Divorce? Take a number...
clumsyfly
show, now what? We are in the top percentile of divorces?
From CNN.com - "...the divorce rates in these conservative states are
roughly 50 percent above the national average.".
What has happened to the institution of marriage? I wonder what part
alcohol consumption plays in this ugly equation?
--
<><
clumsyfly - <URL:http://www.alfwb.org/clumsyfly/>
"To live your life you've got to lose it, and all the losers get a
crown." - Mark Stuart
pute...@my-deja.com
clum...@nospam.hotmail.com (clumsyfly) wrote:
> Aren't we proud?
> What has happened to the institution of marriage?
Not a darn thing. Still institutionalized after more than 11 years.
Yes, I am proud of it...
Ralph Bischof
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
LeaAnn
Gary Heston wrote in message ...
>According to clumsyfly <clum...@nospam.hotmail.com>:
>>What has happened to the institution of marriage? I wonder what part
>>alcohol consumption plays in this ugly equation?
>
>Probably a smaller part than money, infidelity, and TV.
...and the INTERNET!
I heard speculation that perhaps the reason for the higher rate in the south
is because people are more inclined to marry at an earlier age down here.
LeaAnn
Gary Heston
>Aren't we proud? First Tom Butler goes and gets us on the Ally McBeal
>show, now what? We are in the top percentile of divorces?
>From CNN.com - "...the divorce rates in these conservative states are
>roughly 50 percent above the national average.".
Based on whos statistics and definition of conservative?
>What has happened to the institution of marriage? I wonder what part
>alcohol consumption plays in this ugly equation?
Probably a smaller part than money, infidelity, and TV.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net (note new address; ISP buyout)
"Why don't these three idiots just follow the creek? It leads to the
river, which leads to town."
Camille (Mrs. Bill) Cosby, watching the _Blair Witch Project_
Beth
> I heard speculation that perhaps the reason for the higher rate in the south
> is because people are more inclined to marry at an earlier age down here.
I'd have to agree with that. When I moved to Alabama at the ripe
old age of 23, there were lots of people who acted surprised that
I wasn't married (or even divorced) by then. I got heartily
tired of being called "Mrs. Sornsin" over the years. Oddly enough,
it hasn't happened once since I moved...
<pure opinion:> It seems to me that there's a different attitude
towards a few things in Alabama & perhaps the south in general.
(1) teenage pregnancy isn't seen as quite the same "tragedy"
as in other areas I've lived, i.e., that the girl may never go
to college now isn't such a total loss as we (the generally
well-educated hsv.general peops) think it is. IIRC, a "famous"
Alabama politician ("Fob") came out and said something like,
teen pregnancy is "just rushing the normal course of things,"
as if most of those girls wouldn't have gone to college or
have any other goals anyway. Uh huh. :(
(2) there's a difference between a religious/scriptural divorce
and a civil one (yeah, "civil divorce" is an oxymoron? :).
I've even seen references to the scriptural divorce in personals
ads! Looks like if it's scriptural then it "doesn't count"
as a real marriage in the divorce count?
(3) I think that young southern girls are raised with the expectation
of having a big, huge wedding (lots-o-bridesmaids, etc.) as the
crowning event of their existence. Some relatives of mine are pumped
full of this propaganda from a young age, and depending how deep
you buy into it, you may be motivated to have your crowing acheivement
while you're still young & pretty (& your social circle is doing the
deed) rather than waiting after college/work/etc. Wouldn't want to
wait *too* long!
ala Dennis Miller, "Then again, I could be completely wrong."
Beth (no "Mrs." degree :)
Robert J. Wilson
> What has happened to the institution of marriage?
Twenty-four years and counting.
>I wonder what part
> alcohol consumption plays in this ugly equation?
I brew beer and my wife likes wine. She drinks Lynchburg lemonaid and I
like a spicy bloody mary. The key is you both have to enjoy different
drinks. <smiles>
Actually, my observation is a latent bully will become a complete
asshole on alcohol. However, taken in moderation, it is a pleasant
adjunct to dinner or pleasant company.
Bob Wilson
LeaAnn
Beth wrote in message <382D8BE9...@yahoo.com>...
>Beth (no "Mrs." degree :)
Keep announcing that on the internet, and you will have before long! :-)
Right, Robin?
_MS_ LeaAnn
GS
>In article <199911131...@tnt6-216-180-4-247.dialup.hiwaay.net>,
>bwils...@hiwaay.net (Robert J. Wilson) wrote:
>
>> clumsyfly <clum...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > What has happened to the institution of marriage?
>>
>> Twenty-four years and counting.
>
>
I have been married three times. 4 years, 18 years and 6 years. I am not
really proud of the record either. At one time I did not believe in divorce.
But living in certain situations I sure changed my mind. The first two
marriages were for the wrong reasons. I liked the idea of being
married.
My third marriage started with me swearing I would never get married
again. I began dating a woman who also swore she would never do it
again. It was really stumbled into by both parties. And the last six
years have been the happiest of my life. My biggest fear now is how
my life will be judged by God.
I have a daughter aged 15 who is the last child left at home. She
spends most of her time with her Mom. When she wants stability
she comes to my home. There is a warped sense of discipline at
her mom's house. I'm surprised she is as sane as she is.
I do believe there are valid reasons for divorce.
Glen
GS
>On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 20:33:17 GMT, rgs...@hiwaay.net (GS) wrote:
>
>>........ My biggest fear now is how
>>my life will be judged by God.
>>
>>Glen
>
>You'll be awfully lonely there.
>
>Ken H.
>
Clearification please.
Glen
clumsyfly
<kha...@delete.hiwaay.net> said...
> My comment was in jest since hell is already a crowded place. I've
> often said that I'll be taking the down elevator since all my friends
> will be there. <grin>
y'know...that really isn't something you should take so lightly. eternity
in Hell is not like a summer at club med. with or without your friends,
forever is a long time - why spend it in Hell?
Here, for the good of anyone who reads, is how to avoid Hell:
-WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE SAVED?-
ROMANS 4:4-8; ROMANS 3:24
Being saved means no longer having our sins count against us but rather
being forgiven by the grace of God.
PSALM 103:11-12
Being saved means our sins have been completely removed.
PSALM 51:1-12
Being saved means the stain of guilt has been washed away.
1 PETER 2:9-10; ROMANS 3:21-24
Being saved means we are forgiven in Christ.
-HOW CAN I BE SAVED?-
ROMANS 10:13
God’s Word promises salvation to anyone who calls on Jesus’ name.
JOHN 3:16; JOHN 5:24
Jesus himself promised that those who believe in him will be saved.
-IS SALVATION AVAILABLE TO ANYONE?-
LUKE 2:11-12
Jesus was born in a humble stable among very ordinary people to
powerfully demonstrate that salvation is available to anyone who
sincerely seeks him.
REVELATION 20:11–21:3
Salvation is available to all, but a time will come when it will be too
late to receive it.
-HOW CAN I BE SURE OF MY SALVATION?-
1 PETER 1:5
Salvation brings the sure hope of eternal life.
ROMANS 8:12-17
The Holy Spirit takes up residence in our hearts and assures us we are
God’s children.
MATTHEW 14:23-33
We cannot save ourselves from sin, guilt, judgment, and spiritual death.
Only Jesus Christ can save us.
-WHY IS SALVATION SO CENTRAL TO CHRISTIANITY?-
GENESIS 6:5-22; ROMANS 6:23
Salvation is necessary because sin against a holy God separates us from
him, bringing judgment and spiritual death.
EXODUS 12:1-27
Salvation through Christ is dramatically foreshadowed through the
Passover lamb.
ACTS 4:12
Although it may sound exclusive, the Bible’s claim of “one way” to
salvation is actually an expression of the grace and kindness of God.
Promise from God: Romans 10:9
If you need a Bible, try <URL:http://bible.gospelcom.net/>, it has many
different languages and translations.
> Ken H.
mat...@my-deja.com
called Dr. Verne's Northern White Trash Etiquette. A woman writes in
this week seeking advice on how to find Mr. Right for her third
husband. Very funny.
The site's at http://homestead.com/drverne
In article <vs%X3.13936$YI2.6...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>,
Dan Harper
clum...@nospam.hotmail.com says...
>
>In article <38308ea8...@newstoo.hiwaay.net>, "Ken H." -
><kha...@delete.hiwaay.net> said...
>
>> My comment was in jest since hell is already a crowded place. I've
>> often said that I'll be taking the down elevator since all my friends
>> will be there. <grin>
>
>y'know...that really isn't something you should take so lightly. eternity
>in Hell is not like a summer at club med. with or without your friends,
>forever is a long time - why spend it in Hell?
That's right, forever is a long time. Any god that would
torment a soul for an eternity for finite sins is not
a god worthy of worship. Anyone who would worship such
a god, worries me.
<snip>
Dan Harper
Robert J. Wilson
> >y'know...that really isn't something you should take so lightly. eternity
> >in Hell is not like a summer at club med. with or without your friends,
> >forever is a long time - why spend it in Hell?
>
> That's right, forever is a long time. Any god that would
> torment a soul for an eternity for finite sins is not
> a god worthy of worship. Anyone who would worship such
> a god, worries me.
This was part of our sermon on Sunday when Doak mentioned the
Universalists theology you've just summarized very nicely. Sad to say,
they are also trinitarians.
The old Unitarian - Universalists joke is:
(1) Unitarians believe we are too good for God to condemn us
(2) Universalists believe God is too good to condemn us
--
Another, old but true story. In 91-92, an Alabama Baptist survey
concluded that 67% of all Alabamians were going to Hell. Holly and I had
just checked into a motel at Myrtle Beach and as I walked into the lobby
for some extra towels, they were discussing the story.
The desk clerk turned and said, "Well you're from Alabama. What do you
think about all of these Alabamians going to Hell?"
Quickly I replied, "Well, anything to get away from the Southern
Baptists!"
Then one of their folks took exception and said, "Well I'm a Southern
Baptist and don't like that" <sigh>
--
Anymore good Hell jokes out there?
Bob Wilson
clumsyfly
<dwha...@hiwaay.net> said...
> >y'know...that really isn't something you should take so lightly. eternity
> >in Hell is not like a summer at club med. with or without your friends,
> >forever is a long time - why spend it in Hell?
>
> That's right, forever is a long time. Any god that would
> torment a soul for an eternity for finite sins is not
> a god worthy of worship. Anyone who would worship such
> a god, worries me.
Ah, but you are wrong, sir. You see - it is not our sins that send us to
hell necessarily...it is the fact that we reject the atonement that Jesus
Christ's death on The Cross brought for said sin. Anyone who would not
worship The Almighty, Loving, and Perfect God scares me...plus, it is not
God which torments a soul that is in Hell. See, people go saying things
like - "Why would a perfect God send someone to Hell?" - Well, it is not
God who sends someone to Hell...it is a decision made by that person. You
send yourself to Hell, Dan...is that the choice you want to make?
> Dan Harper
GS
>In article <MPG.129a8c986...@news.integrityonline.com>,
>clum...@nospam.hotmail.com says...
>>
>>In article <38308ea8...@newstoo.hiwaay.net>, "Ken H." -
>><kha...@delete.hiwaay.net> said...
>>
>>> My comment was in jest since hell is already a crowded place. I've
>>> often said that I'll be taking the down elevator since all my friends
>>> will be there. <grin>
>>
>>in Hell is not like a summer at club med. with or without your friends,
>>forever is a long time - why spend it in Hell?
>
>That's right, forever is a long time. Any god that would
>torment a soul for an eternity for finite sins is not
>a god worthy of worship. Anyone who would worship such
>a god, worries me.
>
>
>Dan Harper
>
Now there is a twisted bit of reasoning. Are you saying we are too good
for God? Or that God doesn't have the right to judge? We won't go to
hell for a finite sin. We go to hell because we reject God and Jesus
Christ. Not worthy of worship? Oh boy!
I worship this God and his son Jesus Christ. Does this really
worry you?
Glen
Travis Hardison
bwils...@hiwaay.net (Robert J. Wilson) wrote:
> Dan Harper <dwha...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
> > >y'know...that really isn't something you should take so lightly. eternity
> > >in Hell is not like a summer at club med. with or without your friends,
> > >forever is a long time - why spend it in Hell?
Well, there's the analysis from Mark Twain: "Heaven for climate, Hell
for conversation." Always made sense to me.
>
> Another, old but true story. In 91-92, an Alabama Baptist survey
> concluded that 67% of all Alabamians were going to Hell. Holly and I had
> just checked into a motel at Myrtle Beach and as I walked into the lobby
> for some extra towels, they were discussing the story.
>
> The desk clerk turned and said, "Well you're from Alabama. What do you
> think about all of these Alabamians going to Hell?"
>
> Quickly I replied, "Well, anything to get away from the Southern
> Baptists!"
>
> Then one of their folks took exception and said, "Well I'm a Southern
> Baptist and don't like that" <sigh>
Without pointing fingers at any particular denomination or
snake-handling sister-loving cult out there, I'm fearful of religious
sorts who have no sense of humor and feel an obligation to serve as God's
Gestapo, and have the numbers to actually do something about it by way of
enforcement. They'll always note the passage where "Jesus wept", and God
is always smiting this or that, drowning things and striking down with
fire and plagues, but they never seem to consider for a moment the
possibility that God might have a God-sized sense of humor.
God save us from His followers.
T
> Bob Wilson
Dan Harper
rgs...@hiwaay.net.nospam (GS) wrote:
> In article <Wm4Y3.14786$YI2.7...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>,
dwha...@hiwaay.net (Dan Harper) wrote:
> >In article <MPG.129a8c986...@news.integrityonline.com>,
> >clum...@nospam.hotmail.com says...
> >>
> >>In article <38308ea8...@newstoo.hiwaay.net>, "Ken H." -
> >><kha...@delete.hiwaay.net> said...
> >>
> >>> My comment was in jest since hell is already a crowded place.
