
parents, but rather based on whatever denomination is the
established church in that country. For example, religion
classes in England would be basically Anglican. However, I
am certainly open to correction by evidence on this point.
OTOH, Europe has a very long tradition of having
established churches, while the USA has, by our
Constitution, _no_ established church. I don't see that it
would be acceptable in the USA to have denominational
religion classes taught in public schools by public
employees as part of the curriculum. However, I see no bar
to any community group using public school facilities for
teaching religious classes on the same basis as any other
community group.
Tom McDonald
Aaron K. Johnson
> We Christian use the OT to support Christ, didn't you know that? But
> where the OT differs from Christ, i.e. divorce, violent retribution etc.
> etc. (see below) we are to stick to Christ's commandments, not the OTs.
So basically, you pick and choose what you think is right in your heart.
Are you a fundamentalist, or what?
Aaron K. Johnson
> What should be taught their children should be the decision of the
> parents, NOT the government in cahoots with atheists.
What's wrong with atheism?
Besides, if you're talking about the U.S. government, they are actually in
'cahoots' with the christian right. Bush is a personal friend to the founder of
the Christian Coalition, Roberta Combs; and the CC is the single largest
lobbyist in terms of cash value that Washington D.C. has. They are a sick bunch
who wish to deny human rights to gays, and wish to undo the founding father's
wisdom of seperating Church and State.
You can't legislate belief. "Belief is like love", Schopenhauer said, "it
cannot be compelled; and as any attempt to compel love produces hate, so it is
that the attempt to compel belief which first produces real unbelief."
> Look at Europe, where religion is a compulsory subject in schools, and
> were twice a week representatives of every faith can come and teach the
> children who are signed up for it by their parents. Yes Tom, even atheists
> have the opportunity to teach their children the doctrines of Secular
> Humanism in schools, -you would love it.
What's wrong with secular humanism?
-aaron
Alan A. Hobson
<hallelujah@praisethelord> pontificated:
So the parts that don't support jesus are lies?
-Alan
aa#1608
Pastor Frank
news:af26c87a.03012...@posting.google.com...
> "Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
news:<1043544...@arakis.wincom.net>...
> >
and
> > were twice a week representatives of every faith can come and teach the
> > children who are signed up for it by their parents. Yes Tom, even
atheists
> > have the opportunity to teach their children the doctrines of Secular
> > Humanism in schools, -you would love it.
>
> Where in Europe do you have in mind? It's not one country yet;
> education policy is still set by state governments and not by
> Brussels.
>
of all, parents are NOT disenfranchised, as they are in the USA, but their
wishes are implemented and even paid for out of tax revenue.
Elmer Bataitis
> "phobos" <pho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Where in Europe do you have in mind? It's not one country yet;
> > education policy is still set by state governments and not by
> > Brussels.
> Germany in particular, but what does it matter, the method works. Most
> of all, parents are NOT disenfranchised, as they are in the USA, but their
> wishes are implemented and even paid for out of tax revenue.
And, of course, Germany has standards of education that include
evolution. There is no disenfranchisment on that issue in Germany so far
as I know. In fact, most Germans when I try to explain "creationism" to
them are just become more and more convinced that the USA is a
undereducated, cowboy country.
***************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis “Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!”
Planetech Services -Hobbes
585-442-2884
"...proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor, the
straight jacket of conventional thought."
***************************************************************
Alan A. Hobson
<akjm...@yahoo.com> pontificated:
Frank is a denomination unto himself. A devotee of Frankianity, if
you will.
-Alan
aa#1608
Pastor Frank
>
> I'd also like to read Frank's answer to your question about
> what ought to be taught in public schools.
>
children taught. Presently the government in cahoots with atheists and their
legal arm the ACLU, DICTATE what is to be taught and what not. The ACLU has
the nasty habit of threatening cash-strapped school boards with expensive
court action if they do not follow atheist policy. To appease the ACLU,
boards forbid teachers to mention religion on school grounds.
The result is that all textbooks have been purged and censored as to
religious content.The Pilgrims are not fleeing European religious
percecution anymore, but came to America as economic migrants. However, the
Salem witch-trials have been left in the books, just to show how supposedly
unhealthy, abnormal and nasty religion is.
Parents have been disenfranchised too long and it's time they are put in
charge of running the schools teaching THEIR children, NOT the government.
Pastor Frank
news:b11er5$maq$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> In message <1043544...@arakis.wincom.net>, "Pastor Frank" wrote:
> >
> > What should be taught their children should be the decision of the
> > parents, NOT the government in cahoots with atheists.
>
> What's wrong with atheism?
>
make religion look backward, out-of-date, primitive and only believed by
superstitious morons. THAT is being taught our kids in schools.
> Besides, if you're talking about the U.S. government, they are actually in
> 'cahoots' with the christian right. Bush is a personal friend to the
founder of
> the Christian Coalition, Roberta Combs; and the CC is the single largest
> lobbyist in terms of cash value that Washington D.C. has. They are a sick
bunch
> who wish to deny human rights to gays, and wish to undo the founding
father's
> wisdom of seperating Church and State.
>
The "Founding Fathers"? You must be kidding. the only mention of
"separation of church and state" occured in one letter to a Baptist
congregation, never in the constitution, it wasn't even considered by the
"founding fathers".
> You can't legislate belief. "Belief is like love", Schopenhauer said, "it
> cannot be compelled; and as any attempt to compel love produces hate, so
it is
> that the attempt to compel belief which first produces real unbelief."
>
That should be none of your concern, nor an excuse to disenfranchise
parents and ignore their wishes. If they wish atheist schools then so be it,
but it is no business of government to force atheism on them.
> > Look at Europe, where religion is a compulsory subject in schools,
and
> > were twice a week representatives of every faith can come and teach the
> > children who are signed up for it by their parents. Yes Tom, even
atheists
> > have the opportunity to teach their children the doctrines of Secular
> > Humanism in schools, -you would love it.
>
> What's wrong with secular humanism?
>
It depends on, whether they confine themselves to trashing religion, or
actually teach humanist values. There should be a law making trashing other
religions illegal, for you just don't sell your goods, by trashing the
competition. Such a law would virtually eliminate atheism.
Pastor Frank
others.
> Are you a fundamentalist, or what?
>
Are you a follower of Judaism believing that Christ was a fraud, "or
what"?
Pastor Frank
news:9qg83vkjir538tgq0...@4ax.com...
We do not trash other belief systems nor flame their followers like atheists
do.
Busterboo/Sharon
"Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
news:10436374...@arakis.wincom.net...
> "Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
> news:GaVY9.627$kJ6....@reggie.win.bright.net...
> >
> > I'd also like to read Frank's answer to your question about
> > what ought to be taught in public schools.
> >
> That's simple. The answer is naturally whatever the parents want their
> children taught. Presently the government in cahoots with atheists and
their
> legal arm the ACLU, DICTATE what is to be taught and what not. The ACLU
has
> the nasty habit of threatening cash-strapped school boards with expensive
You are stereotyping ALL atheists as being
active & militant supporters of the ACLU.
Personally, I know a few that don't like it, especially
when they've seen the ACLU defending NAMBLA
and other *questionable* agendas.
You seem to think that Atheists are all alike,
and have no ability to think on their own...
some do support the ACLU, just as there are
some Christians who support the ACLU !
DON'T FOOL YOURSELF...
Atheists, just like Christians come in all different
stripes, shades and spots.
Maybe I should stereotype you with all the Jim Jones,
Jim Bakkers, and Swaggarts of the Christian world.
If YOU don't like being stereotyped...
neither do Atheists.
As for the Salem-Witch trials in the textbooks?
it happened so, let it stand - - - sometimes religious
zealotry CAN lead to the worst kind of *madmen for God*.
We have enough of it in history... without need for
it in our public schools.
I'm sure alot of Jewish and Muslim children attending
the public schools would feel far more comfortable too,
if religion were kept out of the classroom, and was not
*forced* on them... as well as their parents.
I speak from PERSONAL experiance, or I wouldn't
have entered your thread.
Elmer Bataitis
> "Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
> > I'd also like to read Frank's answer to your question about
> > what ought to be taught in public schools.
> That's simple. The answer is naturally whatever the parents want their
> children taught.
How individual is this to be? If the majority of the parents in a
district want your children taught Islam, are you going to support that
choice? Or would you go running off to the ACLU screaming for help? ;-)
Busterboo/Sharon
"Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
news:10436374...@arakis.wincom.net...
> "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b11er5$maq$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > In message <1043544...@arakis.wincom.net>, "Pastor Frank" wrote:
> > >
> > > What should be taught their children should be the decision of the
> > > parents, NOT the government in cahoots with atheists.
> >
> > What's wrong with atheism?
> >
> It's being force-fed to our children. It's the business of atheism to
> make religion look backward, out-of-date, primitive and only believed by
> superstitious morons. THAT is being taught our kids in schools.
B-U-Z-Z-Z-Z... wrong *!*
My kids are in school, and it is against school policy to
discuss religion, one way or the other, concerning doctrine,
denomination or deity.