I've
> >>> often said that I'll be taking the down elevator since all my
friends
> >>> will be there. <grin>
> >>
eternity
> >>in Hell is not like a summer at club med. with or without your
friends,
> >>forever is a long time - why spend it in Hell?
> >
> >torment a soul for an eternity for finite sins is not
> >a god worthy of worship. Anyone who would worship such
> >a god, worries me.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
Is this not a discussion about religion?
I've yet to be involved in a religious
discussion that did not involve some sort
of twisted reasoning.
>... Are you saying we are too good
> for God?
Nope, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the
God I believe in doesn't torment souls with
fire for eternity.
>... Or that God doesn't have the right to judge?
Nope. I'm saying the God I believe in doesn't
torment souls with fire for eternity. Such a
an act is antithetical to the concept of an
all loving God.
>... We won't go to
> hell for a finite sin.
Especially since a hell of fire and brimstone
is nonexistent in my opinion.
> We go to hell because we reject God and Jesus
> Christ.
How about people who do not reject God, but
who do not accept Jesus?
>... Not worthy of worship? Oh boy!
A being that would allow eternal torment
with fire and who claims to be all loving,
sounds a lot more like Satan than God.
"Worship me or burn for eternity" sounds
like something Satan would say. Satan is
not worthy of worship.
> I worship this God and his son Jesus Christ. Does this really
> worry you?
I worry about anyone who would respect a father
who allows his wayward children to burn for an eternity
when he has the power to save them even if the
children walked into the burning building themselves.
[I'm crossposting this to hsv.religion]
Dan Harper
Ron Hammon
>
> In article <Wm4Y3.14786$YI2.7...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, "Dan Harper" -
> <dwha...@hiwaay.net> said...
>
> > >in Hell is not like a summer at club med. with or without your friends,
> > >forever is a long time - why spend it in Hell?
> >
> > That's right, forever is a long time. Any god that would
> > torment a soul for an eternity for finite sins is not
> > a god worthy of worship. Anyone who would worship such
> > a god, worries me.
>
> hell necessarily...it is the fact that we reject the atonement that Jesus
> Christ's death on The Cross brought for said sin. Anyone who would not
> worship The Almighty, Loving, and Perfect God scares me...plus, it is not
> God which torments a soul that is in Hell. See, people go saying things
> like - "Why would a perfect God send someone to Hell?" - Well, it is not
> God who sends someone to Hell...it is a decision made by that person. You
> send yourself to Hell, Dan...is that the choice you want to make?
>
You are forgeting those who have never heard "the word". Ignorance of
the law is no excuse. This is what motivates missionaries to "save
souls". Even today, your God supposedly will torture Amazonian Indians
forever because they never made a public profession of faith in Jesus
Christ although they never saw a Europeon. Does this sound fair?
I never understood the gush of "God is good" chants in the face of "...
for I am a jealous God", "Vengence is mine...", "rain fire and
brimstone...", "everything... shall perish", etc., etc. The "Devil" (a
creation of God) is supposedly "bad" due to anguish it causes, but, in
the final balance, God is to directly cause far more suffering!
From a different perspective, it becomes obvious that Christianity, like
all other paganism, is devised to force the audience into drawing the
proper conclusion- follow our rules and do what we tell you, or else!
The muddled, contradictory collection of fables known as "The Bible" can
never hold up to scientific scrutiny. When you finally muster the
courage to accept the rejection of this dogma of a lifetime, that moment
is the greatest, most heartfelt "religious" experience ever. At least it
was for a locally born and bred Southern Baptist. No, Virgina, there is
no Santa Claus!
Ron Hammon
>
>
>
> Well, there's the analysis from Mark Twain: "Heaven for climate, Hell
> for conversation." Always made sense to me.
I believe that it is "Hell for company". You beat me to the quote.
GS
wrote:
>> I worship this God and his son Jesus Christ. Does this really
>> worry you?
>
>I worry about anyone who would respect a father
>who allows his wayward children to burn for an eternity
>when he has the power to save them even if the
>children walked into the burning building themselves.
>
in. I try to teach them the right path to follow. I have a
daughter that says she is wiccan. She lives with her Mom.
I see her many times each week and try my best to get
her to see both sides before choosing one but her god is
a god that does not want both side to be seen. My God
wants people to decide for themselves after hearing the
Word of God. Her going the path of wiccan, in my
opinion, is a failure on my part. But when she is at one
house and the parent says whatever you believe is your
business and it is right and good makes it hard for her
to hear my side much less accept it. She chooses to
accept a material god while on earth. I choose to accept
my God in order to spend eternity in paradise.
Glen
Dan Harper
rgs...@hiwaay.net.nospam (GS) wrote:
<snip>
>... I choose to accept
> my God in order to spend eternity in paradise.
And that brings us to problem number 3 I have with
some religion.
I choose to accept God not on any promise
of reward or punishment, but out of a
desire to worship the being that incarnates
ultimate love and ultimate good. If there is
no life after death, no heaven or hell, I would
still worship the creator who is all loving and
good.
This idea of a carrot and a stick as a reason
to worship God is antithetical to my concept
of what God is and why we should worship
Him.
Bob230
<snip>
>
>You are forgeting those who have never heard "the word". Ignorance of
>the law is no excuse. This is what motivates missionaries to "save
>souls". Even today, your God supposedly will torture Amazonian Indians
>forever because they never made a public profession of faith in Jesus
>Christ although they never saw a Europeon. Does this sound fair?
The concept of "fair" doesn't apply to God. He creates our reality.
Things aren't fair or unfair, they just are. I think that those never
who never heard the word but lived an honorable life will be given
consideration...if anyone would extend mercies to these souls it would
be Jesus. God as can be seen in the Old Testament can be hard. It's
not a matter of being fair or not...he makes the rules and defines our
reality. He has given us the ability to choose our paths, if he
wanted to create a bunch of mindless obedient clones, all destined for
heaven, he would have created that. Humans, as they are, are much
more interesting. We aren't much different than the ants we used to
keep in those ant farms...we are there for his amusement.
>
>I never understood the gush of "God is good" chants in the face of "...
>for I am a jealous God", "Vengence is mine...", "rain fire and
>brimstone...", "everything... shall perish", etc., etc. The "Devil" (a
>creation of God) is supposedly "bad" due to anguish it causes, but, in
>the final balance, God is to directly cause far more suffering!
And so it is...but you still have the power to choose your own path.
>
>From a different perspective, it becomes obvious that Christianity, like
>all other paganism, is devised to force the audience into drawing the
>proper conclusion- follow our rules and do what we tell you, or else!
>The muddled, contradictory collection of fables known as "The Bible" can
>never hold up to scientific scrutiny.
The Bible isn't a science text, it's a moral guide.
> When you finally muster the
>courage to accept the rejection of this dogma of a lifetime, that moment
>is the greatest, most heartfelt "religious" experience ever. At least it
>was for a locally born and bred Southern Baptist. No, Virgina, there is
>no Santa Claus!
Pulling the blanket over your head only makes you think you are safe.
You may feel heartfelt relief but the blanket cannot protect you.
Bob
Dan Harper
Bob...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Ron Hammon <ham...@3hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >You are forgeting those who have never heard "the word". Ignorance
of
> >the law is no excuse. This is what motivates missionaries to "save
> >souls". Even today, your God supposedly will torture Amazonian
Indians
> >forever because they never made a public profession of faith in Jesus
> >Christ although they never saw a Europeon. Does this sound fair?
>
> The concept of "fair" doesn't apply to God.
It does in my concept of God. My concept of a
powerful being who is not fair is more along the
lines of Satan.
Your statement is equivalent to my mind to a statement
such as the concept of good doesn't apply to God.
>... He creates our reality.
Including the concepts of fairness, goodness, love,
justice, etc.
> Things aren't fair or unfair, they just are.
Not in my world view. However, if you think
fair and unfair are irrelevant, I'd like to
interest you in a business deal I have in mind.
>... I think that those never
> who never heard the word but lived an honorable life will be given
> consideration...if anyone would extend mercies to these souls it would
> be Jesus.
That sounds fair.
>... God as can be seen in the Old Testament can be hard.
Yep.
>... It's
> not a matter of being fair or not...he makes the rules and defines our
> reality.
Satan claims the same thing. If Satan had the power, he
would make the rules and define our reality. I still wouldn't
worship him.
>... He has given us the ability to choose our paths,
He has given us the ability to choose our paths, but according
to you does not have to treat us fairly as we try to
choose that path. Seems to me that God is our example
of what to be. God is loving, we should be loving. God
is good, we should be good. God is unfair, we should be
fair?
>... if he
> wanted to create a bunch of mindless obedient clones, all destined for
> heaven, he would have created that.
Yep.
>... Humans, as they are, are much
> more interesting.
We are as interesting or uninteresting as
He made us.
> We aren't much different than the ants we used to
> keep in those ant farms...we are there for his amusement.
Not in my world view.
> >I never understood the gush of "God is good" chants in the face of
"...
> >for I am a jealous God", "Vengence is mine...", "rain fire and
> >brimstone...", "everything... shall perish", etc., etc. The "Devil"
(a
> >creation of God) is supposedly "bad" due to anguish it causes, but,
in
> >the final balance, God is to directly cause far more suffering!
>
> And so it is...but you still have the power to choose your own path.
Just not under the rules of a fair God.
> >From a different perspective, it becomes obvious that Christianity,
like
> >all other paganism, is devised to force the audience into drawing the
> >proper conclusion- follow our rules and do what we tell you, or else!
> >The muddled, contradictory collection of fables known as "The Bible"
can
> >never hold up to scientific scrutiny.
>
> The Bible isn't a science text, it's a moral guide.
It's an extremely inconsistent moral guide.
> > When you finally muster the
> >courage to accept the rejection of this dogma of a lifetime, that
moment
> >is the greatest, most heartfelt "religious" experience ever. At least
it
> >was for a locally born and bred Southern Baptist. No, Virgina, there
is
> >no Santa Claus!
>
> Pulling the blanket over your head only makes you think you are safe.
I wouldn't be so quick to accuse others of blanket pulling.
Seems to me that a case can be made for that blanket
being called religion.
> You may feel heartfelt relief but the blanket cannot protect you.
You may feel heartfelt relief, but the blanket of religion
is felt by some to not protect you.
Greg Bacon
<URL:http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/1999/11/16/guru/index.html>
Greg
--
I used to be sad because I had no woman. Then I met a man who had no hands.
-- Rick Riebs
Greg Bacon
Bob...@hotmail.com (Bob230) writes:
: Ron Hammon <ham...@3hiwaay.net> wrote:
:
: >I never understood the gush of "God is good" chants in the face of "...
: >for I am a jealous God", "Vengence is mine...", "rain fire and
: >brimstone...", "everything... shall perish", etc., etc. The "Devil" (a
: >creation of God) is supposedly "bad" due to anguish it causes, but, in
: >the final balance, God is to directly cause far more suffering!
:
: And so it is...but you still have the power to choose your own path.
Do we? Doesn't YHWH know the future? If He can see our future, then
where is there room for flexibility?
: >From a different perspective, it becomes obvious that Christianity, like
: >all other paganism, is devised to force the audience into drawing the
: >proper conclusion- follow our rules and do what we tell you, or else!
: >The muddled, contradictory collection of fables known as "The Bible" can
: >never hold up to scientific scrutiny.
:
: The Bible isn't a science text, it's a moral guide.
Why must the two be mutually exclusive? Cosmologists joke that they'd
like to model the universe in an equation that one could wear on a
t-shirt. Why shouldn't religion be subject to the same? Theologians
try to sweep theological problems under the rug of "God works in
mysterious ways". Given man's fallibility and limitations, why is it
that all religions suffer from inconsistencies and problems stemming
from their complexities? Why wouldn't a God with infinite power and
knowledge give us a simple religion that anyone could understand?
: > When you finally muster the
: >courage to accept the rejection of this dogma of a lifetime, that moment
: >is the greatest, most heartfelt "religious" experience ever. At least it
: >was for a locally born and bred Southern Baptist. No, Virgina, there is
: >no Santa Claus!
:
: Pulling the blanket over your head only makes you think you are safe.
: You may feel heartfelt relief but the blanket cannot protect you.
It's conceivable that Ron would say the same of you. How are we to
decide who's right?
Greg
--
Whoever thinks much is not suitable as a party member: he soon thinks himself
right out of the party.
-- Nietzsche
Travis Hardison
Always easy to be there fastest if you're willing to sacrifice accuracy. :-=)
Apropos that, I was rereading a letter from a friend of mine quoting a
passage from Kierkegaard and realized that while I had not completely
mangled the sense of it in the years I had been quoting it, I had omitted
enough of the original to dilute the particular meaning that my friend -
then at Berkeley in philosophy - had intended I derive from it.
The corrected passage, for you academics out there:
"For he is too proud to be willing that
what was the whole content of his life
should be the thing of a fleeting moment."
Fear and Trembling, p. 55
In this contemplative life that I've slipped into, I must've diminished
in what Kierkegaard further along offers pride as "the engine of
disappointment, not misfortune" because I find that now I *am* willing
that it be the thing of a fleeting moment. Curious, eh?
T - going through boxes and finding interesting things
Carol
caesurae wrote in message ...
>In article <MPG.129b1225e...@news.integrityonline.com>,
>clum...@nospam.hotmail.com (clumsyfly) wrote:
>
>> Anyone who would not
>> worship The Almighty, Loving, and Perfect God scares me...
>
>
>--
With apologies to the truly devout on this newsgroup, I offer for
your amusement http://lordco.virtualave.net/.
I find the most interesting web sites by reading that wicked
group alt.gossip.celebrities where nothing is sacred. Nothing.
Carol
Carol
Carol wrote in message <3ejY3.19306$YI2.8...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>...
>With apologies to the truly devout on this newsgroup, I offer for
>your amusement http://lordco.virtualave.net/.
>
>I find the most interesting web sites by reading that wicked
>group alt.gossip.celebrities where nothing is sacred. Nothing.
I know, I'm following up to my own post, but I also have to
share http://www.newtimesla.com/extra/gilstrap/jesus.html.
The writing style reminds me of Travis.
Carol
brandy simpson
don+ADs-t even try to preach, I once was like that) to see other gods and other
religions. In Wicca, we encourage the study of many belief systems before
becoming one of us. If she followed the norm, she would have done research
long before she switched. we never prostelize so she would have been
searching and found us. She more than likely found what she needed and you
will need to live with that. She made her choice and she wishes that you
quit shoving it down her throat. Maybe if you did she might reconsider
looking into your belief. Otherwise don't count on it. it is just going to
cause problems between the two of you.
Brandy AKA Lady Madonna, representative of the Lord and Lady
Ps no that is not a reference to the Beatles song or the famed pop star. My
beliefs from my Episcopal days carried over a little.
+AD4-
+AD4-in. I try to teach them the right path to follow. I have a
+AD4-daughter that says she is wiccan. She lives with her Mom.
+AD4-I see her many times each week and try my best to get
+AD4-her to see both sides before choosing one but her god is
+AD4-a god that does not want both side to be seen. +AD4-
+AD4-Glen
GS
>no that is where you are wrong.. The Wiccan Gods Do allow us(I'm Wiccan
>don+ADs-t even try to preach, I once was like that) to see other gods and other
>religions. In Wicca, we encourage the study of many belief systems before
>becoming one of us. If she followed the norm, she would have done research
>long before she switched. we never prostelize so she would have been
>searching and found us. She more than likely found what she needed and you
>will need to live with that. She made her choice and she wishes that you
>quit shoving it down her throat. Maybe if you did she might reconsider
There is no shoving down the throat. But, this will not be practiced in my
home. No matter who is doing the practicing. If she desires this pagan
religion she will have to do it away from my home. My house, my rules.
She is only 15 years old. And at the fault of her beloved mother she never
saw the other side (Christian side). They moved out of state for a period
of time when she was learning this stuff. I did not fight the move with the
understanding that she would be taken to church. Either Catholic or
Baptist. Her mother lied to me in that she never went to either while I
was being told she was.
LeaAnn
clumsyfly wrote in message ...
>> >y'know...that really isn't something you should take so lightly.
eternity
>> >in Hell is not like a summer at club med. with or without your friends,
>> >forever is a long time - why spend it in Hell?
Fire, fire FIRE!
LeaAnn
LeaAnn
>
>-WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE SAVED?-
>
*sigh* Why do we even HAVE hsv.religion?
If I wanted a sermon, dude, I'd go to church.
LeaAnn
LeaAnn
Bob230 wrote in message <3831f31b...@news.mindspring.com>...
>Dan Harper <dwha...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>You may feel heartfelt relief, but the blanket of religion
>>is felt by some to not protect you.
>>
>
>Again, protection from what?
Death.
Also, having to think for yourself about what's right and wrong. Being
alone in the world with no one to fall back on.
But mostly death.
LeaAnn
clumsyfly
In article <383176...@3hiwaay.net>, "Ron Hammon" -
<ham...@3hiwaay.net> said...
> You are forgeting those who have never heard "the word". Ignorance of
> the law is no excuse. This is what motivates missionaries to "save
> souls". Even today, your God supposedly will torture Amazonian Indians
> forever because they never made a public profession of faith in Jesus
> Christ although they never saw a Europeon. Does this sound fair?
Fair? What is fair? That we sin against a Holy and perfect God and expect
Him to just turn His head and forget about it? Nah...and it isn't about
making a public profession. It's about accepting and believing.
God has revealed Himself through His creation. Us, the world, the stars,
etc.
Plus, God is not the one punishing. You see, when God comes upon you in
the final judgment...He will say one of two things to you.
1.) Enter in, good and faithful servant - into the joys of The Lord.
-or-
2.) Depart from me, I never knew you.
The choice is yours...there is no excuse of ignorance. God has instilled
within us a desire to worship Him. No one can look at the complexity of
the universe and that of our bodies and say it was evolution. If we
evolved from some other creature or substance why are we not still
evolving?
> I never understood the gush of "God is good" chants in the face of "...
> for I am a jealous God", "Vengence is mine...", "rain fire and
> brimstone...", "everything... shall perish", etc., etc. The "Devil" (a
> creation of God) is supposedly "bad" due to anguish it causes, but, in
> the final balance, God is to directly cause far more suffering!
You have quite the mixed story. Right words, just in the wrong context.
God is jealous. How would you feel if your kids wanted the parents across
the street? Vengeance is His. He is the only perfect one in a place to
judge anyone's actions. Everything WILL perish. HE made it - HE will
destroy it. And you can choose to accept Him and follow Him, and be
around for the NEW Heaven and Earth or not.
Also...
God created an angel named Lucifer. Lucifer was filled with pride and
tried to set himself higher than God and, of course, failed. He was cast
out - 1/3 of the angels in Heaven went with him, and thus we have Satan
and his demons. So, sir...God is not the cause of this suffering of which
you speak. It was FREE WILL. He (Lucifer) *chose* to do what he did...and
now he pays the price.
> From a different perspective, it becomes obvious that Christianity, like
> all other paganism, is devised to force the audience into drawing the
> proper conclusion- follow our rules and do what we tell you, or else!
> The muddled, contradictory collection of fables known as "The Bible" can
> never hold up to scientific scrutiny. When you finally muster the
> courage to accept the rejection of this dogma of a lifetime, that moment
> is the greatest, most heartfelt "religious" experience ever. At least it
> was for a locally born and bred Southern Baptist. No, Virgina, there is
> no Santa Claus!
Christianity is paganism? Ha!
I have yet to find that *true* Christianity _forces_ anyone_ to do
_anything_. Especially not saying,
> ...follow our rules and do what we tell you, or else!
It's all about Christ. Christ had this to say in;
My sheep recognize my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them
eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them away
from me, for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than
anyone else. So no one can take them from me. The Father and I are one.
The Bible is not fable. The Bible is not contradictory. The Bible
consists of 66 books, with numerous authors yet it all fits together. I
leave you with this...you made a terrible choice and I hope you repent.
Psalm 53:1 Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." They are
corrupt, and their actions are evil; no one does good!
Romans 1:21-22,25,32 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as
God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of
what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and
confused. Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead...
Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they
deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made
but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen.
They are fully aware of God’s death penalty for those who do these
things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they
encourage others to do them, too.
clumsyfly
<lea...@hiwaay.net> said...
> Death.
>
> Also, having to think for yourself about what's right and wrong. Being
> alone in the world with no one to fall back on.
I don't have to think about what is right/wrong. I look to the author and
giver of life...God. Alone I may be, one day...but God has always been
there either way.
> But mostly death.
Ah, but death has been conquered! No fear therein.
> LeaAnn
Robert J. Wilson
> *sigh* Why do we even HAVE hsv.religion?
"Clumsyfly" and I had a terrific thread about Free Will Baptist and
Unitarian theology last week. It also attracts the occasional kook . . .
like me.
>
> If I wanted a sermon, dude, I'd go to church.
. . . or give it yourself?
Bob Wilson
Dan Harper
rgs...@hiwaay.net.nospam says...
>
>In article <W%jY3.19368$YI2.8...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, "brandy simpson"
<bsh...@boone.net> wrote:
>>no that is where you are wrong.. The Wiccan Gods Do allow us(I'm Wiccan
>>don+ADs-t even try to preach, I once was like that) to see other gods and
other
>>religions. In Wicca, we encourage the study of many belief systems before
>>becoming one of us. If she followed the norm, she would have done research
>>long before she switched. we never prostelize so she would have been
>>searching and found us. She more than likely found what she needed and you
>>will need to live with that. She made her choice and she wishes that you
>>quit shoving it down her throat. Maybe if you did she might reconsider
>
>There is no shoving down the throat. But, this will not be practiced in my
>home.
You can expect the same favor to be granted you when she
establishes a home.
>... No matter who is doing the practicing. If she desires this pagan
>religion she will have to do it away from my home.
And she no doubt will. Even more so to spite you.
>... My house, my rules.
Sounds familiar. You might find sitting down with her
and uncritically listening to why she believes what
she believes to be more constructive than laying
down "My house, my rules" edicts.
>She is only 15 years old.
Which leads me to believe she's choosen this
particular religion as a way to rebel. Don't
play into her hand by being all "My house, my rules."
>... And at the fault of her beloved mother she never
>saw the other side (Christian side).
I doubt she never saw the other side. It's sort
of hard to miss in the bible belt.
>... They moved out of state for a period
>of time when she was learning this stuff. I did not fight the move with the
>understanding that she would be taken to church. Either Catholic or
>Baptist. Her mother lied to me in that she never went to either while I
>was being told she was.
I doubt that had much to do with it. She really sounds
like she's just rebelling. I would not press the issue
and that way you'll probably be better able to slowly
demonstrate the good things about your religion to her.
Dan Harper
Bob230
>In article <38319bc0...@news.mindspring.com>,
> Bob...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Ron Hammon <ham...@3hiwaay.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >
>> >You are forgeting those who have never heard "the word". Ignorance
>of
>> >the law is no excuse. This is what motivates missionaries to "save
>> >souls". Even today, your God supposedly will torture Amazonian
>Indians
>> >forever because they never made a public profession of faith in Jesus
>> >Christ although they never saw a Europeon. Does this sound fair?
>>
>> The concept of "fair" doesn't apply to God.
>
>It does in my concept of God. My concept of a
>powerful being who is not fair is more along the
>lines of Satan.
>
>Your statement is equivalent to my mind to a statement
>such as the concept of good doesn't apply to God.
Quite right, our interpretation of good doesn't apply to God. He's
above our definitions.
>
>>... He creates our reality.
>
>Including the concepts of fairness, goodness, love,
>justice, etc.
>
>> Things aren't fair or unfair, they just are.
>
>Not in my world view. However, if you think
>fair and unfair are irrelevant, I'd like to
>interest you in a business deal I have in mind.
>
Only irrelevant with respect to God. In man's dealings with each
other the concept applies.
>>... I think that those never
>> who never heard the word but lived an honorable life will be given
>> consideration...if anyone would extend mercies to these souls it would
>> be Jesus.
>
>That sounds fair.
>
>>... God as can be seen in the Old Testament can be hard.
>
>Yep.
>
>>... It's
>> not a matter of being fair or not...he makes the rules and defines our
>> reality.
>
>Satan claims the same thing. If Satan had the power, he
>would make the rules and define our reality. I still wouldn't
>worship him.
Satan can claim anything he wants but he is not the creator. If Satan
was the creator then, just as with God, you could choose to worship or
him or not and reap the consequences.
>
>>... He has given us the ability to choose our paths,
>
>He has given us the ability to choose our paths, but according
>to you does not have to treat us fairly as we try to
>choose that path. Seems to me that God is our example
>of what to be. God is loving, we should be loving. God
>is good, we should be good. God is unfair, we should be
>fair?
>
I say again that we can't judge God as being fair or not.
>>... if he
>> wanted to create a bunch of mindless obedient clones, all destined for
>> heaven, he would have created that.
>
>Yep.
>
>>... Humans, as they are, are much
>> more interesting.
>
>We are as interesting or uninteresting as
>He made us.
>
>> We aren't much different than the ants we used to
>> keep in those ant farms...we are there for his amusement.
>
>Not in my world view.
>
>> >I never understood the gush of "God is good" chants in the face of
>"...
>> >for I am a jealous God", "Vengence is mine...", "rain fire and
>> >brimstone...", "everything... shall perish", etc., etc. The "Devil"
>(a
>> >creation of God) is supposedly "bad" due to anguish it causes, but,
>in
>> >the final balance, God is to directly cause far more suffering!
>>
>> And so it is...but you still have the power to choose your own path.
>
>Just not under the rules of a fair God.
>
>> >From a different perspective, it becomes obvious that Christianity,
>like
>> >all other paganism, is devised to force the audience into drawing the
>> >proper conclusion- follow our rules and do what we tell you, or else!
>> >The muddled, contradictory collection of fables known as "The Bible"
>can
>> >never hold up to scientific scrutiny.
>>
>> The Bible isn't a science text, it's a moral guide.
>
>It's an extremely inconsistent moral guide.
>
>> > When you finally muster the
>> >courage to accept the rejection of this dogma of a lifetime, that
>moment
>> >is the greatest, most heartfelt "religious" experience ever. At least
>it
>> >was for a locally born and bred Southern Baptist. No, Virgina, there
>is
>> >no Santa Claus!
>>
>> Pulling the blanket over your head only makes you think you are safe.
>
>I wouldn't be so quick to accuse others of blanket pulling.
>Seems to me that a case can be made for that blanket
>being called religion.
To protect me from what?
>
>> You may feel heartfelt relief but the blanket cannot protect you.
>
>You may feel heartfelt relief, but the blanket of religion
>is felt by some to not protect you.
>
Again, protection from what?
Bob
Dan Harper
>
>Dan Harper <dwha...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <38319bc0...@news.mindspring.com>,
>> Bob...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> Ron Hammon <ham...@3hiwaay.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >You are forgeting those who have never heard "the word". Ignorance
>>of
>>> >the law is no excuse. This is what motivates missionaries to "save
>>> >souls". Even today, your God supposedly will torture Amazonian
>>Indians
>>> >forever because they never made a public profession of faith in Jesus
>>> >Christ although they never saw a Europeon. Does this sound fair?
>>>
>>> The concept of "fair" doesn't apply to God.
>>
>>It does in my concept of God. My concept of a
>>powerful being who is not fair is more along the
>>lines of Satan.
>>
>>Your statement is equivalent to my mind to a statement
>>such as the concept of good doesn't apply to God.
>
>Quite right, our interpretation of good doesn't apply to God. He's
>above our definitions.