If anything, the schools are silent on atheism.
Most are too ignorant about *atheism* to begin to know
where, to start as for teaching it. It's certainly not a religion,
and I have yet to hear of any child being taught by any
teacher(s) that God doesn't exist.
If anything, the teachers/staff continue to push the line,
and express their PERSONAL religious faith on occasion...
as long as none of them outright tell my children "well the Bible sez.."
or condemning my children for the observance of a certain
religious ritual or sacred festival... but hey... THEY HAVE !
AT RISK OF ME TAKING THE SCHOOL TO COURT-
THEY DO IT, ALL THE TIME!!! I should be angry, but
I turn the other cheek. I'm accustomed to Christians
persecuting those who are of a different spiritual belief.
I myself am *Christian* but of Orthodox persuasion, and
often condemned by mainliners.
I say KEEP IT OUT of the schools.
Let them teach reading, writing and arithmetic like they're
suppose to and leave religion up to the parents and God,
where it belongs.
Pastor Frank
news:3E345F1B...@frontiernet.net...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
> > "phobos" <pho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Where in Europe do you have in mind? It's not one country yet;
> > > education policy is still set by state governments and not by
> > > Brussels.
>
> > Germany in particular, but what does it matter, the method works.
Most
> > of all, parents are NOT disenfranchised, as they are in the USA, but
their
> > wishes are implemented and even paid for out of tax revenue.
>
> And, of course, Germany has standards of education that include
> evolution. There is no disenfranchisment on that issue in Germany so far
> as I know. In fact, most Germans when I try to explain "creationism" to
> them are just become more and more convinced that the USA is a
> undereducated, cowboy country.
>
scientific one. Already the lack of a rounded education is apparent in your
comments.
--
Pastor Frank
Phil:4:8: Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, honest and just,
and whatsoever things are pure, lovely, and of good report; if there be any
virtue, praise and thanksgiving, think on these things.
Pastor Frank
news:3e34b190_3@newsfeed...
> "Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
> news:10436374...@arakis.wincom.net...
> > "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:b11er5$maq$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > > In message <1043544...@arakis.wincom.net>, "Pastor Frank" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What should be taught their children should be the decision of
the
> > > > parents, NOT the government in cahoots with atheists.
> > >
> > > What's wrong with atheism?
> > >
> > It's being force-fed to our children. It's the business of atheism
to
> > make religion look backward, out-of-date, primitive and only believed by
> > superstitious morons. THAT is being taught our kids in schools.
>
> B-U-Z-Z-Z-Z... wrong *!*
> My kids are in school, and it is against school policy to
> discuss religion, one way or the other, concerning doctrine,
> denomination or deity.
>
law ONLY specifies that tax money cannot be used to support, aid, propagate
or proselytize religion, it says nothing about trashing it. A teacher can
talk all day about how stupid and backward religion is. There is no law
against that and atheists of all stripes have a field day doing just that,
as they are doing in our pristine and hallowed Religious NGs.
Voucher schools may be the only answer to get democracy into schools.
You can send your kids to atheist schools, and I can send mine to Christian
schools.
Pastor Frank
> "Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
> news:10436374...@arakis.wincom.net...
> > "Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
> > news:GaVY9.627$kJ6....@reggie.win.bright.net...
> > >
> > > I'd also like to read Frank's answer to your question about
> > > what ought to be taught in public schools.
> > >
> > That's simple. The answer is naturally whatever the parents want
their
> > children taught. Presently the government in cahoots with atheists and
> their
> > legal arm the ACLU, DICTATE what is to be taught and what not. The ACLU
> has
> > the nasty habit of threatening cash-strapped school boards with
expensive
>
> the public schools would feel far more comfortable too,
> if religion were kept out of the classroom, and was not
> *forced* on them... as well as their parents.
>
dictatorship in cahoots with atheists. The only answer seems to be voucher
schools where I can send my kids to tax-supported Christian schools and you
can send yours to atheist ones.
Pastor Frank
> Pastor Frank wrote:
> > "Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > I'd also like to read Frank's answer to your question about
> > > what ought to be taught in public schools.
>
> > That's simple. The answer is naturally whatever the parents want
their
> > children taught.
>
> How individual is this to be? If the majority of the parents in a
> district want your children taught Islam, are you going to support that
> choice? Or would you go running off to the ACLU screaming for help? ;-)
>
religion class of their choice, and for one period, twice a week
representatives of the religions and/or denominations requested are invited
to come in and teach their class in each school at government expense.
The numbers of religions or denominations is only limited by the number
of class rooms available in each school and by the number of teachers that
can be hired to teach them. And yes, there are atheist classes and teachers
of secular Humanism among all the different religions and denominations. You
would love it.
Richard Smol
> That every belief other than atheism is a lie, is an atheist doctrine.
> We do not trash other belief systems nor flame their followers like atheists
> do.
We only wish! You are a liar, Frank, and a pretty DUMB liar
to boot.
RS
Pastor Frank
news:2767b33a.03012...@posting.google.com...
Thanks for proving my point. You immediately resort to trashing and
flaming, no explanation nor evidence required. Atheists only require theists
to provide proof for everything they say. LOL
Elmer Bataitis
> "Elmer Bataitis" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message.
> > > > Where in Europe do you have in mind? It's not one country yet;
> > > > education policy is still set by state governments and not by
> > > > Brussels.
> > > Germany in particular, but what does it matter, the method works. Most
> > > of all, parents are NOT disenfranchised, as they are in the USA, but their
> > > wishes are implemented and even paid for out of tax revenue.
> > And, of course, Germany has standards of education that include
> > evolution. There is no disenfranchisment on that issue in Germany so far
> > as I know. In fact, most Germans, when I try to explain "creationism" to
> > them, just become more and more convinced that the USA is a
> > undereducated, cowboy country.
> Religion is philosophy and creation is a philosophical construct, not a
> scientific one. Already the lack of a rounded education is apparent in your
> comments.
Frank, what do your comments have to do with mine?
Elmer Bataitis
> > > "Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
> > > > I'd also like to read Frank's answer to your question about
> > > > what ought to be taught in public schools.
> > > That's simple. The answer is naturally whatever the parents want their
> > > children taught.
> > How individual is this to be? If the majority of the parents in a
> > district want your children taught Islam, are you going to support that
> > choice? Or would you go running off to the ACLU screaming for help? ;-)
> The German system requires each parent to enrol their child in a
> religion class of their choice, and for one period, twice a week
> representatives of the religions and/or denominations requested are invited
> to come in and teach their class in each school at government expense.
> The numbers of religions or denominations is only limited by the number
> of class rooms available in each school and by the number of teachers that
> can be hired to teach them. And yes, there are atheist classes and teachers
> of secular Humanism among all the different religions and denominations. You
> would love it.
Frank, you have no clue about my beliefs and what I would love. The US
does not have a ferderally run educational system. The US educational
system is run by the parents in the form of school boards. Now, try and
answer my question in this light.
David DeMar
in news:2767b33a.03012...@posting.google.com:
You just proved his point.
David Jensen
>"Elmer Bataitis" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>news:3E345F1B...@frontiernet.net...
>> Pastor Frank wrote:
>> > "phobos" <pho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > > Where in Europe do you have in mind? It's not one country yet;
>> > > education policy is still set by state governments and not by
>> > > Brussels.
>>
>> > Germany in particular, but what does it matter, the method works.
>Most
>> > of all, parents are NOT disenfranchised, as they are in the USA, but
>their
>> > wishes are implemented and even paid for out of tax revenue.
>>
>> And, of course, Germany has standards of education that include
>> evolution. There is no disenfranchisment on that issue in Germany so far
>> as I know. In fact, most Germans when I try to explain "creationism" to
>> them are just become more and more convinced that the USA is a
>> undereducated, cowboy country.
>>
> Religion is philosophy and creation is a philosophical construct, not a
>scientific one. Already the lack of a rounded education is apparent in your
>comments.
Can you please provide a specific example of a European school that is
allowed not to teach evolution but is allowed to teach creationism?
David Jensen
>"Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
>news:GaVY9.627$kJ6....@reggie.win.bright.net...
>>
>> I'd also like to read Frank's answer to your question about
>> what ought to be taught in public schools.
>>
> That's simple. The answer is naturally whatever the parents want their
>children taught. Presently the government in cahoots with atheists and their
>legal arm the ACLU, DICTATE what is to be taught and what not. The ACLU has
>the nasty habit of threatening cash-strapped school boards with expensive
>court action if they do not follow atheist policy. To appease the ACLU,
>boards forbid teachers to mention religion on school grounds.
> The result is that all textbooks have been purged and censored as to
>religious content.The Pilgrims are not fleeing European religious
>percecution anymore, but came to America as economic migrants. However, the
>Salem witch-trials have been left in the books, just to show how supposedly
>unhealthy, abnormal and nasty religion is.
> Parents have been disenfranchised too long and it's time they are put in
>charge of running the schools teaching THEIR children, NOT the government.