In which case all religion is meaningless
to creatures who must per necessity
use language.
>>>... He creates our reality.
>>
>>Including the concepts of fairness, goodness, love,
>>justice, etc.
>>
>>> Things aren't fair or unfair, they just are.
>>
>>Not in my world view. However, if you think
>>fair and unfair are irrelevant, I'd like to
>>interest you in a business deal I have in mind.
>>
>
>Only irrelevant with respect to God.
Oh, I get it. Two sets of rules.
>... In man's dealings with each
>other the concept applies.
Nope, I'm going to follow God's example
and decide when fair and unfair are
relevant. I feel no obligation to
act any different from a God. I was
after all created in His own image.
>>>... It's
>>> not a matter of being fair or not...he makes the rules and defines our
>>> reality.
>>
>>Satan claims the same thing. If Satan had the power, he
>>would make the rules and define our reality. I still wouldn't
>>worship him.
>
>Satan can claim anything he wants but he is not the creator.
And you know this because? How do you know he isn't the creator.
Satan is beyond the definition of fair, good, etc. Seems to
me you've not defined God in the same way that you've not
defined Satan. If we can't apply definitions to God, how
does one distinguish between God and Satan? Seems to
me you're a couple of steps down the road to nihilism.
>... If Satan
>was the creator then, just as with God, you could choose to worship or
>him or not and reap the consequences.
Hmmm, maybe Satan is God and God is Satan. The logical
consequence of your not allowing distinguishing definitions
makes it impossible to tell which is which. We can't
choose the one that is good, fair, loving, and just, because
God is beyond such definitions. We might as well choose
the one that is evil, unfair, hateful, and unjust.
>>>... He has given us the ability to choose our paths,
>>
>>He has given us the ability to choose our paths, but according
>>to you does not have to treat us fairly as we try to
>>choose that path. Seems to me that God is our example
>>of what to be. God is loving, we should be loving. God
>>is good, we should be good. God is unfair, we should be
>>fair?
>>
>
>I say again that we can't judge God as being fair or not.
Or good or loving or just. Seems to me we can't distinguish God
from Satan.
>>> > When you finally muster the
>>> >courage to accept the rejection of this dogma of a lifetime, that
>>moment
>>> >is the greatest, most heartfelt "religious" experience ever. At least
>>it
>>> >was for a locally born and bred Southern Baptist. No, Virgina, there
>>is
>>> >no Santa Claus!
>>>
>>> Pulling the blanket over your head only makes you think you are safe.
>>
>>I wouldn't be so quick to accuse others of blanket pulling.
>>Seems to me that a case can be made for that blanket
>>being called religion.
>
>To protect me from what?
From the same thing you think they are trying
to protect themselves from: Reality.
>>> You may feel heartfelt relief but the blanket cannot protect you.
>>
>>You may feel heartfelt relief, but the blanket of religion
>>is felt by some to not protect you.
>>
>
>Again, protection from what?
From the same thing you think they are trying
to protect themselves from: Reality.
Dan Harper
Bob230
>
>Bob230 wrote in message <3831f31b...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>Dan Harper <dwha...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>>You may feel heartfelt relief, but the blanket of religion
>>>is felt by some to not protect you.
>>>
>>
>>Again, protection from what?
>
>Death.
I don't think I'm more or less afraid of death than anyone else. Yes,
I hope that I will be reunited with my loved ones in the afterlife.
My religion does provide me with a hope of better times to come.
Christians realize that there is an end to our corporeal existence and
we aren't using religion to hide from this.
>
>Also, having to think for yourself about what's right and wrong.
God gave us the ability choose and that includes about what's right
and wrong.
>Being
>alone in the world with no one to fall back on.
Divine intervention is not a given.
Bob
Dan Harper
<snip>
>The choice is yours...there is no excuse of ignorance. God has instilled
>within us a desire to worship Him. No one can look at the complexity of
>the universe and that of our bodies and say it was evolution.
I can say that our bodies are the result of evolution. The
universe is obviously not a result of evolution.
<snip>
>The Bible is not fable. The Bible is not contradictory. The Bible
>consists of 66 books, with numerous authors yet it all fits together.
The Bible is full of metaphor. The Bible is full of contradiction.
The writing styles and messages of the various books often do
not fit together well and often present contradictory things.
A denial of that only undermines your credibility.
>I
>leave you with this...you made a terrible choice and I hope you repent.
My choice is to accept God, but that does not mean I threw my
brain out the window. The Bible is not the literal, consistent
book you make it out to be.
<snip>
Dan Harper
Bob230
God just acts natural, he makes his own rules. Man also makes rules
that apply to fellow humans but not to God. When a person murders
another we don't wait for God's justice we mete out our own immediate
justice.
>
>>... In man's dealings with each
>>other the concept applies.
>
>Nope, I'm going to follow God's example
>and decide when fair and unfair are
>relevant.
You're free to do so, but you can't stand in judgement of God.
>I feel no obligation to
>act any different from a God. I was
>after all created in His own image.
Are you sure you're capable of fully understanding him?
>
>>>>... It's
>>>> not a matter of being fair or not...he makes the rules and defines our
>>>> reality.
>>>
>>>Satan claims the same thing. If Satan had the power, he
>>>would make the rules and define our reality. I still wouldn't
>>>worship him.
>>
>>Satan can claim anything he wants but he is not the creator.
>
>And you know this because? How do you know he isn't the creator.
>Satan is beyond the definition of fair, good, etc.
The Bible delineates who Satan is. He is also subject to God's
reality.
>Seems to
>me you've not defined God in the same way that you've not
>defined Satan. If we can't apply definitions to God, how
>does one distinguish between God and Satan?
The Bible addresses these issues.
Seems to
>me you're a couple of steps down the road to nihilism.
>
>>... If Satan
>>was the creator then, just as with God, you could choose to worship or
>>him or not and reap the consequences.
>
>Hmmm, maybe Satan is God and God is Satan. The logical
>consequence of your not allowing distinguishing definitions
>makes it impossible to tell which is which. We can't
>choose the one that is good, fair, loving, and just, because
>God is beyond such definitions. We might as well choose
>the one that is evil, unfair, hateful, and unjust.
You can choose which ever you like, or choose not to choose. The
consequences are delineated in the Bible.
>
>>>>... He has given us the ability to choose our paths,
>>>
>>>He has given us the ability to choose our paths, but according
>>>to you does not have to treat us fairly as we try to
>>>choose that path. Seems to me that God is our example
>>>of what to be. God is loving, we should be loving. God
>>>is good, we should be good. God is unfair, we should be
>>>fair?
>>>
>>
>>I say again that we can't judge God as being fair or not.
>
>Or good or loving or just. Seems to me we can't distinguish God
>from Satan.
Most people don't have a problem with this distinction. Are you
missing the forest by staring a single tree?
>
>>>> > When you finally muster the
>>>> >courage to accept the rejection of this dogma of a lifetime, that
>>>moment
>>>> >is the greatest, most heartfelt "religious" experience ever. At least
>>>it
>>>> >was for a locally born and bred Southern Baptist. No, Virgina, there
>>>is
>>>> >no Santa Claus!
>>>>
>>>> Pulling the blanket over your head only makes you think you are safe.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't be so quick to accuse others of blanket pulling.
>>>Seems to me that a case can be made for that blanket
>>>being called religion.
>>
>>To protect me from what?
>
>From the same thing you think they are trying
>to protect themselves from: Reality.
>
>>>> You may feel heartfelt relief but the blanket cannot protect you.
>>>
>>>You may feel heartfelt relief, but the blanket of religion
>>>is felt by some to not protect you.
>>>
>>
>>Again, protection from what?
>
>From the same thing you think they are trying
>to protect themselves from: Reality.
Why should I be afraid of reality? It's just there, its natural.
Bob
Dan Harper
Sounds like pantheism.
Makes his own rules and is free to change them.
Hmmm, sounds like God is Chaos. Why don't we
just say he is everything and nothing? That
ought to cover all the bases.
>... Man also makes rules
>that apply to fellow humans but not to God.
186,000 miles per second. It's not just a
good idea it's the law.
>... When a person murders
>another we don't wait for God's justice we mete out our own immediate
>justice.
Uh huh. And which has nothing to do with whether
God is or is not fair.
>>>... In man's dealings with each
>>>other the concept applies.
>>
>>Nope, I'm going to follow God's example
>>and decide when fair and unfair are
>>relevant.
>
>You're free to do so, but you can't stand in judgement of God.
I stand in judgment of Satan and I stand in judgment
of God. I judge God to be infinitely more worthy
of praise. Therefore I choose God, but obviously
a very different God than yours.
>>I feel no obligation to
>>act any different from a God. I was
>>after all created in His own image.
>
>Are you sure you're capable of fully understanding him?
Are you? Is anyone?
>>>>>... It's
>>>>> not a matter of being fair or not...he makes the rules and defines our
>>>>> reality.
>>>>
>>>>Satan claims the same thing. If Satan had the power, he
>>>>would make the rules and define our reality. I still wouldn't
>>>>worship him.
>>>
>>>Satan can claim anything he wants but he is not the creator.
>>
>>And you know this because? How do you know he isn't the creator.
>>Satan is beyond the definition of fair, good, etc.
>
>The Bible delineates who Satan is.
Ahh, but the Bible was written by God, who of course
doesn't want you to worship Satan and who is at liberity
to be unfair in his treatment of Satan in the Bible.
>... He is also subject to God's
>reality.
Or is God subject to Satan's? If God and Satan
are both unfair, what's the difference.
>>Seems to
>>me you've not defined God in the same way that you've not
>>defined Satan. If we can't apply definitions to God, how
>>does one distinguish between God and Satan?
>
>The Bible addresses these issues.
Yes, but was written/inspired by a God
who is at liberty to be unfair or even not
be good. That makes it a rather suspect
book by human standards.
>> Seems to
>>me you're a couple of steps down the road to nihilism.
>>
>>>... If Satan
>>>was the creator then, just as with God, you could choose to worship or
>>>him or not and reap the consequences.
>>
>>Hmmm, maybe Satan is God and God is Satan. The logical
>>consequence of your not allowing distinguishing definitions
>>makes it impossible to tell which is which. We can't
>>choose the one that is good, fair, loving, and just, because
>>God is beyond such definitions. We might as well choose
>>the one that is evil, unfair, hateful, and unjust.
>
>You can choose which ever you like, or choose not to choose. The
>consequences are delineated in the Bible.
Yeah, but can you really trust it to be true and fair
given the fact that God is not necessarily about fairness?
>>>>>... He has given us the ability to choose our paths,
>>>>
>>>>He has given us the ability to choose our paths, but according
>>>>to you does not have to treat us fairly as we try to
>>>>choose that path. Seems to me that God is our example
>>>>of what to be. God is loving, we should be loving. God
>>>>is good, we should be good. God is unfair, we should be
>>>>fair?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I say again that we can't judge God as being fair or not.
>>
>>Or good or loving or just. Seems to me we can't distinguish God
>>from Satan.
>
>Most people don't have a problem with this distinction.
Most people never think. They read a book filled with
metaphors and inconsistencies and beleive it when someone
tells them it's literally true and consistent.
>... Are you
>missing the forest by staring a single tree?
Are you?
>>>>> > When you finally muster the
>>>>> >courage to accept the rejection of this dogma of a lifetime, that
>>>>moment
>>>>> >is the greatest, most heartfelt "religious" experience ever. At least
>>>>it
>>>>> >was for a locally born and bred Southern Baptist. No, Virgina, there
>>>>is
>>>>> >no Santa Claus!
>>>>>
>>>>> Pulling the blanket over your head only makes you think you are safe.
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn't be so quick to accuse others of blanket pulling.
>>>>Seems to me that a case can be made for that blanket
>>>>being called religion.
>>>
>>>To protect me from what?
>>
>>From the same thing you think they are trying
>>to protect themselves from: Reality.
>>
>>>>> You may feel heartfelt relief but the blanket cannot protect you.
>>>>
>>>>You may feel heartfelt relief, but the blanket of religion
>>>>is felt by some to not protect you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Again, protection from what?
>>
>>From the same thing you think they are trying
>>to protect themselves from: Reality.
>
>Why should I be afraid of reality?
Why should they? Problem is you and they don't agree
on what is reality.
>... It's just there, its natural.
The tiger is natural too. It will eat you
nonetheless.
We have billions of people on this planet with
pretty much each saying they know the Truth about
God and salvation. You say God is one way and
that you know the way to salvation. Others say
God is another way and that they know the way
to salvation. You tell me if I choose wrongly,
I'm damned. You tell me to listen to you and
not them. They tell me to listen to them and
not you. I say, bug off, I'll listen to my own
heart. My heart tells me that God is all loving,
all good, all fair, all just. That's the God
I worship. And I don't do it out of an expectation
of a reward or the fear of a punishment. I do
it out of for my love of Him.
Dan Harper
brandy simpson
I wouldn't say that. You would be amazed how much kids learn that adults
don't teach.
She might be. Because of that, most wiccan traditions do not admit minors
into their congregation till they are 18.
brandy
Ron Hammon
>
> Ron Hammon <ham...@3hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >You are forgeting those who have never heard "the word". Ignorance of
> >the law is no excuse. This is what motivates missionaries to "save
> >souls". Even today, your God supposedly will torture Amazonian Indians
> >forever because they never made a public profession of faith in Jesus
> >Christ although they never saw a Europeon. Does this sound fair?
>
> Things aren't fair or unfair, they just are. I think that those never
> who never heard the word but lived an honorable life will be given
> consideration...if anyone would extend mercies to these souls it would
> be Jesus.
Not a Baptist, I see. In fact, you might want to check with your
church. I'll wager that they have a more... strict script of how to
enter into the pearly gates. I was reared to believe that adults HAD to
make a public profession of faith in Jesus Christ to be saved. That
profession HAD to be public immersion in water, after the correct age
(although most believed in deathbed confession out of neccessity). If
we back off the Baptist insistence on immersion, we are still left with
Christiandom's confession of faith in Jesus Christ. This presupposes
knowledge of JC. Therefore, adults who never heard the word MUST fry!
Otherwise, Christianity is no more a certain path than Buddaism?
God as can be seen in the Old Testament can be hard. It's
> not a matter of being fair or not...he makes the rules and defines our
> reality. He has given us the ability to choose our paths,
So, if you WERE a Baptist, at least you would be a Free-Will Baptist.
if he
> wanted to create a bunch of mindless obedient clones, all destined for
> heaven, he would have created that. Humans, as they are, are much
> more interesting. We aren't much different than the ants we used to
> keep in those ant farms...we are there for his amusement.
>
So, like little boys who fry ants with a magnifying glass, he will amuse
himself (itself) by frying humans?
> >
> >I never understood the gush of "God is good" chants in the face of "...
> >for I am a jealous God", "Vengence is mine...", "rain fire and
> >brimstone...", "everything... shall perish", etc., etc. The "Devil" (a
> >creation of God) is supposedly "bad" due to anguish it causes, but, in
> >the final balance, God is to directly cause far more suffering!
>
> And so it is...but you still have the power to choose your own path.
>
> >
> >From a different perspective, it becomes obvious that Christianity, like
> >all other paganism, is devised to force the audience into drawing the
> >proper conclusion- follow our rules and do what we tell you, or else!
> >The muddled, contradictory collection of fables known as "The Bible" can
> >never hold up to scientific scrutiny.
>
> The Bible isn't a science text, it's a moral guide.
>
You can say that again! In fact, say it loud enough for the "others" to
hear. Although, we have socially evolved beyond the Old Bible and the
New Testiment is just about altrusism, which Americans don't really
believe in any way. So the value of the Bible as a moral guide is
questionable.
> > When you finally muster the
> >courage to accept the rejection of this dogma of a lifetime, that moment
> >is the greatest, most heartfelt "religious" experience ever. At least it
> >was for a locally born and bred Southern Baptist. No, Virgina, there is
> >no Santa Claus!
>
> Pulling the blanket over your head only makes you think you are safe.
> You may feel heartfelt relief but the blanket cannot protect you.
>
> Bob
That is EXACTLY`what I think when I see people praying for God's
protection from cancer or a hurricane or something.
GS
>>... My house, my rules.
>
>Sounds familiar. You might find sitting down with her
>and uncritically listening to why she believes what
>she believes to be more constructive than laying
>down "My house, my rules" edicts.
>
not have the problems with teenagers that we have now. That
should happen in EVERY home. No exemptions. I worked for
many, many decades and generations. So why stop now?
Glen
DDF
bwils...@hiwaay.net (Robert J. Wilson) wrote:
> clumsyfly <clum...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What has happened to the institution of marriage?
>
> Twenty-four years and counting.
>
> >I wonder what part
> > alcohol consumption plays in this ugly equation?
>
> I brew beer and my wife likes wine. She drinks Lynchburg lemonaid and
I
> like a spicy bloody mary. The key is you both have to enjoy different
> drinks. <smiles>
>
> Actually, my observation is a latent bully will become a complete
> asshole on alcohol. However, taken in moderation, it is a pleasant
> adjunct to dinner or pleasant company.
>
> Bob Wilson
>
I think alcohal simply releases inhibitions. You might see more
of the _real_ person when they're a bit (but not totally) tipsy.
Perhaps the "mean" drunk, as you said, is just a closet bastard.
I certainly wouldn't marry anyone whose Dr. Jekel turned into Mr.
Hyde after a few beers!
--
Carol
Ken H. wrote in message <3843e121...@newstoo.hiwaay.net>...
>
>
>That's interesting. In my much younger days of college, I recall when
>I drank a little too much, I wanted to go to bed.
With who?
Curious Carol
LeaAnn
Robert J. Wilson wrote in message
<1999111620...@tnt6-216-180-4-96.dialup.hiwaay.net>...
>> If I wanted a sermon, dude, I'd go to church.
>
>. . . or give it yourself?
Yep, and probably have something similarly nasty written in reply to me in
turn. :-)
LeaAnn
LeaAnn
GS wrote in message ...
>If more parents enforced my house my rules maybe we would
>not have the problems with teenagers that we have now. That
>should happen in EVERY home. No exemptions. I worked for
>many, many decades and generations. So why stop now?
You should be proud of your daughter. Wiccans believe in mythological
beings and supernatural happenings.
LeaAnn
>
>Glen
Robin
GS wrote:
>
> If more parents enforced my house my rules maybe we would
> not have the problems with teenagers that we have now. That
> should happen in EVERY home. No exemptions. I worked for
> many, many decades and generations. So why stop now?
>
> Glen
Be careful or you'll lose your daughter. If she fears coming to you with what's
on her mind she's bound to start looking for a father figure elsewhere. I've seen
it too many times. She just may be getting the message with your rule that your
love is conditional.
Sheesh, she's only 15. Don't you remember what it's like to be 15? I horrified my
parents at that age by deciding I wanted to be a nun.....uhhh, I was Lutheran.
;-)
Robin
brandy simpson
You are being unreasonable with religion. If you are concerned about
ethics, Wicca has a strong sense of ethics. Harm none(including yourself)
do what you will. It doesn't permit harming others or yourself. before you
speak that Christianity is more moral, explain why thousands of innocent
women and children were put to death by your ethical religion. Christ
himself would be appalled. And what happened to +ACI-family values+ACI-? hate is
not a family value.
I don't think obedience to parents is unreasonable. I wish more kids were
brought up to respect their elders. however when it comes to her religion
you should respect her choice. You will only drive a wedge between you two.
Yes she is a minor, but in your religion even as a minor she is held
responsible. Don't play both sides of the fence. Respect her choice and
come to understand her beliefs. chances are she will be more open to yours.
Plus I think Jesus will be more happier that you do so. I'm not talking
double. Religion is a personal choice that no one should make for someone
else.
GS wrote in message ...
+AD4-In article +ADw-0PmY3.19773+ACQ-YI2.855758+AEA-typ11.nn.bcandid.com+AD4-,
dwharper+AEA-hiwaay.net
+AD4-(Dan Harper) wrote:
+AD4APgA+-... My house, my rules.
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg-Sounds familiar. You might find sitting down with her
+AD4APg-and uncritically listening to why she believes what
+AD4APg-she believes to be more constructive than laying
+AD4APg-down +ACI-My house, my rules+ACI- edicts.
+AD4APg-
+AD4-If more parents enforced my house my rules maybe we would
+AD4-not have the problems with teenagers that we have now. That
+AD4-should happen in EVERY home. No exemptions. I worked for
+AD4-many, many decades and generations. So why stop now?
+AD4-
+AD4-Glen
GS
>
>GS wrote in message ...
>
>
>beings and supernatural happenings.
>
I also love my children , unconditionally. That doesn't mean I ignore
what they are doing and accept it without question.
If your child was trapped in a burning building would yoou not
go in after them? If you would then why not trying to prevent them from
having eternity in hell?
Glen
GS
>Well maybe it does but....
>
>You are being unreasonable with religion. If you are concerned about
>ethics, Wicca has a strong sense of ethics. Harm none(including yourself)
>do what you will. It doesn't permit harming others or yourself. before you
>speak that Christianity is more moral, explain why thousands of innocent
>women and children were put to death by your ethical religion. Christ
This is continually brought up. These aren't real Christians. They are
posing as Christians to fit under some umbrella. My version of a Christian
would never kill or bring harm to anyone. The people who do this posing as
Christians will reside in Hell a fast and any other killer.
>himself would be appalled. And what happened to +ACI-family values+ACI-? hate
> is
>not a family value.
>
>I don't think obedience to parents is unreasonable. I wish more kids were
>brought up to respect their elders. however when it comes to her religion
>you should respect her choice. You will only drive a wedge between you two.
>Yes she is a minor, but in your religion even as a minor she is held
>responsible. Don't play both sides of the fence. Respect her choice and
>come to understand her beliefs. chances are she will be more open to yours.
>Plus I think Jesus will be more happier that you do so. I'm not talking
Jesus would be more happy if I study Pagan religions? What about
no other gods before me? My God and my Jesus does not allow this. I
have faith in God and Jesus Christ and no other.
>double. Religion is a personal choice that no one should make for someone
>else.
brandy simpson
understand the other person's belief and respect it. You seem to have a
problem with understanding what Christ meant by love thy neighbor as
thyself. It was unconditional. Like what the love between you and your
daughter is supposed to be. yet you wish to impose your belief system on
her. Nothing wrong with the system of morals, just the belief system. I
don't consider that unconditional.
brandy
Ps Why do Christians wish to impose their faith on everyone else? Do they
not see taking others freedoms away results in theirs being taken away also?
GS wrote in message ...
+AD4-In article +ADw-wnDY3.21937+ACQ-YI2.990980+AEA-typ11.nn.bcandid.com+AD4-, +ACI-brandy simpson+ACI-
+ADw-bshandi+AEA-boone.net+AD4- wrote:
+AD4-Jesus would be more happy if I study Pagan religions? What about
+AD4-no other gods before me? My God and my Jesus does not allow this. I
+AD4-have faith in God and Jesus Christ and no other.
+AD4-
+AD4APg-double. Religion is a personal choice that no one should make for someone
+AD4APg-else.
+AD4APg-GS wrote in message ...
+AD4-
Greg Bacon
Ken H. <kha...@delete.hiwaay.net> writes:
: With whom? Whomever my date was and they didn't have three arms!
: :-)
If you were that drunk, wouldn't they all have appeared to have had at
least four? :-)
Greg
--
Isn't it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they do "practice"?
-- George Carlin
LeaAnn
GS wrote in message ...
>If your child was trapped in a burning building would yoou not
>go in after them? If you would then why not trying to prevent them from
>having eternity in hell?
Wiccans don't believe in hell or the devil. She believes this just as
strongly as you believe she will perish in eternal hellfire. Who's right?
She believes she is, just as much as you believe she is wrong. You can only
do so much in indoctrinating your children into your way of thinking, and
then you have to let go. Not doing so can ruin your relationship with them
in the here and now--which is in some of our opinions (and steadfast
belief), the only chance you'll get!
LeaAnn
<Live every day to the fullest--this is NOT a dress rehearsal!>
Bob230
>In article <iMCY3.21883$YI2.9...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, "LeaAnn" <lea...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>>
>>GS wrote in message ...
>>
>>>If more parents enforced my house my rules maybe we would
>>>not have the problems with teenagers that we have now. That
>>>should happen in EVERY home. No exemptions. I worked for
>>>many, many decades and generations. So why stop now?
>>
>>You should be proud of your daughter. Wiccans believe in mythological
>>beings and supernatural happenings.
>>
>I am proud of my children. But not for practicing a pagan religion.
>I also love my children , unconditionally. That doesn't mean I ignore
>what they are doing and accept it without question.
>
>If your child was trapped in a burning building would yoou not
>go in after them? If you would then why not trying to prevent them from
>having eternity in hell?
>
>Glen
I empathize with you. I agree with some of the other posters that at
15, your daughter is in that rebellious stage of life. Hopefully this
will just be one of those passing fancies. I agree with you not
allowing any pagan rituals in your home. Don't give up on her...but
it may take a few years until she matures enough to receive your
message. Good luck with her.
Bob
<who is nervously awaiting his daughter's terrible teens>
clumsyfly
<dwha...@hiwaay.net> said...
> >The Bible is not fable. The Bible is not contradictory. The Bible
> >consists of 66 books, with numerous authors yet it all fits together.
>
> The Bible is full of metaphor. The Bible is full of contradiction.
> The writing styles and messages of the various books often do
> not fit together well and often present contradictory things.
> A denial of that only undermines your credibility.
Yeah, and it sure is easy just to sit back and say, "The Bible is
contradictory" and not ever provide any references. I think that
undermines your credibility, Dan.
> My choice is to accept God, but that does not mean I threw my
> brain out the window.
May as well have.
> The Bible is not the literal, consistent book you make it out to be.
I make it out to be nothing. It is what it is:
2 Timothy 3:16,17 - All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to
teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives.
It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. It is God’s way
of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God
wants us to do
> Dan Harper
Robert J. Wilson
> When parenting styles are divided into three
> styles--authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive--
What is "authoritative" mean in this context?
Bob Wilson
Bob230
>In article <3833275a...@news.mindspring.com>, Bob...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> I agree with you not
>> allowing any pagan rituals in your home.
>
>what did you tell your kids about santa claus or the easter bunny?
The same as nearly everyone else....that Santa drove his sleigh on
Christmas eve and delivered presents to deserving children....that the
Easter Bunny hid colored eggs and candy on Easter morning....any other
questions?
BTW, I also let my kid go trick-or-treating, the same as I did. All
of these events have been completely secularized. If they were
presented as pagan religious rituals I wouldn't let my child
participate.
Bob
Dan Harper
clum...@nospam.hotmail.com says...
>
>In article <pXnY3.20147$YI2.8...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, "Dan Harper" -
><dwha...@hiwaay.net> said...
>
>> >The Bible is not fable. The Bible is not contradictory. The Bible
>> >consists of 66 books, with numerous authors yet it all fits together.
>>
>> The Bible is full of metaphor. The Bible is full of contradiction.
>> The writing styles and messages of the various books often do
>> not fit together well and often present contradictory things.
>> A denial of that only undermines your credibility.
>
>Yeah, and it sure is easy just to sit back and say, "The Bible is
>contradictory" and not ever provide any references. I think that
>undermines your credibility, Dan.
<http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/contra.html> for starters.
>> My choice is to accept God, but that does not mean I threw my
>> brain out the window.
>
>May as well have.
I agree that for some people the practice of their
religion is tantamount to throwing their brain out
the window.
>> The Bible is not the literal, consistent book you make it out to be.