Your claims, false as they are, get boring quickly. Before you tell
more lies, feel free to learn something about the Bill of Rights and the
free exercise of religion in the US. If you still don't like the
American Constitution, feel free to move somewhere else.
Even the majority of students who go to sectarian schools in this
country are taught evolution because that is what the scientific
evidence shows us. Creationism is a modern heresy which isn't really
Christian and has nothing to do with science.
David Jensen
>"Busterboo/Sharon" <Dis_Me_Not@I_Dis_U_Not> wrote in message
>news:3e34ad34_4@newsfeed...
>> "Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
>> news:10436374...@arakis.wincom.net...
>> > "Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
>> > news:GaVY9.627$kJ6....@reggie.win.bright.net...
>> > >
>> > > I'd also like to read Frank's answer to your question about
>> > > what ought to be taught in public schools.
>> > >
>> > That's simple. The answer is naturally whatever the parents want
>their
>> > children taught. Presently the government in cahoots with atheists and
>> their
>> > legal arm the ACLU, DICTATE what is to be taught and what not. The ACLU
>> has
>> > the nasty habit of threatening cash-strapped school boards with
>expensive
>>
>> I'm sure alot of Jewish and Muslim children attending
>> the public schools would feel far more comfortable too,
>> if religion were kept out of the classroom, and was not
>> *forced* on them... as well as their parents.
>>
> You miss the point. The point is democracy in schools, not government
>dictatorship in cahoots with atheists. The only answer seems to be voucher
>schools where I can send my kids to tax-supported Christian schools and you
>can send yours to atheist ones.
I'm generally a fan of voucher schools, but I would never allow any
school that doesn't actually teach science to qualify as a voucher
school.
David Jensen
>"Aaron K. Johnson" <akjm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b11er5$maq$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>> In message <1043544...@arakis.wincom.net>, "Pastor Frank" wrote:
>> >
>> > What should be taught their children should be the decision of the
>> > parents, NOT the government in cahoots with atheists.
>>
>> What's wrong with atheism?
>>
> It's being force-fed to our children.
You know that's a lie.
>It's the business of atheism to
>make religion look backward, out-of-date, primitive and only believed by
>superstitious morons. THAT is being taught our kids in schools.
Evangelical fundamentalists do that to themselves. Atheists don't have
to point it out.
>> Besides, if you're talking about the U.S. government, they are actually in
>> 'cahoots' with the christian right. Bush is a personal friend to the
>founder of
>> the Christian Coalition, Roberta Combs; and the CC is the single largest
>> lobbyist in terms of cash value that Washington D.C. has. They are a sick
>bunch
>> who wish to deny human rights to gays, and wish to undo the founding
>father's
>> wisdom of seperating Church and State.
>>
> The "Founding Fathers"? You must be kidding. the only mention of
>"separation of church and state" occured in one letter to a Baptist
>congregation, never in the constitution, it wasn't even considered by the
>"founding fathers".
This sounds like the old Bircher answer to "Are you a fascist
organization?" where they started talking about bundles of sticks.
You cannot comply with the Constitutional ban on the establishment of
churches by establishing all the different churches.
>> You can't legislate belief. "Belief is like love", Schopenhauer said, "it
>> cannot be compelled; and as any attempt to compel love produces hate, so
>it is
>> that the attempt to compel belief which first produces real unbelief."
>>
> That should be none of your concern, nor an excuse to disenfranchise
>parents and ignore their wishes. If they wish atheist schools then so be it,
>but it is no business of government to force atheism on them.
As long as students have to take something like A-levels in science to
get into college, that's fine with me, though any school that fails to
educate children in science would have its funding pulled.
>> > Look at Europe, where religion is a compulsory subject in schools,
>and
>> > were twice a week representatives of every faith can come and teach the
>> > children who are signed up for it by their parents. Yes Tom, even
>atheists
>> > have the opportunity to teach their children the doctrines of Secular
>> > Humanism in schools, -you would love it.
>>
>> What's wrong with secular humanism?
>>
> It depends on, whether they confine themselves to trashing religion, or
>actually teach humanist values.
Your ignorance of secular humanism is noted.
>There should be a law making trashing other
>religions illegal, for you just don't sell your goods, by trashing the
>competition. Such a law would virtually eliminate atheism.
Every Christian sect trashes the others...
Busterboo/Sharon
"Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
news:10436630...@arakis.wincom.net...
> "Busterboo/Sharon" <Dis_Me_Not@I_Dis_U_Not> wrote in message
> news:3e34b190_3@newsfeed...
> > "Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
> > news:10436374...@arakis.wincom.net...
> > > "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:b11er5$maq$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > > > In message <1043544...@arakis.wincom.net>, "Pastor Frank"
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > What should be taught their children should be the decision of
> the
> > > > > parents, NOT the government in cahoots with atheists.
> > > >
> > > > What's wrong with atheism?
> > > >
> > > It's being force-fed to our children. It's the business of atheism
> to
> > > make religion look backward, out-of-date, primitive and only believed
by
> > > superstitious morons. THAT is being taught our kids in schools.
> >
> > B-U-Z-Z-Z-Z... wrong *!*
> > My kids are in school, and it is against school policy to
> > discuss religion, one way or the other, concerning doctrine,
> > denomination or deity.
> >
> As long as religion is discussed in a negative way, it IS permitted.
No, it is not. I would like to see where *religion* is so
obsessed in the classroom. Anyone with common sense and
a realistic mind know the students/teachers have their minds
focused on geometry, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, biology,
chemistry, physics, auto mechanics, welding, home ec, football
games and the prom. You sure have been getting an *imbalanced*
& unrealistic report of what's currently going on in the schools.
The
> law ONLY specifies that tax money cannot be used to support, aid,
propagate
> or proselytize religion, it says nothing about trashing it. A teacher can
> talk all day about how stupid and backward religion is.
NO THEY CANNOT.
AS SOON AS THEY'RE DISCUSSING *RELIGION*, THEY
HAVE CROSSED THE LINE BETWEEN SEPARATION
OF CHURCH AND STATE.
There is no law
> against that
YES THERE IS. IT IS CALLED THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE UNITED STATES.
and atheists of all stripes have a field day doing just that,
NO THEY ARE NOT.
> as they are doing in our pristine and hallowed Religious NGs.
THIS IS USENET. IT IS AN OPEN FORUM...
IF PEOPLE CANNOT EXPRESS OPINIONS IN THESE
HALLOWED NEWSGROUPS, WHERE CAN THEY
EXPRESS THEM? WOULD YOU TRY TO TAKE THAT
AWAY TOO, THE FREEDOM TO EXPRESS AN OPINION
ON USENET? *This* explains why Atheists are so fearful of
the fundamentalist right wing... because if they ever get power...
> Voucher schools may be the only answer to get democracy into schools.
And I have no problem with issuing vouchers to parents
with children, to choose if their children go to a Christian
school. No problem whatsoever, AS LONG AS its a
truly accredited school, that's making the grade where
math, social studies, literature and the sciences are concerned.
> You can send your kids to atheist schools, and I can send mine to
Christian schools.
There is NO SUCH THING as an *atheist* school.
That is an extreme comment on the public school system.
David Jensen
David DeMar <david...@mail.com> wrote in
<sLaZ9.187915$j8.46...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>:
No, I think he pointed out that Frank lied by making a false claim about
atheism and that Frank also made a related false claim about Frank's
religion. If I were you, I wouldn't bother to defend Frank, it will only
destroy your own credibility.
Busterboo/Sharon
"Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
news:10436630...@arakis.wincom.net...
No, I think the point is that no religious group should be in a
position to tell others what, and what not, to believe concerning
matters about *God*. You have missed the point, for what
the separation of church and state is about.
Our government is not in *cahoots with atheists*... again, are
your religious beliefs as extreme, as these prejudiced comments?
What you are suggesting we impose is not *democracy* in
the schools, but *theocracy*. There is democracy in the schools
right now. Nobody has said that your children are forbidden
to bow their head at any given time, and say a silent prayer.
theocracy, noun, pl. -cies.
1. a government in which God, or a god, is recognized
as the supreme civil ruler and in which religious authorities
rule the state as God's, or a god's, representatives.
Ex. In the little theocracy which the Pilgrims established ...
the ministry was the only order of nobility
(Harriet Beecher Stowe).
2. any government headed by religious authorities.
3. a country or state governed by a theocracy. theocrasy,
noun, pl. -sies.1. a mixture of several gods in one deity or
of the worship of different gods.
2. the intimate union of the soul with God in contemplation.
theocrat, noun.1. a person who rules in a theocracy, alone
or as a member of a governing body.
2. a person who favors theocracy. theocratic, adjective.
1. of, having to do with, or of the nature of theocracy.
2. having a theocracy. Ex. a theocratic state. adv. theocratically.
Tom
> > > That every belief other than atheism is a lie, is an atheist
> doctrine.
> > > We do not trash other belief systems nor flame their followers like
> atheists
> > > do.