>
>I make it out to be nothing. It is what it is:
Do you or do you not claim the book is literal and consistent?
>2 Timothy 3:16,17 - All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to
>teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives.
>It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. It is God’s way
>of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God
>wants us to do
Uh huh, that is not, however, to say that the Bible is
literal and consistent.
Dan Harper
Dan Harper
rgs...@hiwaay.net.nospam says...
>
>In article <0PmY3.19773$YI2.8...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, dwha...@hiwaay.net
>(Dan Harper) wrote:
>>>... My house, my rules.
>>
>>
>not have the problems with teenagers that we have now.
I'm sure you sincerely believe that, but I do not
believe it. That's not to say that being strict
is necessarily detrimental, but being inflexible
is.
When parenting styles are divided into three
styles--authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive--
the authoritative is positively correlated with such
good things as school performance and the other two
styles are negatively correlated.
There is a great mass of research that supports
this and little to support the popular wisdom
of "spare the rod, spoil the child."
> That
>should happen in EVERY home. No exemptions.
I'm beginning to get a better picture of
the Swaim household. I know you're not
going to believe this, but it seems more
and more likely to me that her choice of
religions is her rebellion to your
authoritarian discipline style.
>... I worked for
>many, many decades and generations.
No it didn't. Teenagers have been
repelling since there's been teenagers.
>... So why stop now?
It doesn't work and is having the
opposite effect to that desired.
Dan Harper
Dan Harper
>
>In article <wnDY3.21937$YI2.9...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, "brandy simpson" <bsh...@boone.net> wrote:
>>Well maybe it does but....
>>
>>You are being unreasonable with religion. If you are concerned about
>>ethics, Wicca has a strong sense of ethics. Harm none(including yourself)
>>do what you will. It doesn't permit harming others or yourself. before you
>>speak that Christianity is more moral, explain why thousands of innocent
>>women and children were put to death by your ethical religion. Christ
>
>This is continually brought up. These aren't real Christians. They are
>posing as Christians to fit under some umbrella. My version of a Christian
>would never kill or bring harm to anyone. The people who do this posing as
>Christians will reside in Hell a fast and any other killer.
That's called the "No true Scotsman" argument. See
<http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#scots>
>>himself would be appalled. And what happened to +ACI-family values+ACI-? hate
>> is
>>not a family value.
>>
>>I don't think obedience to parents is unreasonable. I wish more kids were
>>brought up to respect their elders. however when it comes to her religion
>>you should respect her choice. You will only drive a wedge between you two.
>>Yes she is a minor, but in your religion even as a minor she is held
>>responsible. Don't play both sides of the fence. Respect her choice and
>>come to understand her beliefs. chances are she will be more open to yours.
>>Plus I think Jesus will be more happier that you do so. I'm not talking
>
>Jesus would be more happy if I study Pagan religions?
I can easily imagine the believer of another faith saying
"So and so would be more happy if I study false religions?"
And they would reject out of hand Christianity just as you
reject out of hand other religions.
>... What about
>no other gods before me?
So then, you're Jewish?
>... My God and my Jesus does not allow this.
Mine do.
>... I
>have faith in God and Jesus Christ and no other.
I have enough faith in God and Jesus Christ not
to be afraid to examine other religions. If we
do not examine any other religion that the one
we are born into, then religious belief is an
accident of birth. Which actually, sad to say,
is pretty close to the truth.
The truth does not have anything to fear from
the light.
>>double. Religion is a personal choice that no one should make for someone
>>else.
Religion is a personal choice that no one *can* make
for someone else. In fact, trying to do so generally
has the opposite effect desired.
Dan Harper
Dan Harper
says...
>
>On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 04:36:34 -0600, Ron Hammon <ham...@hiwaay.net>
>wrote:
>........
>>........ we have socially evolved beyond the Old Bible and the
>>New Testiment is just about altrusism...........
>>
>.........
>
>I read an article many many years ago discussing the Big Bang Theory
>of the universe creation. It considered the fact that time is a
>realtive concept and the conventional day we accept as a period of
>time is not likely to be the same period of time as we would hope it
>was. And, if we look deeply into a molecule of water, we will see the
>rotational beauties of a universe in motion. Taking this further,
>one could imagine that life as we know it is nothing but a brief
>encounter in time of a few milli-seconds when a drop of water hits a
>surface and splatters to the four winds. That would explain the Big
>Bang and the Second Coming, IMHO. :-)
Cool man. You saw the MJ scene in Animal House too.
Dan Harper
Dan Harper
says...
>Conquest was more important and I seldom over imbibed or lost sight of
>my goals. But, they were always the right gender (I think). I
>remember dating a 6'0" tall, well endowed girl one time who would
>have put Gravel Girty to shame, but who danced so well, so I invoked
>that <skin deep thingy> about beauty. Such heaven even as one.
><grin>
Stop it, Ken. Not only are you embarassing me with
tales of your sexual exploits, but you're making this
a newsgroup inappropriate for children to read.
Dan Harper
Dan Harper
says...
>
>On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 01:27:34 GMT, dwha...@hiwaay.net (Dan Harper)
>wrote:
>wrote?
Hell, I'm not sure I understand what you wrote.
>... We all know that when they turn 16, they are sweet and
>therefore worldly at least according to the latest I've read.
I don't spend much time reading about 16 year old girls.
What did you read?
Dan Harper
Bob230
wrote:
>In article <OuDY3.21947$YI2.9...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, rgs...@hiwaay.net.nospam says...
>>
>>In article <wnDY3.21937$YI2.9...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, "brandy simpson" <bsh...@boone.net> wrote:
>>>Well maybe it does but....
>>>
>>>You are being unreasonable with religion. If you are concerned about
>>>ethics, Wicca has a strong sense of ethics. Harm none(including yourself)
>>>do what you will. It doesn't permit harming others or yourself. before you
>>>speak that Christianity is more moral, explain why thousands of innocent
>>>women and children were put to death by your ethical religion. Christ
>>
>>This is continually brought up. These aren't real Christians. They are
>>posing as Christians to fit under some umbrella. My version of a Christian
>>would never kill or bring harm to anyone. The people who do this posing as
>>Christians will reside in Hell a fast and any other killer.
>
>That's called the "No true Scotsman" argument. See
><http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#scots>
Ah yes, to atheists everyone is a true Scotsman. Actually, I find
this a rather cheap argument trotted out by Atheists when they start
losing arguments.
Bob
Bob230
wrote:
>In article <383341fb...@news.mindspring.com>, Bob...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> All
>> of these events have been completely secularized.
>
>christmas and easter aren't religious holidays?
Yea, but you only talked of Santa and the Easter Bunny. Neither of
which have any religious connotations.
Bob
Dan Harper
I don't, and I'm not an atheist. There is no significance to
the fact that I choose the Atheist Web web site other than the
fact it had the #scots label that allows for one to jump directly
to the fallacy in question. Is the Petitio principii fallacy
no longer a fallacy because it appears on their web site too?
Dan Harper
Dan Harper
Yes they do. Santa Claus (the personification of the
spirit of Christmas) derives from Saint Nicolas.
The Easter Bunny is a Rabbit (a pagan symbol of fertility)
who gives out eggs (a pagan symbol of fertility).
Dan Harper
Dan Harper
bwils...@hiwaay.net says...
>
>Dan Harper <dwha...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
>> When parenting styles are divided into three
>> styles--authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive--
>
From
http://www.macarthur.uws.edu.au/psychology/socialpsych/Lecture5/Lect5.htm
"Authoritarian parents place a high value on
obedience and do not encourage discussion or
listen the children's point of view. These
parents impose a rigid set of standards to
which they expect their children to abide
and are likely to discipline their children
frequently.
"Permissive parents in contract impose virtually
no controls on their children, allowing them to
make their own decisions whenever possible,
and accepting their children impulsive behaviour
without any discipline.
"Authoritative parents set standards for their
children and firmly enforce them, clearly explain
their views and show respect for their children's
opinions."
Most parents use a combination of two of these to
varying degrees.
Studies have indicated that the Authoritative style
is superior.
Dan Harper
Dan Harper
says...
>Don't read much about that anymore, but I was thinking of the
>almost one million teenagers who become pregnant each year, with more
>than 512,000 giving birth. That and nearly four girls in one hundred
>between ages 15 and 17 had a baby. And, I assure you, those
>pregnancies originate from a boy within their age range so your point
>is moot.
I seem to remember reading that most teen pregnancies are
the result of young men from the ages of 18 to 22.
Dan Harper
GS
>In article <383341fb...@news.mindspring.com>, Bob...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> All
>> of these events have been completely secularized.
>
>christmas and easter aren't religious holidays?
>
Glen
Ron Hammon
>
> On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 19:41:56 GMT, rgs...@hiwaay.net.nospam (GS)
> wrote:
> .......
> >If your child was trapped in a burning building would yoou not
> >Glen
>
> A bad example, IMHO, but your intent is certainly understood.
>
> Contrary to the movie-styled heroic actions we see all the time on
> TV of those rushing into a burning building to successfully rescue a
> human or a pet, it seldom happens that way in real life. The poison
> gases usually gets the person before the flames ever do, so two lives
> are lost leaving the rest of the family without two loved ones instead
> of one. I understand the frustration and urge, but it doesn't make
> sense to run into a burning building or jump into a rushing river to
> save a loved one.
>
> Ken H.
My wife and I had a pact. If one of the kids burned, which ever of us
was home had damnned well better burn trying to save them! Your child's
life does NOT equal your own!
Ron Hammon
>
> In article <383341fb...@news.mindspring.com>, Bob...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > All
> > of these events have been completely secularized.
>
> christmas and easter aren't religious holidays?
>
> caesurae <caes...@flashmail.com>
This has been brought up over and over here. Again, these (and other)
celebrations existed before recorded history. For instance, all over
the world, the winter solstice was celebrated. Since the Bible
indicates the birth of Christ at around that time, the existing, pagan
holiday was annexed by the early Christians.
It is a bit dfficult to say that "Christ"mas is not a religious holiday,
by name anyway, but most of the rituals associated with that celebration
are non-christian. I've heard that the decorated tree harkens back to
the Druid winter solstice celebration. It is amusing that Xians, in
their ignorance, are sort of "worshiping false Gods" during Christmas.
Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to celebrate Christmas because they know it
to be a pagan celebration. The ONLY holiday that they celebrate is
Easter. They consider it to be truly holy because a specific date and
event is described. Even so, Easter is an extension of the old vernal
equinox celebration. Spring=rebirth, victory over "death", get it?
Jim Garrett
> This has been brought up over and over here. Again, these (and other)
> celebrations existed before recorded history. For instance, all over
> the world, the winter solstice was celebrated. Since the Bible
> indicates the birth of Christ at around that time, the existing, pagan
> holiday was annexed by the early Christians.
>
> It is a bit dfficult to say that "Christ"mas is not a religious holiday,
> by name anyway, but most of the rituals associated with that celebration
> are non-christian. I've heard that the decorated tree harkens back to
> the Druid winter solstice celebration. It is amusing that Xians, in
> their ignorance, are sort of "worshiping false Gods" during Christmas.
>
> Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to celebrate Christmas because they know it
> to be a pagan celebration. The ONLY holiday that they celebrate is
> Easter. They consider it to be truly holy because a specific date and
> event is described. Even so, Easter is an extension of the old vernal
> equinox celebration. Spring=rebirth, victory over "death", get it?
These historical connections are interesting but don't diminish the
fact that Christmas and Easter are religious holidays. July 4 existed
for centuries before Independence Day and many of the activities that
normally take place on the 4th of July predate Independence Day by
centuries or millennia (fireworks, parades, speeches) and those
activities emerged from traditions other than American, yet Independence
Day is still an American national holiday. Christmas and Easter are
still religious holidays despite traditions carried over from Druids or
pagans or anyone else. (Though I certainly won't argue that there is a
lot about Christmas nowadays that is not religious. While it is a
religious holiday it is ~also~ a secular, commercial celebration.)
Jim
Ron Hammon
>
> In article <pXnY3.20147$YI2.8...@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, "Dan Harper" -
> <dwha...@hiwaay.net> said...
>
> > >The Bible is not fable. The Bible is not contradictory. The Bible
> > >consists of 66 books, with numerous authors yet it all fits together.
> >
> > The Bible is full of metaphor. The Bible is full of contradiction.
> > The writing styles and messages of the various books often do
> > not fit together well and often present contradictory things.
> > A denial of that only undermines your credibility.
>
> Yeah, and it sure is easy just to sit back and say, "The Bible is
> contradictory" and not ever provide any references. I think that
> undermines your credibility, Dan.
>
> > brain out the window.
>
> May as well have.
>
>
> I make it out to be nothing. It is what it is:
>
> teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives.
> It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. It is God’s way
> of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God
> wants us to do
>
>
the Jehovah's Witnesses translation. I don't have the title right now.
Rather than re-translating King James (like so many others), they went
back to the original texts.
BTW. What ever happened to those bronze scrolls that they found around
five years ago? They dated to about 200AD. The oldest, prior
"original" works were from 500-700AD. I expected MAJOR revisions to the
Bible. I was waiting to see which cherished and sacred portions were
added hundreds of years after the "fact". I expected the very
foundations of Judeo-Christian beliefs to shudder from the revelations.
Recently, I searched the 'net for days and never even found a single
news reference. Did "they" decide that this was too dangerous to
release and simply retired it? They have had plenty of time to
translate it.
Ron Hammon
>
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:12:36 -0600, Ron Hammon <ham...@hiwaay.net>
> wrote:
> ....
> >My wife and I had a pact. If one of the kids burned, which ever of us
> >was home had damnned well better burn trying to save them! Your child's
> >life does NOT equal your own!
>
> wife already outside the house? You'd insist your wife give up her
> life or you give up yours for that one child while the other two
> loose their mother or father? Sorry, I don't agree. To conclude that
> one parent should die trying to save their child in danger when the
> likely result is two people will die instead of one is, IMHO, idiocy
> unless one doesn't want to live if that child dies a tragic death.