> >
> > We only wish! You are a liar, Frank, and a pretty DUMB liar
> > to boot.
> >
>
trashing >and
> flaming, no explanation nor evidence required. Atheists only require
theists
> to provide proof for everything they say. LOL
Tom: Frank is much dumber than "Pastor" Dave. How is that for proving your
point, you idiot! I see that you are still trying to LOL. Let me know if you
ever succeed.
Tom
> >> atheist doctrine. We do not trash other belief systems nor
> >> flame their followers like atheists do.
> >
> > We only wish! You are a liar, Frank, and a pretty DUMB liar
> > to boot.
>DeMar: You just proved his point.
Tom: Frank never had a "point".
Dave Oldridge
I doubt this can be gotten away with in very many school districts. I
know, even in Canada, where we are much less "evangelical" about such
things, it would bring a parental reaction that would be visible on TV and
in the papers.
> Voucher schools may be the only answer to get democracy into
> schools.
In my opinion, they are a recipe for disaster. You would spend all your
money on bureaucracy to administer the vouchers or you would get robbed
blind.
> You can send your kids to atheist schools, and I can send mine to
> Christian schools.
What we do here in Canada in some provinces, anyway, is subsidize the
SECULAR portion of Christian school programmes. But so many Christian
schools, so-called, including the one my mother sent me to in the 1950's
exist more for the purpose of preventing education than administering it.
Indeed, the school I attended used corporal punishment to discourage it.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
Busterboo/Sharon
> "Richard Smol" <jaz...@dds.nl> wrote in message
> news:2767b33a.03012...@posting.google.com...
> > "Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
> news:<10436374...@arakis.wincom.net>...
> > >
> > > That every belief other than atheism is a lie, is an atheist
> doctrine.
> > > We do not trash other belief systems nor flame their followers like
> atheists
> > > do.
> >
> > We only wish! You are a liar, Frank, and a pretty DUMB liar
> > to boot.
> >
>
> Thanks for proving my point. You immediately resort to trashing and
> flaming, no explanation nor evidence required. Atheists only require
theists
> to provide proof for everything they say. LOL
> --
He was no more insulting and flaming, than you were in your
posts toward me, and I AM a Christian... the only difference
is that I keep the Holy Days, the true Sabbath, the Orthodox
laws regarding clean/unclean meats.. I am Orthodox in my
Christianity, very much like Jews. What you would like seen
done in the public school system, is a THREAT to my
religious beliefs... and my children DO NOT want it either.
My daughter has came home numerous times, upset with
her teachers who learned of our religious beliefs, and began
PREACHING at her from the Bible, and their personal religious
beliefs. I guess you would understand better, if one of your
children came home frustrated with their math or english teacher,
preaching to them out of the Koran and *correct* doctrines
to live by, as a good Muslim.
Dave Oldridge
news:3e354645_4@newsfeed:
I suspect that he is more likely part of the conspiracy that is GIVING
such an unrealistic report.
However, education varies a lot in the USA from state to state and even
county to county. I have a good friend in Colo. who home schools his
kids, not because of any huge religious issues with the teaching but
because the general quality of it is so abysmal that they weren't getting
a proper education. (Indeed, the fact that evolution was NOT being taught
properly was part of his decision).
Busterboo/Sharon
> > news:<10436374...@arakis.wincom.net>...
> >
> >> That every belief other than atheism is a lie, is an
> >> atheist doctrine. We do not trash other belief systems nor
> >> flame their followers like atheists do.
Pastor Frank reminds me of that television series
"Star Trek: The Next Generation" where the Borg
mindlessly sez
"You will be assimilated, resistance is futile."
He just doesn't get it, *why* some of us do not want
*his religion* in control of the *public* schools.
Aaron K. Johnson
> Thanks for proving my point. You immediately resort to trashing and
> flaming, no explanation nor evidence required. Atheists only require theists
> to provide proof for everything they say. LOL
Frank, why did you ignore my response in the thread "A response to Pastor
Frank".
I addressed your idea that atheists are only out to 'trash and flame'
Look it up, and reply from that thread, please.
Best,
Aaron.
Aaron K. Johnson
> Thanks for proving my point. You immediately resort to trashing and
> flaming, no explanation nor evidence required. Atheists only require theists
> to provide proof for everything they say. LOL
Whatever. Take a look at Pastor Dave's mail signature, and tell me that it's
not designed to 'trash' atheism.
Every other sentence out of you is an attack on atheism. 'Atheist' schools, the
'atheist, immoral government', 'atheist immorality', 'atheist conspiracy'. You
name it.
My point: if your email is 'hallelujah@praisethelord' you have an agenda and
you know it!
-Aaron.
Aaron K. Johnson
> Pastor Frank reminds me of that television series
> "Star Trek: The Next Generation" where the Borg
> mindlessly sez
> "You will be assimilated, resistance is futile."
>
> He just doesn't get it, *why* some of us do not want
> *his religion* in control of the *public* schools.
Some Christians are so brainwashed, indoctrinated and agenda oriented that they
don't regard their religion *as* reigion but as the 'pure truth', and want to
legislate the rest of the fucking world around what they see as 'obvious'. It's
the 'missionary mindset' of the worst sort
The pure arrogance!
-Aaron.
Aaron K. Johnson
I'm interested to see if Frank will use this oppurtunity to realize that to
promote christianity in the schools at the expense of free religious tolerance
is pure hypocrisy.
Anyone placing bets?
-Aaron.
Busterboo/Sharon
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridgLE...@hfx.eastlink.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns93107499B3EE5...@142.77.1.194...
Absolutely Pastor Frank... my sister is a Jehovah Witness
who is opposed to things with the government/school education
system... if the public school system leaves you disillusioned,
home-school your children, as my sister does with her children.
Alan A. Hobson
<hallelujah@praisethelord> pontificated:
>"Alan A. Hobson" <aho...@indyDOTrr.com> wrote in message
>news:9qg83vkjir538tgq0...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 16:00:31 +0800, "Pastor Frank"
>> <hallelujah@praisethelord> pontificated:
>> >"Alan Hobson" <al...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >news:d1d6cbe3.03012...@posting.google.com...
>> >> "Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
>> >news:<10434052...@arakis.wincom.net>...
>> >> >
>> >> > Again, let's talk about your scientific facts concerning
>abiogenesis
>> >and
>> >> > see whether they are any more valid than our account of it in
>Genesis.
>> >After
>> >> > that we can discuss you paranoia about religion being taught in
>schools,
>> >and
>> >> > our fear of atheist censorship demands and curtailment of free
>speech.
>> >>
>> >> "Our" account in genesis, Frank? I thought you didn't believe in the
>> >> OT and called it Judaism?
>> >> **Begin quote of Pastor Frank**
>> >> Why to you keep quoting Judaism? We are Christians, that means
>> >> followers of Jesus Christ of the NT.
>> >> You compare two different religions. Stick to Christ and His Holy
>> >> Spirit will reveal all truth to you.
>> >> **End quote**
>> >> Have you had an epiphany and suddenly decided that the OT is true?
>> >> -Alan
>> >> aa#1608
>> >>
>> > We Christian use the OT to support Christ, didn't you know that? But
>> >where the OT differs from Christ, i.e. divorce, violent retribution etc.
>> >etc. (see below) we are to stick to Christ's commandments, not the OTs.
>>
>> So the parts that don't support jesus are lies?
>> -Alan aa#1608
>>
> That every belief other than atheism is a lie, is an atheist doctrine.
>We do not trash other belief systems nor flame their followers like atheists
>do.
So those parts of the OT that refer to the messiah and don't fit Jesus
are truth?
-Alan
aa#1608
Busterboo/Sharon
"Aaron K. Johnson" <akjm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b13lo6$a1t$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> In message <10436734...@arakis.wincom.net>, "Pastor Frank" wrote:
>
> > Thanks for proving my point. You immediately resort to trashing and
> > flaming, no explanation nor evidence required. Atheists only require
theists
> > to provide proof for everything they say. LOL
>
> Whatever. Take a look at Pastor Dave's mail signature, and tell me that
it's
> not designed to 'trash' atheism.
>
Pastor Dave Raymond
___
In the beginning, God created...
[ anyone not believing in And He did it in six days and said
his version of creation ] He did it in six days (Exodus 20:11).
[Orthodox Jews are being Jesus believed that. Can a person claim
excluded in his narrow to believe in the Trinity and yet, not
view of things ] believe that God would know how it all
[Christians who reject started? If you can't believe the
the Trinity ] beginning, then get off the pulpit.
[Those of other religion]
[Yes, Atheists are "Atheism is folly, and atheists are the
being trashed too] greatest fools in nature; for they see
there is a world that could not make
itself, and yet they will not own
there
is a God that made it. - Matthew
Henry
Busterboo/Sharon
"Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
> Religion is philosophy and creation is a philosophical construct, not
a
> scientific one. Already the lack of a rounded education is apparent in
your
> comments.
> --
Am I understanding that you are saying:
Religion is philosophy... not scientific?
Good... then you will see why it doesn't belong amidst reading,
writing, and arithmetic. ESPECIALLY NOT SCIENCE.
rogue
> > > > In message <1043544...@arakis.wincom.net>, "Pastor Frank" wrote:
> > > > > What should be taught their children should be the decision of
> the parents, NOT the government in cahoots with atheists.
> > > >
> > > > What's wrong with atheism?
> > > >PASTOR FRANK
> > > It's being force-fed to our children.
JERRY
Wrong again, Pastor Frank. Have you taught in the public schools? I
have. First, anyone speaking of religion gets their pee-pees slapped,
even in the most backward of schools because there is always some
child whose parents are either very religious or very skeptical and
don't want the subject discussed. Teachers are advised that if
students bring up the subject that they should change it by pointing
out the subject of the discussion.
>PASTOR FRANK
It's the business of atheism to make religion look backward,
out-of-date, primitive and only believed by superstitious morons. THAT
is being taught our kids in schools.
JERRY
No, that is what is being taught by fundamentalists whose arguments in
support of their biblical literalist beliefs make them look backward,
out-of-date, primitive and superstitious morons. Skeptics can't help
it if biblical literalists give that impression to anyone who is
capable of thinking for themselves. They do it every day in this
forum alone.
> >
> > B-U-Z-Z-Z-Z... wrong *!*
> > My kids are in school, and it is against school policy to
> > discuss religion, one way or the other, concerning doctrine,
> > denomination or deity.
> >PASTOR FRANK
> As long as religion is discussed in a negative way, it IS permitted.
JERRY
But as I've pointed out, religion is such a hot topic that teachers
and students are discouraged from discussing it at all. What I
normally see is that religious kids (pushed by their parents,
apparently) are trying to push their religion in a public school
setting. According to the most recent polls, a little over 95% of the
people polled believe in some kind of deity. That means that atheists
can be no more than 5% of the population. Therefore, I find it hard
to believe that atheists do much harm to the religious beliefs of the
majority.
>PASTOR FRANK
>The law ONLY specifies that tax money cannot be used to support, aid,
propagate
> or proselytize religion, it says nothing about trashing it. A teacher can
> talk all day about how stupid and backward religion is. There is no law
> against that and atheists of all stripes have a field day doing just that,
> as they are doing in our pristine and hallowed Religious NGs.
JERRY
Wow, paranoid much? This has already been addressed above.
>PASTOR FRANK
> Voucher schools may be the only answer to get democracy into schools.
> You can send your kids to atheist schools, and I can send mine to Christian
> schools.
JERRY
why not just send kids to religion neutral schools and tell everyone,
teachers and students alike that their religious beliefs or lack
thereof are private matters that are not appropriate in the school
setting? No christian clubs for kids, no atheist clubs for kids. No
discussion of religion except in a comparative religion class and no
mention of it at all in science classes. Would that make you happy?
Keenan Clay Wilkie
>"Richard Smol" <jaz...@dds.nl> wrote in message
>news:2767b33a.03012...@posting.google.com...
>> "Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
>news:<10436374...@arakis.wincom.net>...
>> >
>> > That every belief other than atheism is a lie, is an atheist
>doctrine.
>> > We do not trash other belief systems nor flame their followers like
>atheists
>> > do.
>>
>> We only wish! You are a liar, Frank, and a pretty DUMB liar
>> to boot.
>>
> Thanks for proving my point. You immediately resort to trashing and
>flaming, no explanation nor evidence required. Atheists only require theists
>to provide proof for everything they say. LOL
No, Frank, he's pointing out that your claim is false. Your claim is
false, there is no 'atheist doctrine', and you are a liar. You cannot
deny that you are a liar, Frank, because you've been exposed as lying in
the past. You lied about my statements in the past once in an attempt to
discredit me, and all because you are too arrogant and dishonest to admit
that you made a simple mistake.
You called Alan Hobson a liar because you misinterpreted his statement.
When his statement was explained more clearly, you flatly denied that he
intended what he very clearly intended. Rather than admit your mistake
and move on, you've spun a web of lies to cover up your error and instead
you've made yourself look like a dishonest prick. You claimed that the
term "Christian Scientist" as a name for members of a small sect was
invented by atheists to discredit Christians who happen to be scientists,
and that was soundly disproven, then you took a statement of mine out of
context to make it appear that I said something completely different.
Frank, nothing that you say can be trusted. Other Christians may have
honour, integrity and honesty, but you have demonstrated clearly that you
have none of that. Your lies are a matter of public record; I will let
others know of them and I will not let you forget about them.
ATTENTION ALL:
It should be known that Pastor Frank, while claiming to be a Christian,
engages in blatant dishonesty and shows of pride and arrogance.
Below is an archived USENET posting of mine where I ask two things of
Frank that he has so far refused to address. The first is where he
mistook a reference to Christian Scientists, as in followers of the Chuch
of Christ Scientist, as a reference to scientists who happen to be
Christians and called someone a liar over the claim made, even though the
claim was absolutely true. The second is a bit older, in which Frank
accuses me of "hating democracy" simply because I pointed out that
'argument ad numerum' is a logical fallacy. In the former case, Frank has
not only steadfastly refused to admit his mistake and apologize for
calling Alan Hobson a liar, but he has also since claimed that the term
"Christian Scientist" was invented by atheists in an attempt to demonize
all Christians who happen to be scientists, even though it is used by
supporters of the sect themselves as can be seen here:
http://christianscientist.rolf-witzsche.com/
In the latter case, Frank has steadfastly refused to address the issue of
why he brought up the issue of democracy (where decisions are made via
majority vote) versues argument ad numerum (the logical fallacy where the
truth is asserted solely on the basis of majority vote in a position).
Still unwilling to admit his error, Frank has since lied further.
Check this post here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1042705500.178522%40arakis.wincom.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
In it, Frank quotes me and replies as such:
> I've already proven you wrong, Frank. You claimed that the term
> "Christian Scientist" is used to describe members of the Church of
> Christ
I did no such thing. In fact, it was YOU who falsely call members of
the Christian Science cult "Christian scientists". But thanks again for
proving my point. You will demonize anything with that most hated word in
atheism: "Christ" in its name, will you not?
In here, it looks like I've tried to slander members of the Church of
Christ by associating them with "Christian Scientists". Except that Frank
has dishonestly cut out most of my statement. What I really said can be
found here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3e258e72_1%40news.iglou.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
What I really said was:
"I've already proven you wrong, Frank. You claimed that the term
"Christian Scientist" is used to describe members of the Church of Christ
Scientist only by atheists in an attempt to disparage non-sect members who
happen to be both scientists and Christians. "
And I even offered documentation that Frank was wrong here:
http://christianscientist.rolf-witzsche.com/
Oh, and in case you're wondering, Frank did make the claim that only
atheists use the term "Christian Scientist" to describe members of the
Church of Christ Scientist here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1042499899.463285%40arakis.wincom.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
Where he said:
"Common usage" ONLY by atheists out to vilify all Christians. How better
to make all research by real Christian scientists suspect, then to call
believers in Christian Science, "Christian scientists"? "
Note Frank's inherent dishonesty throughout. No one in the threads
(please feel free to research them) used the term "Christian scientist"
EXCEPT for Frank. Everyone who referenced members of that sect properly
capitalized it as "Christian Scientist". Frank was caught in a lie, and
he continually tries to rewrite history to get out of it.
Anyway, as you can see Frank is lying either way. If he's replying to my
quote as it originally stood, then I've proven him wrong above, where I
show that he did make the claim I attributed to him. If he's replying to
only what he quoted of me, disregarding what he snipped, then he's
dishonestly quoting me out of context, completely changing the meaning of
what I wrote. In either case, Frank is exposed as unashamedly dishonest.
Note that I am not accusing all Christians as being as dishonest as Frank.
I really don't think that it's possible, I think that Frank's arrogance
and dishonesty is some kind of rare mental problem. I just wish it to be
known that people conversing with Frank can expect him to lie and distort
context, and that nothing that he says can be trusted. My argument here
is with Frank, not with Christ or with Christians in general. I know that
Frank will claim otherwise but, really, can you take the word of someone
who is so documented as a liar?
Below is a previous response to just one of many of Frank's attempts to
weasel out of his lie:
From: dark...@iglou.com (Keenan Wilkie)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.bible,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian
Subject: Re: NBC exposes BENNY HINN
Date: 10 Jan 2003 13:19:55 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 106
Message-ID: <e044628f.03011...@posting.google.com>
References: <bvlb1v061t48eql25...@4ax.com> <Pine.OSF.3.96.103010...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu> <10417955...@arakis.wincom.net> <62dh1vkvgur94sjqp...@4ax.com> <10418509...@arakis.wincom.net> <d1d6cbe3.03010...@posting.google.com> <10419016...@arakis.wincom.net> <23pk1v8mrtfgai8lh...@4ax.com> <3E1A6AD3...@kc.rr.com> <952m1vgdhdc3klvp9cp2i5cgd <3e1c8f3a$1...@news.iglou.com> <10421381...@arakis.wincom.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.62.106.30
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1042233595 13399 127.0.0.1 (10 Jan 2003 21:19:55 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Jan 2003 21:19:55 GMT
Path: news.iglou.com!uunet!chi.uu.net!sea.uu.net!sac.uu.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
Xref: news-incoming.iglou.com alt.atheism:2214328 alt.bible:559770 alt.christnet.philosophy:190772 alt.christnet.theology:212917 alt.religion.christian:909484
"Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message news:<10421381...@arakis.wincom.net>...