> But, a pact means nothing since none of us know what we will really do
> when faced with such a decision, but we should hope that common
> sense will prevail.
>
> BTW, I do not agree that a childs life is more important than a
> parents when the result is still the loss of that child and the
> parent as well. Makes no sense to me. Suicide is a better word.
>
> Ken H.
To me, the relative value of one's life includes remaining lifespan. I
want to see maritime law changed so that age is the only criterian for
lifeboats. The sixteen year-old heir to the White Star Line went to his
icy death on the Titanic while old bags, dripping with jewelry, won
seats on lifeboats. Women and children first is outdated.
At age sixty, I'd gamble my life against a twenty percent chance of
saving a child. For my own child, the odds are unimportant. The rescue
routine would run until canceled due confrontation with CERTAIN death.
Our pact did not ensure the result as much as it set the decision
beforehand.
Beth
ham...@hiwaay.net wrote:
> This has been brought up over and over here. Again, these (and other)
> celebrations existed before recorded history. For instance, all over
> the world, the winter solstice was celebrated. Since the Bible
> indicates the birth of Christ at around that time,
The Bible does *not* indicate that Christ was born in
December. The best estimate from the Bible stories is
that he was born in the springtime which was when the
census was traditionally held.
> the existing, pagan holiday was annexed by the early Christians.
The early Christians chose to celebrate their holy days
around pagan celebrations as camoflauge. If all your neighbors
are going to a Saturnalia party, no one will think it's
wierd if you & your friends have a party too. Now if
everyone else is going to a party & you abstain because
it isn't your religion's holy day, then you might raise
suspicions among the community...
> It is a bit dfficult to say that "Christ"mas is not a religious
> holiday, by name anyway, but most of the rituals associated with
> that celebration are non-christian.
True. What bothers me is the great attention many people
put towards all the commercialism. When someone comes back
to work after the x-mas break all depressed because he
"ruined Christmas" by not buying the "right" gift for
the kids/spouse, then something is wrong with our
priorities.
> I've heard that the decorated tree harkens back to
> the Druid winter solstice celebration.
It's actually a Scandinavian custom and thus has nothing
to do with "Druids." Now the yule log, on the other hand...
> It is amusing that Xians, in their ignorance, are sort
> of "worshiping false Gods" during Christmas.
Which false gods would that be? Just because some people
carry on with cultural or ethnic traditions that have become
associated with certain religious events doesn't mean they're
worshiping false gods. Otherwise, just about every holiday
would be indicted.
> Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to celebrate Christmas because they know it
> to be a pagan celebration. The ONLY holiday that they celebrate is
> Easter. They consider it to be truly holy because a specific date and
> event is described. Even so, Easter is an extension of the old vernal
> equinox celebration. Spring=rebirth, victory over "death", get it?
This is only true if you consider Passover to be an
extension of the vernal equinox, since that's how Easter
came to be in the spring. The "Last Supper" was a
Passover celebration after all.
Most of the Judeo-Christian holidays are set on a moon-based
calendar (i.e. the 1st weekend after the 1st full moon after
the equinox...). Ancient people used lunar & solar
cycles to define their calendars -- a bit more accurately
than the early "logical" calendars. Both the Julian &
Georgian calendars have had to be arbitrarily adjusted
a few times to fit back into the earth's cycles (e.g.,
skipping a few months so April isn't in the middle of
winter or adding leap days).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
GS
>On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:12:36 -0600, Ron Hammon <ham...@hiwaay.net>
>wrote:
>>My wife and I had a pact. If one of the kids burned, which ever of us
>>was home had damnned well better burn trying to save them! Your child's
>>life does NOT equal your own!
>
>
>Interesting conclusion there, Ron. How about the other children and
>wife already outside the house? You'd insist your wife give up her
>life or you give up yours for that one child while the other two
>loose their mother or father? Sorry, I don't agree. To conclude that
>one parent should die trying to save their child in danger when the
>likely result is two people will die instead of one is, IMHO, idiocy
>unless one doesn't want to live if that child dies a tragic death.
>But, a pact means nothing since none of us know what we will really do
>when faced with such a decision, but we should hope that common
>sense will prevail.
>
> BTW, I do not agree that a childs life is more important than a
>parents when the result is still the loss of that child and the
>parent as well. Makes no sense to me. Suicide is a better word.
>
>
>Ken H.
>
>
more valuable to me than my own. It requires little thought
on my part at all. A total stranger's "childs" life would most likely
be more valuable to me than my own. Been there, done that.
It also required little thought on my part and I don't consider
myself an idiot.
Glen
Ron Hammon
>
> In article <38341B...@hiwaay.net>,
> ham...@hiwaay.net wrote:
>
> > This has been brought up over and over here. Again, these (and other)
> > celebrations existed before recorded history. For instance, all over
> > the world, the winter solstice was celebrated. Since the Bible
> > indicates the birth of Christ at around that time,
>
> The Bible does *not* indicate that Christ was born in
> December. The best estimate from the Bible stories is
> that he was born in the springtime which was when the
> census was traditionally held.
I have heard this, however, although I don't remember the details, the
season was supposed to be cold.
>
> > the existing, pagan holiday was annexed by the early Christians.
>
> The early Christians chose to celebrate their holy days
> around pagan celebrations as camoflauge. If all your neighbors
> are going to a Saturnalia party, no one will think it's
> wierd if you & your friends have a party too. Now if
> everyone else is going to a party & you abstain because
> it isn't your religion's holy day, then you might raise
> suspicions among the community...
Sort of "hiding your light under a bushel", eh?
>
> > It is a bit dfficult to say that "Christ"mas is not a religious
> > holiday, by name anyway, but most of the rituals associated with
> > that celebration are non-christian.
>
> True. What bothers me is the great attention many people
> put towards all the commercialism. When someone comes back
> to work after the x-mas break all depressed because he
> "ruined Christmas" by not buying the "right" gift for
> the kids/spouse, then something is wrong with our
> priorities.
>
> > I've heard that the decorated tree harkens back to
> > the Druid winter solstice celebration.
>
> It's actually a Scandinavian custom and thus has nothing
> to do with "Druids." Now the yule log, on the other hand...
>
> > It is amusing that Xians, in their ignorance, are sort
> > of "worshiping false Gods" during Christmas.
>
> Which false gods would that be? Just because some people
> carry on with cultural or ethnic traditions that have become
> associated with certain religious events doesn't mean they're
> worshiping false gods. Otherwise, just about every holiday
> would be indicted.
IF the "Christmas" tree was from Druid tree/nature worship, then
decorating a tree and massing in awe before it could be considered
"worship" by the originators.
>
> > Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to celebrate Christmas because they know it
> > to be a pagan celebration. The ONLY holiday that they celebrate is
> > Easter. They consider it to be truly holy because a specific date and
> > event is described. Even so, Easter is an extension of the old vernal
> > equinox celebration. Spring=rebirth, victory over "death", get it?
>
> This is only true if you consider Passover to be an
> extension of the vernal equinox, since that's how Easter
> came to be in the spring. The "Last Supper" was a
> Passover celebration after all.
>
I do. Passover is just a 7-day and lunar adjustment to the equinox (or,
spring) which was celebrated by just about everyone in every time.
> Most of the Judeo-Christian holidays are set on a moon-based
> calendar (i.e. the 1st weekend after the 1st full moon after
> the equinox...). Ancient people used lunar & solar
> cycles to define their calendars -- a bit more accurately
> than the early "logical" calendars. Both the Julian &
> Georgian calendars have had to be arbitrarily adjusted
> a few times to fit back into the earth's cycles (e.g.,
> skipping a few months so April isn't in the middle of
> winter or adding leap days).
>
The Julian calendar only slipped 11 days in the one-and-one-half
thousand years before the implementation of the Georgian calendar. The
Georgian calendar is almost as accurate as the earth itself and has not
been corrected.
Related trivia: On what date was the Russian Revolution? Russia was
one of many countries that did not adopt the "new" calendar until
recently. In the case of Russia, it was after the revolution.
Dan Harper
rgs...@hiwaay.net.nospam (GS) wrote:
> In article
<caesurae-171...@user-38lc620.dialup.mindspring.com>,
> >In article <383341fb...@news.mindspring.com>,
Bob...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> All
> >> of these events have been completely secularized.
> >
> >christmas and easter aren't religious holidays?
> >
Sure he is. He is the spirit of Christmas giving.
He lives in me every Christmas as I give others gifts.
Dan Harper
Bob230
>In article <38335e14...@news.mindspring.com>, bob...@hotmail.com
>(Bob230) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 18:52:50 -0600, caes...@flashmail.com (caesurae)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <383341fb...@news.mindspring.com>, Bob...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> All
>> >> of these events have been completely secularized.
>> >
>> >christmas and easter aren't religious holidays?
>>
>> Yea, but you only talked of Santa and the Easter Bunny. Neither of
>> which have any religious connotations.
>
>*sigh*
Okay, let me spell out the obvious for you. Your contention, I
believe, is that Christian's are inconsistent when they say they don't
condone pagan rituals, yet seemingly observe holidays that have pagan
roots.
Christmas and Easter may coincide with pagan rituals that occur around
the Winter Solstice and Spring Equinox, but it's not the day that is
important but what is being celebrated. I don't know if Jesus was
actually born on December 24th, and it's not particularly important to
me. It's my celebration of the birth of Jesus that is important to
me. With Easter we celebrate Jesus' sacrifice and his resurrection.
The exact date is immaterial. Santa and the Easter Bunny are merely
secular aspects associated with these holidays. I know quite a few
atheists that observe Christmas and Easter (the secular aspects, that
is). Similarly, I observe the secular aspects of Halloween.
Perhaps you get wrapped up in the ironies of these holidays but I
don't...I just have fun.
Bob
Bob230
>On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 09:12:36 -0600, Ron Hammon <ham...@hiwaay.net>
>wrote:
>....
>>My wife and I had a pact. If one of the kids burned, which ever of us
>>was home had damnned well better burn trying to save them! Your child's
>>life does NOT equal your own!
>
>
>Interesting conclusion there, Ron. How about the other children and
>wife already outside the house? You'd insist your wife give up her
>life or you give up yours for that one child while the other two
>loose their mother or father? Sorry, I don't agree. To conclude that
>one parent should die trying to save their child in danger when the
>likely result is two people will die instead of one is, IMHO, idiocy
>unless one doesn't want to live if that child dies a tragic death.
>But, a pact means nothing since none of us know what we will really do
>when faced with such a decision, but we should hope that common
>sense will prevail.
>
> BTW, I do not agree that a childs life is more important than a
>parents when the result is still the loss of that child and the
>parent as well. Makes no sense to me. Suicide is a better word.
I tend to agree with Ron and Glen on this. If my daughter is in
danger of losing her life I will risk mine to save her. There won't
be much thought involved there. I don't think I could live with
myself if I didn't everything in my power to save her. I'd even trade
my life for her's if only one could live. I agree that a child's life
is worth more than the parent's.
That being said, I won't run into a house that is completely consumed
by flame...where it's obvious that there is no hope. I know that most
deaths associated with fires are due to smoke inhalation...yet I'd
feel compelled to enter the smoke and stay as low as possible.
Bob
GS
>On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:09:04 GMT, rgs...@hiwaay.net.nospam (GS)
>wrote:
>
>.........
>>The life of one or all of my children or the life of my wife is
>>more valuable to me than my own. It requires little thought
>>on my part at all. A total stranger's "childs" life would most likely
>>be more valuable to me than my own. Been there, done that.
>>It also required little thought on my part and I don't consider
>>myself an idiot.
>>
>>Glen
>
>success against those agonies caused against the living if you
>foolishly give up your life. I suspect were your other children given
>the opportunity, they would rather have you alive than dead inside
>that burning building or raging river. Why are they not more
>important than a child whom you believe has little chance of survival
>but you would still try to save them? You alive is more valuable to
>your remaining children were you to foolishly give up your life in a
>vain attempt to rescue one of your children. And, I don't believe I
>called you or anyone else an idiot. Idiocy in the framework I used it
>means a foolish or stupid deed and I stand firm that a father who
>would give up his life in a vain attempt to save one own child is a
>foolish and selfish person when he is aware or should be that he may
>indeed leave the family fatherless and often with no means of support.
>He is even more foolish if he looses his life for a child not his own.
>Note that I nowhere suggested one shouldn't try, but that one should
>err on the side of safety rather than absolute emotional
>considerations.
>
>Ken H.
>
I guess I just have a different take on this that you. If I let my child
die with no effort on my part to save them I couldn't look at my face
in the mirror in the morning. Or any child for that matter. I wouldn't
leave them with no means of support either. I come from a family
that believes in taking care of our own. None would ever go without food,
shelter or love. I'm 52 years old and it's been that way for all the
time I can remember. In my opinion a person that would lean to
the side of their own safety when a child is in danger is a coward.
I was raised this way and doubt that I could change it if I tried.
Glen
Ron Hammon
>
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 17:09:04 GMT, rgs...@hiwaay.net.nospam (GS)
> wrote:
>
> ........
Our pact came about after seeing a news piece about two parents who
survived without a singe or cough while four of their five children died
in a house fire. The excuse was that the house was consumed as they
awoke and exited their bedroom window. Sorry, if I had been a
bystander, I would've been tempted to throw them back in! Maybe the
drive to save your children at all costs is an instinct rather than a
logical decision. This gross dereliction of duty infuriates me!
Question: If a grizzly bear is gnawing on your screaming child, would
you attack it barehanded or wait for some other option? Let's separate
the fools from the cowards. I'm a fool in this situation.
Bob230
Thanks for the history lesson and the preaching. The crime you refer
to is one of intent. No intent...No crime. Your mileage may vary
according to your faith (YMMVATYF).