> "Keenan Clay Wilkie" <dark...@shell1.iglou.com> wrote in message
> news:3e1c8f3a$1...@news.iglou.com...
> > Alan A. Hobson <aho...@indyDOTrr.com> writes:
> >
> > >On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 23:51:15 -0600, Christopher Atkins <o...@kc.rr.com>
> > >pontificated:
> >
> > [snip an honest, even if slightly terse in a few spots, answering of a
> > series of questions]
> >
> > >Most Christians have no problems answering these questions since they
> > >are standard tenets of their faith. Pastor Frank, for some reason,
> > >can't or refuses to do so. Frank appears to completely discount the
> > >OT calling it "Judaism" and refuses to acknowledge any realtionship
> > >between Jesus and Jehovah. I'm not sure what religion Frank follows
> > >but it is certainly not christianity as it is generally practiced.
> > >Maybe we should just call it Frankianity or Fian for short.
> >
> > I noticed that Frank never admitted his mistake when he confused the
> > reference of Christian Scientists refusing medical treatments with the
> > JW's prohibition on blood transfusions. It was a pretty odd error, as it
> > clearly demonstrated Frank's ignorance, but even though numerous people
> > pointed it out, Pastor Frank never once addressed his error. I wonder if
> > his religion requires a certain level of arrogant dishonesty.
> >
> The followers of Christian Science are NOT Christian scientists. Get
> used to it.
Nobody said that they were, Frank, but the informal name of their sect
is "Christian Scientist" and they refer to themselves as 'Christian
Scientists'. You're not fooling anyone when you try to lie about your
ignorance.
The original comment was regarding the practice of Christian
Scientists of refusing medical treatment. You responded claiming that
no scientist, Christian or otherwise, would do such a thing.
Let me refresh your memory. The original posting from Alan Hobson
that triggered your mistake can be found here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=cc5f1v83bbip9c7g226f8gkdhn4037c552%404ax.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
And let me quote the relevant portion:
"I DO care when some Xian Scientist condemns their child to death by
refusing a life saving treatment simply because it violates some weird
interpretation of some obscure passage in a "holy" book. "
Now some might object to the shorthand term 'Xian' in stead of
'Christian', but you cannot deny that Alan Hobson made the entire term
out to be a proper name because he did capitalize the word 'Scientist'
in the title. He was referring to the Church of Christ Scientist, as
numerous people pointed out after you made the post here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1041795558.190513%40arakis.wincom.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
When you in DIRECT RESPONSE to the quoted text above said:
"Now you are also a liar, for no "scientist" Christian or otherwise
promotes JW prohibition against blood."
It is very clear that you are confusing Alan's reference to the Church
of Christ Scientist's shunning of all modern medical treatment with
the Jehovah's Witnesses' shunning of blood transfusion. Now, this
error speaks somewhat of your ignorance, but some here are willing to
believe that you merely made a hasty mistake. Were you to have said
as much, likely not everyone would doubt your word. However, you
refused to even once address your error. You refused to admit your
mistake because you are too much of a coward and too much of a liar to
ever admit that you've erred. That you, in this latest posting,
continue to ignore your own error and accuse me of making statements
that I've never made is just further proof that you, Pastor Frank, are
a shameless liar.
Why can't you admit that you made a mistake, Frank? Why can't you
apologize to Alan for calling him a liar over a statement that clearly
was not a lie? Why do you make an unprovoked attack against me rather
than admit your error and move on?
I'll just be saving this post for future reference along with the one
where you accused me of hating democracy even though I never said any
such thing.
Oh, btw, that reminds me...
Say, Frank, I've been meaning (for months now) to bring this back up
to you.
Back in May, 2002, a person named Alan Wostenberg presented the
argument that Christianity is somehow 'more valid' because of the
number of followers that it has. I countered that he was appealing to
argument ad numerum, which is a logical fallacy because a logical
statement is not true or false simply based on how many people believe
it to be true. You replied making a comment about a majority vote and
accused me of hating democracy. Since I wasn't discussing democracy,
but was addressing a genuine logical fallacy, I asked if you were
being deliberately dishonest or if you were just too stupid to
understand the difference between a 'democracy' and 'appeal to
numbers'. the post can be seen here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=e044628f.0205311043.2eb75df9%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
Which is it Frank? Were you being dishonest, or are you just stupid?
I can't see any other possibilities, but feel free to suggest one if
you an think of one.
--
d a r k s t a r @ i g l o u . c o m | atheist #29
Thinking about buying the Back To The Future DVD set? Be warned! See
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113387
for more information (and don't be an idiot by buying fullscreen instead).
Thomas McDonald
> "Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
> news:GaVY9.627$kJ6....@reggie.win.bright.net...
>
>>I'd also like to read Frank's answer to your question about
>>what ought to be taught in public schools.
>>
>
> That's simple. The answer is naturally whatever the parents want their
> children taught.
Frank,
Do you mean that parents ought to decide what should be
taught in every class? Or are you speaking only about what
religious classes ought to be taught?
Tom McDonald
<snip>
Thomas McDonald
> "Busterboo/Sharon" <Dis_Me_Not@I_Dis_U_Not> wrote in message
>
>>"Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
>>news:10436374...@arakis.wincom.net...
>>
>>>news:GaVY9.627$kJ6....@reggie.win.bright.net...
>>>
>>>>I'd also like to read Frank's answer to your question about
>>>>what ought to be taught in public schools.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's simple. The answer is naturally whatever the parents want
>
> their
>
>>
>>their
>>
>>>legal arm the ACLU, DICTATE what is to be taught and what not. The ACLU
>>
>>has
>>
>>>the nasty habit of threatening cash-strapped school boards with
>
> expensive
>
>>I'm sure alot of Jewish and Muslim children attending
>>the public schools would feel far more comfortable too,
>>if religion were kept out of the classroom, and was not
>>*forced* on them... as well as their parents.
>>
>
> You miss the point. The point is democracy in schools, not government
> dictatorship in cahoots with atheists. The only answer seems to be voucher
> schools where I can send my kids to tax-supported Christian schools and you
> can send yours to atheist ones.
Frank,
Do you mean that you think public schools should come in
all the flavors that would be desired by parents in a
community?
We've been speaking of religious variety here, but your
answer seems to be relevant for other viewpoints as well.
Do you think that, in every case and in every point of
possible variant views, parental choice should absolutely
rule what is taught in public schools?
Tom McDonald
<snip sig>
David Jensen
I wonder if Frank wants lies taught.
Daniel Kolle
>You can send your kids to atheist schools, and I can send mine to Christian
>schools.
...Atheist schools?
-Kolle; 14 A.A. #2035
Der verformte Kohl.
Koji Kondo are Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Ghostman
> "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b11er4$maq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>> In message <10435723...@arakis.wincom.net>, "Pastor Frank"
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > We Christian use the OT to support Christ, didn't you know that?
>> > But
>> > where the OT differs from Christ, i.e. divorce, violent retribution
>> > etc. etc. (see below) we are to stick to Christ's commandments, not
>> > the OTs.
>>
>> So basically, you pick and choose what you think is right in your
>> heart.
>>
> No. We will always follow Christ and His commandments, forsaking
> all others.
We know. Right off the cliff like a pack of lemmings.
--
Ghostman
aa # 2011
EAC Nonexistent Director of Alcohol, Tobacco and Bad Puns
"Don't be afraid, man is man-made."
[Greg Lake, "Infinite Space" - Emerson, Lake & Palmer]
David Jensen
Ghostman <ghos...@ghost.com> wrote in
<Xns9310918FF3660...@127.0.0.1>:
>One fine day in alt.atheism, Pastor Frank fired a few neurons and wrote:
>
>> "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:b11er4$maq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>>> In message <10435723...@arakis.wincom.net>, "Pastor Frank"
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > We Christian use the OT to support Christ, didn't you know that?
>>> > But
>>> > where the OT differs from Christ, i.e. divorce, violent retribution
>>> > etc. etc. (see below) we are to stick to Christ's commandments, not
>>> > the OTs.
>>>
>>> So basically, you pick and choose what you think is right in your
>>> heart.
>>>
>> No. We will always follow Christ and His commandments, forsaking
>> all others.
>
>We know. Right off the cliff like a pack of lemmings.
Even when they aren't actually following Christ, for example, Young
Earth Creationism.
Philip Schroeder
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Daniel Kolle wrote:
> "Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> thought hard and said:
>
> >You can send your kids to atheist schools, and I can send mine to Christian
> >schools.
>
> ...Atheist schools?
>
Excuse me, I don't want too relumine your discussion,
but shouldn't this be decided by the children themselves?
If I had, I would send my children to a school, where they
have the POSSIBILITY to take lessons in religion.
If they aren't interested in religion, then don't press them,
but if they are, give them all the opportunities they need to
find out in what they believe,
then they need a strong and trustworthy person who guides
them on their way, living their belief,
not due to stories from long ago,
where nobody today can really tell about the truth of 'em,
but because of gods word that lies burried within
the tales (sorry, if I call 'èm tales, but to me that is
the best description for them, and it doesn't really matter,
if everything written in the bible really has happened, you have to
read beetween the lines) of the
bible, and that has to become their own word,
in THEIR world.
Greetings
Phil.
David Jensen
Mr Tim <timo@-nospam-nobarriers.ca> wrote in
<rdmb3v00treoqhpet...@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:45:23 -0500, in alt.religion.christian,
>"Busterboo/Sharon" <Dis_Me_Not@I_Dis_U_Not> hired 1,000 monkeys to
>give us:
>
>>
>>
>>"Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
>>news:10436630...@arakis.wincom.net...
>>There is no law
>>> against that
>>
>>YES THERE IS. IT IS CALLED THE CONSTITUTION
>>OF THE UNITED STATES.
>
>Please show me the phrase "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" anywhere in
>the United States Constitution.
The concept needn't be expressed in those words. The phrase 'separation
of church and state' is the shorthand for the US's constitutional
requirements.
Busterboo/Sharon
"Mr Tim" <timo@-nospam-nobarriers.ca> wrote in message
news:rdmb3v00treoqhpet...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 21:45:23 -0500, in alt.religion.christian,
> "Busterboo/Sharon" <Dis_Me_Not@I_Dis_U_Not> hired 1,000
> Please show me the phrase "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" anywhere in
> the United States Constitution.
>
Amendment 1
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion...."
As soon as the United States government has given *legal*
authority to people like Pastor Frank, to have influence over
what my child is being taught in school...
IT HAS SAME AS MADE A LAW,
RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.
Busterboo/Sharon
"Busterboo/Sharon" <Dis_Me_Not@I_Dis_U_Not> wrote in message
news:3e35e00c_3@newsfeed...
I'm sure there's nothing more some zealots would like better,
than in their personal hatreds of people who aren't like them,
to have the power TO FORCE MY CHILDREN, and the
children of others, to believe a certain way... it doesn't stop
there, either. History is littered with incidents where the zealots
went overboard with their *enthusiasm* and people died for
it. i.e., the salem witch trials... many innocent souls were hanged
by the neck... Pastor Frank would complain about this record
of injustice being in this history books? It was people just like
him, who HAD THE POWER, to put people to death over
*religious beliefs*. This world might be in a mess, but believe
this, the evils of the past are by no means the band-aid we're
searching for, to fix things. I say, leave it in the hands of God.
Not in the hands of men like Frank or Pastor Dave.
Libertarius
===>Of course he does.
That way he might find some recruits for his
private mystery cult. -- L.
Pastor Frank
choice, for one cannot legislate beliefs. Atheists however attempt to remove
that choice,and legislate censorship on government property in regards to
religion. They see nothing wrong in forcing us Christians into silence yet
demand our taxes to support their atheist schools. We want freedom of
informed choice and the freedom of parents of the kids attending schools to
make the democratic decision as to whether religion will be taught their
kids or not.
--
Pastor Frank
Phil:4:8: Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, honest and just,
and whatsoever things are pure, lovely, and of good report; if there be any
virtue, praise and thanksgiving, think on these things.
Pastor Frank
news:guga3v08drnqhu2do...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 11:36:27 +0800, in alt.talk.creationism
> "Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in
> >"Elmer Bataitis" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> >news:3E345F1B...@frontiernet.net...
> >> Pastor Frank wrote:
> >> > "phobos" <pho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> > > Where in Europe do you have in mind? It's not one country yet;
> >> > > education policy is still set by state governments and not by
> >> > > Brussels.
> >>
> >> > Germany in particular, but what does it matter, the method works.
> >Most
> >> > of all, parents are NOT disenfranchised, as they are in the USA, but
> >their
> >> > wishes are implemented and even paid for out of tax revenue.
> >>
> >> And, of course, Germany has standards of education that include
> >> evolution. There is no disenfranchisment on that issue in Germany so
far
> >> as I know. In fact, most Germans when I try to explain "creationism" to
> >> them are just become more and more convinced that the USA is a
> >> undereducated, cowboy country.
> >>
> > Religion is philosophy and creation is a philosophical construct, not
a
> >scientific one. Already the lack of a rounded education is apparent in
your
> >comments.
>
> allowed not to teach evolution but is allowed to teach creationism?
>
As far as I know, there are none, nor may I add are there in the US. It
was always a matter of freedom to an INFORMED choice.
--
Pastor Frank
Christ in Mt:19:14: But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid
them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Christ in Lk:18:17: Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive
the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
Pastor Frank
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 16:33:10 +0800, in alt.talk.creationism
> "Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in
> school that doesn't actually teach science to qualify as a voucher
> school.
>
Who said anything about prohibiting the teaching of science? But those
Biology textbooks showing an amoeba crawling out of the primordial slime to
become a monkey and eventually man, should be sent back to its authors for a
refund, for it is a lie and no scientist supports it.
Pastor Frank
support YOUR atheist schools.
Pastor Frank
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:47:04 GMT, in alt.talk.creationism
> David DeMar <david...@mail.com> wrote in
> <sLaZ9.187915$j8.46...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>:
> >On Mon 27 Jan 2003 06:51:55a, jaz...@dds.nl (Richard Smol) wrote
> >in news:2767b33a.03012...@posting.google.com:
> >> "Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
> >> news:<10436374...@arakis.wincom.net>...
> >>
> >>> That every belief other than atheism is a lie, is an
> >>> atheist doctrine. We do not trash other belief systems nor
> >>> flame their followers like atheists do.
> >>
> >> to boot.
> >
>
> No, I think he pointed out that Frank lied by making a false claim about
> atheism and that Frank also made a related false claim about Frank's
> religion. If I were you, I wouldn't bother to defend Frank, it will only
> destroy your own credibility.
>
You still do the same song and dance. Why not talk about things you
support, admire, advocate, love, worship etc. etc.? Like I said, and you
made no effort to prove me wrong, atheists only intolerantly trash other
people's beliefs and intemperately flame believers. Prove to us, that you
can be supportive and positive about a philosophy of life and its paragons.
I am here to discuss Christ and His legacy as per NT. What are YOU here for?
Pastor Frank
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 07:24:31 +0800, in alt.talk.creationism
> "Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in
> >> In message <1043544...@arakis.wincom.net>, "Pastor Frank" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > What should be taught their children should be the decision of
the
> >> > parents, NOT the government in cahoots with atheists.
> >>
> >> What's wrong with atheism?
> >>
>
>
> >It's the business of atheism to
> >make religion look backward, out-of-date, primitive and only believed by
> >superstitious morons. THAT is being taught our kids in schools.
>
> to point it out.
>
"You know that's a lie".
> >> Besides, if you're talking about the U.S. government, they are actually
in
> >> 'cahoots' with the christian right. Bush is a personal friend to the
> >founder of
> >> the Christian Coalition, Roberta Combs; and the CC is the single
largest
> >> lobbyist in terms of cash value that Washington D.C. has. They are a
sick
> >bunch
> >> who wish to deny human rights to gays, and wish to undo the founding
> >father's
> >> wisdom of seperating Church and State.
> >>
> > The "Founding Fathers"? You must be kidding. the only mention of
> >"separation of church and state" occured in one letter to a Baptist
> >congregation, never in the constitution, it wasn't even considered by the
> >"founding fathers".
>
> This sounds like the old Bircher answer to "Are you a fascist
> organization?" where they started talking about bundles of sticks.
> You cannot comply with the Constitutional ban on the establishment of
> churches by establishing all the different churches.
>
We demand the FREEDOM OF CHOICE to determine what is taught to our kids
and what is not. All the government should be doing is regulate, advise and
administer, not force-feed.
>
> >> You can't legislate belief. "Belief is like love", Schopenhauer said,
"it
> >> cannot be compelled; and as any attempt to compel love produces hate,
so
> >it is
> >> that the attempt to compel belief which first produces real unbelief."
> >>
> > That should be none of your concern, nor an excuse to disenfranchise
> >parents and ignore their wishes. If they wish atheist schools then so be
it,
> >but it is no business of government to force atheism on them.
>
> As long as students have to take something like A-levels in science to
> get into college, that's fine with me, though any school that fails to
> educate children in science would have its funding pulled.
>
Why should anyone want to pull science from the curriculum. It's
atheists who want to censor, not Christians.