Bob
Jim Garrett
> Perhaps so, Glen, but I believe you have to balance the chance of
> success against those agonies caused against the living if you
> foolishly give up your life. I suspect were your other children given
> the opportunity, they would rather have you alive than dead inside
> that burning building or raging river.
Your posts seem to mostly assume there is NO opportunity to save the
child. Going on that premise, you are probably right. If I could
evaluate the situation and see that a) the kid will die, AND, b) I would
die in a rescue attempt, then it would be hard to deal with but it
wouldn't make sense to go in after the child and I might not do it.
In real life, where you act instantly from your heart and guts -- not
slow, rational, careful evaluation of all factors involved -- if there
looked like there MIGHT be a chance to rescue the child, I think just
about any parent would take that chance, almost no matter how small that
chance might be. Hindsight might prove they made the wrong decision,
but not many parents would be willing to wait for the benefits of
hindsight while their child is in a burning building.
Jim
clumsyfly
<ham...@hiwaay.net> said...
> clumsyfly wrote:
>
> >
> > 2 Timothy 3:16,17 - All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to
> > teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives.
> > It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. It is God’s way
> > of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God
> > wants us to do
> >
> >
> What translation is this? It is obviously modern language. I suggest
> the Jehovah's Witnesses translation. I don't have the title right now.
> Rather than re-translating King James (like so many others), they went
> back to the original texts.
That is the NLT (New Living Translation).
> BTW. What ever happened to those bronze scrolls that they found around
> five years ago? They dated to about 200AD. The oldest, prior
> "original" works were from 500-700AD. I expected MAJOR revisions to the
> Bible. I was waiting to see which cherished and sacred portions were
> added hundreds of years after the "fact". I expected the very
> foundations of Judeo-Christian beliefs to shudder from the revelations.
I have no knowledge of that.
> Recently, I searched the 'net for days and never even found a single
> news reference. Did "they" decide that this was too dangerous to
> release and simply retired it? They have had plenty of time to
> translate it.
Maybe "your" memory doesn't serve you correctly?
--
<><
clumsyfly - <URL:http://www.alfwb.org/clumsyfly/>
"To live your life you've got to lose it, and all the losers get a
crown." - Mark Stuart
clumsyfly
said...
> In article <38341B...@hiwaay.net>,
> ham...@hiwaay.net wrote:
>
> > This has been brought up over and over here. Again, these (and other)
> > celebrations existed before recorded history. For instance, all over
> > the world, the winter solstice was celebrated. Since the Bible
> > indicates the birth of Christ at around that time,
>
> The Bible does *not* indicate that Christ was born in
> December. The best estimate from the Bible stories is
> that he was born in the springtime which was when the
> census was traditionally held.
>
> > the existing, pagan holiday was annexed by the early Christians.
>
> The early Christians chose to celebrate their holy days
> around pagan celebrations as camoflauge. If all your neighbors
> are going to a Saturnalia party, no one will think it's
> wierd if you & your friends have a party too. Now if
> everyone else is going to a party & you abstain because
> it isn't your religion's holy day, then you might raise
> suspicions among the community...
>
> > It is a bit dfficult to say that "Christ"mas is not a religious
> > holiday, by name anyway, but most of the rituals associated with
> > that celebration are non-christian.
You know, some people admit (and accept) the fact that Jesus was *not*
born on Dec. 25...and still choose to celebrate His birth, death, and
resurrection on that day. Along with cultural traditions...just not the
whole Santa Claus. When my kids get old enough to understand what I tell
them - I will tell them about The loving Creator who cares for them and I
will tell them the reason we have CHRISTmas in our home the way we do.
The Santa Claus thing? Well, my wife and I are still discussing that one.
GS
>On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 20:23:07 GMT, rgs...@hiwaay.net.nospam (GS)
>wrote:
>.......
>>I guess I just have a different take on this that you. If I let my child
>>die with no effort on my part to save them I couldn't look at my face
>>in the mirror in the morning.
>
>
>>...... In my opinion a person that would lean to
>>the side of their own safety when a child is in danger is a coward.
>
>philosophy and don't understand that the sun does not rise and fall by
>their moral standards. But, please, quote that part of my postings
>where I made such a statement. IMHO, a person that would lean to
>needlessly sacrificing their life to save a child is a foolish person.
>BTW, do you also feel all firemen are cowards? Surely you agree they
>lean to the side of their own safety when trying to save a human life?
>If they didn't, we would see fireman dying wholesale.
>
What does Rambo have to do with it? Believe me, I'm no Rambo.
Your post had the ring that you wouldn't even try to save the child.
At least that's how I read it. I find it hard to believe that any adult
would actually live up to what you wrote above ( IMHO, a person that would
lean to needlessly sacrificing their life to save a child is a foolish
person.)
> Glen, you just revealed something to me from the use of a simple
>word - coward. I heard that word frequently as a teenager. People
>are certainly an interesting animal.
>
Well pray tell what does this reveal to you Ken?
>.....
>
>Ken H.
Robert J. Wilson
> i wonder what the next pagan ritual to be "secularized" will be.
April 15th?
Bob Wilson
Robert J. Wilson
> You know, some people admit (and accept) the fact that Jesus was *not*
> born on Dec. 25...
Rats!
Next someone going to tell me that January 1 isn't the real start of the
new year.
Bob Wilson
richa...@eudoramail.com
Wilson) wrote:
_Rats!
_
_Next someone going to tell me that January 1 isn't the real start of
the
_new year.
Sorry to be the one to shatter your conceptions, but since there is no
January 0, the new year actually starts on the 2nd.
Ron Hammon
>
>
> >
> >Question: If a grizzly bear is gnawing on your screaming child, would
> >you attack it barehanded or wait for some other option?
>
> necessary to save my child or wife.
The expected nebulous answer rather than a commitment, eh? Well, if
this happens to me, the bear had better run because I have every
intention of killing it! The first thing that comes to mind is a
roundhouse punch. Next, an arm shoved down its throat should eliminate
most of the danger to the kid while stangling the bear. Maybe
fingernails in the eyes. Whatever works. And I'll die trying to kill
it if it remains a threat to my child.
>
>>
> >Let's separate
> >the fools from the cowards. I'm a fool in this situation.
>
> You insist on calling anyone who would foolishly give up their life as
> a coward. I see foolishness but also a lack of compassion.
>
> Ken H.
What? Please reword this. GS used the word coward earlier. Then, you
said that the word shouldn't be used by non-Rambo-types. You described
the effort to rescue a child in mortal danger as foolish when the LIKELY
outcome is death for both. This leaves the decision open when the
outcome is less certain. My coward vs. fool comment is based on a
choice and the terms brought up by y'all. You just described the
(foolish) attempted saviour-hero as a incompassionate coward. This
makes no sense.
The idea was that the attempted rescue must continue until the child is
safe or the death of the rescuer interrupts the attempt, with a POSSIBLE
exception to withdraw from certain death where the child is already
doomed. The object is to act without regard to personal safety. You
have assumed that the goal was to sacrifice oneself. The plan was don't
give up trying, even until death.
In the case of a burning building or the grizzly bear, the extreme
consequence of death is not usually as certain as you paint it to be.
Ron Hammon
>
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 20:19:58 GMT, Bob...@hotmail.com (Bob230) wrote:
>
> ......
> >That being said, I won't run into a house that is completely consumed
> >by flame...where it's obvious that there is no hope. I know that most
> >deaths associated with fires are due to smoke inhalation...yet I'd
> >feel compelled to enter the smoke and stay as low as possible.
> >
> >Bob
>
> when their child was safely out of the house and in the back yard or
> somewhere else watching the fire. We could test the belief by
> replacing the raging inferno with a raging river. Why would any sane
> person jump into a raging river to save anyone much less their child
> when the outcome was predictable? My point has always been that one
> should not needlessly sacrifice their life for an unknown when that
> loss might reap significant hardship on the family unit. Deaths occur
> and we do what we can to try to prevent them, but I refuse to
> subscribe to the notion that I or my wife should give up our life to
> save another unless it's absolutely necessary and there was confidence
> of success.
>
> Frankly, I don't comprehend the concept saving of children to the
> exclusion of saving adults, including adult children. I would think
> that if one is prone to entering a fire to save a human life, one's
> proneness should not be swayed whether the person is known to the
> rescuer or not.
>
> I was taught as a child that children should be seen and not heard
> and indeed when I lived in the country, adults ate first and then the
> children. It never occurred to me that I was being mistreated! I
> have always subscribed to the notion that I took my wife over my
> parents and my wife is first in my life. When our children were
> born, they assumed second place in the hierarchy pushing my parents to
> third position. Today, I witness the change from parents at the
> center to children at the center of a family, but when I witness the
> changes in the children, I wonder when sanity will return. I
> believe all members of a family should be of equal importance and so
> treated both in normal and abnormal situations. My children left the
> roost after living in my home only a short part of my life. My wife
> OTH has been with me since the day we married 42 years ago and
> hopefully will stay with me because she IS my life. Without her, my
> life is shattered and my children will not be able to soothe the pain
> within. No, my children now adults take priority over all others,
> but never my wife!
>
> Ken H.
You place your wife above your kids?! How can a half-you person be
ranked less than your mate? This is totally unexpected to me. It seems
you would sacrifice a kid before your mate. Your kids are your legacy,
not your mate.
Ron Hammon
>
> In article <383421...@hiwaay.net>, "Ron Hammon" -
> <ham...@hiwaay.net> said...
>
> > clumsyfly wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 2 Timothy 3:16,17 - All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to
> > > teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives.
> > > It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. It is God’s way
> > > of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God
> > > wants us to do
> > >
> > >
> > What translation is this? It is obviously modern language. I suggest
> > the Jehovah's Witnesses translation. I don't have the title right now.
> > Rather than re-translating King James (like so many others), they went
> > back to the original texts.
>
> That is the NLT (New Living Translation).
>
> > BTW. What ever happened to those bronze scrolls that they found around
> > five years ago? They dated to about 200AD. The oldest, prior
> > "original" works were from 500-700AD. I expected MAJOR revisions to the
> > Bible. I was waiting to see which cherished and sacred portions were
> > added hundreds of years after the "fact". I expected the very
> > foundations of Judeo-Christian beliefs to shudder from the revelations.
>
> I have no knowledge of that.
>
> > Recently, I searched the 'net for days and never even found a single
> > news reference. Did "they" decide that this was too dangerous to
> > release and simply retired it? They have had plenty of time to
> > translate it.
>
> Maybe "your" memory doesn't serve you correctly?
>
>
I have a great memory. This doesn't really help because I seldom
remember the source, just the fact. This was a really hot news story
for days. I was excited because I knew, more than most, that the
Biblical sources are... questionable. If I could just remember a date,
the name given to the scrolls, anything to help the search. Ask
around. I've found several others that remember this.
Bob230
wrote:
>>Ken H. wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> I was taught as a child that children should be seen and not heard
>> and indeed when I lived in the country, adults ate first and then the
>> children. It never occurred to me that I was being mistreated! I
>> have always subscribed to the notion that I took my wife over my
>> parents and my wife is first in my life. When our children were
>> born, they assumed second place in the hierarchy pushing my parents to
>> third position. Today, I witness the change from parents at the
>> center to children at the center of a family, but when I witness the
>> changes in the children, I wonder when sanity will return. I
>> believe all members of a family should be of equal importance and so
>> treated both in normal and abnormal situations. My children left the
>> roost after living in my home only a short part of my life. My wife
>> OTH has been with me since the day we married 42 years ago and
>> hopefully will stay with me because she IS my life. Without her, my
>> life is shattered and my children will not be able to soothe the pain
>> within. No, my children now adults take priority over all others,
>> but never my wife!
>>
>> Ken H.
>
>You place your wife above your kids?! How can a half-you person be
>ranked less than your mate? This is totally unexpected to me. It seems
>you would sacrifice a kid before your mate. Your kids are your legacy,
>not your mate.
Yep. Your kids will always be your kids. Your wife...well...these
days, it seems like marriages don't last too long.
Bob
GS
>So, you agree that you will give up your life for your child or
>someone's child needlessly. You appear to believe that all adults
>have an obligation to save a child no matter what the personal
>consequences are to themselves and their family. Why do you believe,
>Glen, that a child's life is worth more than an adults life? Is there
I am not speaking for all adults. I can only speak for myself. I really
don't think it takes a Rambo mentality to honestly say that "I" would
risk my life to save the life of another. If I let someone die in my
presence without lifting a hand to stop it I would have a hard time
living with myself afterward. And I surely am not projecting this
thinking over to you. You have to decide this for yourself. It seems
I misused the word coward in that it looks as if I applied that title
to you. I really ment that if "I" did not act than in my eye I would
be a coward.
>an upper age factor where the child does not deserve your courage and
>bravery to save them from that raging fire or river? You appear
>eager to sacrifice your life by exposing it to what I have always
>alluded to as sure death. And, that's where my argument lies. And,
>that equates to the fact that I will not knowingly sacrifice my life
>for another whether child or adult, but we do know when faced with
>extreme situations, one doesn't always act as they believe they would.
>You might think about that for a moment.
>
I can onlt speak for myself and from past experience.
>.........
>>Well pray tell what does this reveal to you Ken?
>>>.....
>One normally doesn't hear cries of cowardice except from those who
>have not faced the conditions I've stated herein. Those that have are
I agree.
>no longer with us. So, it follows that only those who believe what
>they might do under death circumstances would be expected to cry
>cowardice when others do not believe such courage and bravery is
>appropriate. I also refuse to sit in judgement of what others do or
>don't do simply because I would have acted differently. Facing a
>sure death situation, a pertinent factor you seem to ignore from my
>posts, I do not fault you for being an early participant in meeting
>your maker, but I personally, will not knowingly sacrifice my life
>needlessly for anyone. If you think that's cowardice, so be it!
>I'll live with it.
>
I didn't pick up one the word needlessly at first. I apologize for
that.
Glen
>Ken H.
>
>
>
>