> >> > Look at Europe, where religion is a compulsory subject in
schools,
> >and
> >> > were twice a week representatives of every faith can come and teach
the
> >> > children who are signed up for it by their parents. Yes Tom, even
> >atheists
> >> > have the opportunity to teach their children the doctrines of Secular
> >> > Humanism in schools, -you would love it.
> >>
> >> What's wrong with secular humanism?
> >>
> > It depends on, whether they confine themselves to trashing religion,
or
> >actually teach humanist values.
>
> Your ignorance of secular humanism is noted.
>
Tell us about "secular humanism". Let's see whether you know what you
are talking about. I am willing to bet, you haven't a clue, and your flaming
is just to hide your own "ignorance of secular Humanism. LOL
Pastor Frank
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 06:56:39 +0800, in alt.talk.creationism
> >news:GaVY9.627$kJ6....@reggie.win.bright.net...
> >>
> >> I'd also like to read Frank's answer to your question about
> >> what ought to be taught in public schools.
> >
> > That's simple. The answer is naturally whatever the parents want
their
> >children taught. Presently the government in cahoots with atheists and
their
> >legal arm the ACLU, DICTATE what is to be taught and what not. The ACLU
has
> >the nasty habit of threatening cash-strapped school boards with expensive
> >boards forbid teachers to mention religion on school grounds.
> > The result is that all textbooks have been purged and censored as to
> >religious content.The Pilgrims are not fleeing European religious
> >percecution anymore, but came to America as economic migrants. However,
the
> >Salem witch-trials have been left in the books, just to show how
supposedly
> >unhealthy, abnormal and nasty religion is.
> > Parents have been disenfranchised too long and it's time they are put
in
> >charge of running the schools teaching THEIR children, NOT the
government.
>
> Your claims, false as they are, get boring quickly. Before you tell
> more lies, feel free to learn something about the Bill of Rights and the
> free exercise of religion in the US. If you still don't like the
> American Constitution, feel free to move somewhere else.
> Even the majority of students who go to sectarian schools in this
> country are taught evolution because that is what the scientific
> evidence shows us. Creationism is a modern heresy which isn't really
> Christian and has nothing to do with science.
>
You still don't get it. Those you cite in "sectarian school" made a FREE
CHOICE, a choice denied the less affluent who must go to atheist public
schools whether they want to or not. Atheist schools are the default as well
as compulsory.
We want freedom of choice also for those who cannot afford private
schools or home schooling.
Pastor Frank
> > > > > what ought to be taught in public schools.
>
> > > > That's simple. The answer is naturally whatever the parents want
their
> > > > children taught.
>
> > > district want your children taught Islam, are you going to support
that
> > > choice? Or would you go running off to the ACLU screaming for help?
;-)
>
> > The German system requires each parent to enrol their child in a
> > religion class of their choice, and for one period, twice a week
> > representatives of the religions and/or denominations requested are
invited
> > to come in and teach their class in each school at government expense.
> > The numbers of religions or denominations is only limited by the
number
> > of class rooms available in each school and by the number of teachers
that
> > can be hired to teach them. And yes, there are atheist classes and
teachers
> > of secular Humanism among all the different religions and denominations.
You
> > would love it.
>
> Frank, you have no clue about my beliefs and what I would love. The US
> does not have a ferderally run educational system. The US educational
> system is run by the parents in the form of school boards. Now, try and
> answer my question in this light.
>
Are you that ignorant of the law, that you don't even know, that Schools
are not permitted to teach religion, including creation, on account of the
so called "separation of church and state"? Btw the parents have nothing to
say about what is taught in schools nor how it is taught. If the government
decides your toddler should be taught safe homosexual practices, than all
you can do is grin and bear it, for even removal of your toddler from school
is prohibited unless you can afford private or home schooling.
--
Pastor Frank
Phil:4:8: Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, honest and just,
Pastor Frank
> Pastor Frank wrote:
> > "Elmer Bataitis" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message.
> > > Pastor Frank wrote:
> > > > "phobos" <pho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > Where in Europe do you have in mind? It's not one country yet;
> > > > > education policy is still set by state governments and not by
> > > > > Brussels.
>
> > > > Germany in particular, but what does it matter, the method
works. Most
> > > > of all, parents are NOT disenfranchised, as they are in the USA, but
their
> > > > wishes are implemented and even paid for out of tax revenue.
>
> > > And, of course, Germany has standards of education that include
> > > evolution. There is no disenfranchisment on that issue in Germany so
far
to
> > > them, just become more and more convinced that the USA is a
> > > undereducated, cowboy country.
>
> > Religion is philosophy and creation is a philosophical construct,
not a
> > scientific one. Already the lack of a rounded education is apparent in
your
> > comments.
>
>
In most American schools only evolution is permitted to be taught, the
philosophical viewpoint of creation is not permitted by law. That is why
American schools graduate oodles of functional atheists every year, if not
also functional illiterates. It is government inforced ignorance, and that
is why religion as a subject should be brought back into schools. It could
be an elective, or compulsory as it is in Germany. The decision should be up
to the parents of the children attending the school and not government
dicatated.
Pastor Frank
> In message <10436734...@arakis.wincom.net>, "Pastor Frank" wrote:
> >
> > flaming, no explanation nor evidence required. Atheists only require
theists
> > to provide proof for everything they say. LOL
>
it's
> not designed to 'trash' atheism.
schools, the
> 'atheist, immoral government', 'atheist immorality', 'atheist conspiracy'.
You
> name it.
> My point: if your email is 'hallelujah@praisethelord' you have an agenda
and
> you know it!
> -Aaron.
>
Christ and get as many as possible to see the light that Jesus is, and help
us promote and uplift Him. However, we don't resort to name-calling like
atheist are wont to. I permit myself only one epithet, and that is:
'Minions of Satan' for those people who profess Christ, yet do and say the
exact opposite from what Christ commanded. What is YOUR "agenda?
Pastor Frank
> Pastor Frank wrote:
> > "Busterboo/Sharon" <Dis_Me_Not@I_Dis_U_Not> wrote in message
> > news:3e34ad34_4@newsfeed...
> >>"Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
> >>news:10436374...@arakis.wincom.net...
> >>>"Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:GaVY9.627$kJ6....@reggie.win.bright.net...
> >>>
> >>>>I'd also like to read Frank's answer to your question about
> >>>>what ought to be taught in public schools.
> >>>
> >>> That's simple. The answer is naturally whatever the parents want
> > their
> >>>children taught. Presently the government in cahoots with atheists and
> >>their
> >>>legal arm the ACLU, DICTATE what is to be taught and what not. The ACLU
> >>has
> >>>the nasty habit of threatening cash-strapped school boards with
> >
> >>I'm sure alot of Jewish and Muslim children attending
> >>the public schools would feel far more comfortable too,
> >>if religion were kept out of the classroom, and was not
> >>*forced* on them... as well as their parents.
> >
> > You miss the point. The point is democracy in schools, not
government
> > dictatorship in cahoots with atheists. The only answer seems to be
voucher
> > schools where I can send my kids to tax-supported Christian schools and
you
> > can send yours to atheist ones.
>
> all the flavors that would be desired by parents in a
> community?
> We've been speaking of religious variety here, but your
> answer seems to be relevant for other viewpoints as well.
> Do you think that, in every case and in every point of
> possible variant views, parental choice should absolutely
> rule what is taught in public schools?
> Tom McDonald
>
democratic rights if you don't exercise them?
Pastor Frank
> Pastor Frank wrote:
> > "Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
> > news:GaVY9.627$kJ6....@reggie.win.bright.net...
> >
> >>I'd also like to read Frank's answer to your question about
> >>what ought to be taught in public schools.
> >
> > That's simple. The answer is naturally whatever the parents want
their
> > children taught.
>
> taught in every class? Or are you speaking only about what
> religious classes ought to be taught?
> Tom McDonald
>
children? Ask them, I say!!!!!!! But tell the government to keep its hands
of parents' freedom to choose what is best for their children. Yes, even if
we don't agree.
Pastor Frank
"Busterboo/Sharon" <Dis_Me_Not@I_Dis_U_Not> wrote in message
>
> "Pastor Frank" <hallelujah@praisethelord> wrote in message
>
> > Religion is philosophy and creation is a philosophical construct,
not
> > a scientific one. Already the lack of a rounded education is apparent in
> > your comments.
>
> Religion is philosophy... not scientific?
> Good... then you will see why it doesn't belong amidst reading,
> writing, and arithmetic. ESPECIALLY NOT SCIENCE.
>
Historically reading was taught, so that people could read the Bible
themselves and not have to rely on second hand or third hand verbal
information.
Thomas McDonald
Frank,
Would you favor the right of parents to demand that public
moneys be used to support every specific desire of every
parent in every possible curricular area?
I'm not asking whether you think, in general, parents
should have the right to ask for (or even demand) what they
want from public schools; I'm asking what _your_ opinion is
on whether public moneys should be spent to satisfy every
possible variety of educational experience parents might
desire for their children.
Tom McDonald