Good news to the question of Homosexuality

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Kevin Davis

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
prog...@eagle.wbm.ca (Patrick Rogoschewsky) wrote:


>>It is not a cop out. It is the truth. People have very wildly
>>varying definitions of "blood bought, born again, spirit filled
>>christians". Just because you think you were one, someone else claims
>>to be one or you think someone is one does not make it true.

>Well actually at the heart of all this mess is a fallacy. In the claim
>(that you claim not to be a cop out)
>"if you where a real christian then you would not have left" is the
>not-a-true-scotsman fallacy (sory don't know its technical name).

>Consider this: A Scotsman picks up a newspaper and reads about a hideous
>crime commited by another Scotsman. In disgust he reacts - 'well he is
>not a true Scotsman'. What is being done here is a high-order
>redefinition of a Scotsman. In normal usage Scotsman refers to someone's
>ethnic origin but here the phrase 'true Scotsman' is being used to mean: a
>person with a certain of a given ethnic origin and someone who would not
>commit a hideous crime. Well clearly with such a definition - the crime
>commiting Scotsman is not a true Scotsman.

The analogy is still flawed here. You are comparing a genetic makeup,
of which the defintion is not inherently linked to such behavior. One
of the main components of the definition of Christianity (or being a
Christian) *is* behavior.

Dave Glenfield

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
In article <peterdDK...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...

>John Sanger wrote:

>>Sorry but your spew (the existence of God )is just not valid. Provide
the
>>absolute proof that your diety exists and is the only diety to exist or
get
>>out of this newsgroup.

>No, John. I belieeve the 'proof' is due from thee. YOU provide the proof
that
>God does not exist, and I shall never darken your doorway again. Deal?

The proof that God exists is that other people exist....

>While you're at it, perhaps you could explain some of my previous
statements.

But you said above that you'd not return didn't you? So how are you
going to read this??

>Such as:
>a) Why if the tilt of the axis were to be tilted one iota one way, we'd
all
>freeze, or why if it were to be tilted the other, that we'd all burn to
a
>crisp.

How much is an iota? It's beside the point anyway, as humans have
demonstrated an ability to thrive in freezing or ovenlike conditions.

>b) Why if there were just 3 feet more (or inches, or any fwiggin' # you
choose
>to insert) between the celestial planets, would life be impossible as
we
>know it. and.....

The earth, during its orbit, has a maximum distance of 152 million km and
a minimum distance of 147 million km from the sun. Without this movement
live as we know it wouldn't likely exist.

>c) Why if the earth wer a TAD closer to the sun, a tad FURther from the
sun,

We'd have seasons, oh, wait we do have seasons....

>just a TAD larger or smaller, or if it rotated at ANY speed other than
what we
>have, would life NOT exist as we know it.

There is some evidence that the speed at which the earth rotates today
has not been a constant. The earth is much larger today than it was 500
years ago, and any great change in the mass of the planet will have an
impact on the speed at which the planet rotates.


>
>These are PHYSICS questions, not 'deity' questions. Is the earth a pure
>example of 'CHANCE'? *I* don't think so, is THAT your explanation for
the
>creation and maintenance of the universe?

It would appear that yes, the earth is an example of chance. of all the
worlds we're aware of only the earth can sustain life. We're living on
the Shakespear-writing-monkey-type-planet. :) Also it doesn't look
like anyone is maintaining the universe.

>I have lots MORE questions, but these will do for a start. Now, *I*
don't
>believe the answers to these questions are 'coincidences'. Perhaps
(probably)
>you do. If you DO, then the burden of PROOF belongs to you!

The proof has existed for centuries, just go down to your local bookstore
and get any good astronomy - NOT astrology - text. Do your own damn
research, don't rely on others to spoon feed you.

Peter F. DeMos

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
Gee, two of the things I like *BEST* have just occured in regards to this
post.
A) It was *mailed* to me, as well as posted publicly (like i might not SEE the
*fwiggin* thing) and
B) When I attempted to respond via e-mail, my response/follow failed, due to
the address being bogus.
God help us all, the 'net is/has gone to He*l in a handbasket.....:

You (Dave Clenfield (he of the bogus return address) ) wrote:

>>John Sanger wrote:

>>>Sorry but your spew (the existence of God )is just not valid. Provide the
>>>absolute proof that your diety exists and is the only diety to exist or get
>>>out of this newsgroup.

>>No, John. I belieeve the 'proof' is due from thee. YOU provide the proof that
>>God does not exist, and I shall never darken your doorway again. Deal?

> The proof that God exists is that other people exist....

?!?!?!?!?!

>>While you're at it, perhaps you could explain some of my previous statements.

> But you said above that you'd not return didn't you? So how are you
> going to read this??

Errrrr, Dave? Gotta reading prob? I'd suggest going BACK and reading this
again, k?

>>Such as:
>>a) Why if the tilt of the axis were to be tilted one iota one way, we'd all
>>freeze, or why if it were to be tilted the other, that we'd all burn to a
>>crisp.

> How much is an iota?

Say WHAT!?!?!?!?! This is one of the most PITIFUL examples of avoiding the
subject/question I have ever SEEN!!!!

> It's beside the point anyway, as humans have
> demonstrated an ability to thrive in freezing or ovenlike conditions.

This is utter BS. You obviously have NO astronomical knowledge, NOR are you
willing (obviously) to conSIDer the idea that this universe was NOT created
on pure chance, and deMANDS some sort of divine intervention NOR are you
willing to LEARN something about astronomy...... Oh, guhreat! What a fwiggin
draw is shaping up HERE!

>>b) Why if there were just 3 feet more (or inches, or any fwiggin' # you
>>choose to insert)
>>between the celestial planets, would life be impossible as we
>>know it. and.....

> The earth, during its orbit, has a maximum distance of 152 million km and
> a minimum distance of 147 million km from the sun. Without this movement

> life as we know it wouldn't likely exist.

Two things:
a) You are not answering, actually you are aVOIDing, answering my question,
and
b) You are affirming what I am saying. I'm sure that is by accident :-)

>>c) Why if the earth wer a TAD closer to the sun, a tad FURther from the sun,

>>just a TAD larger or smaller, or if it rotated at ANY speed other than what

>>we have, life would NOT exist as we know it.

What?!?!?! No questions about what a "TAD" might be? You're slipping, DAVE.

> We'd have seasons, oh, wait we do have seasons....

Actually, DAVE, we'd fry to a crisp, or freeze within minutes. But DAVE,
don't trust MOI, try getting an astronomy (NOT an astrology) book, and some
of the questions will get answered for you. As difficult as this subject
may BE for some, especially those with suspect IQ levels :-)

And you conTINue to avoid the BASIC premise that this universe was NOT created
by chance. Tell me, DAVE, who/whom creATED the gasses that resulted in what I'm
sure you consider the 'Big Bang' time. Zeus for Heave's sakes? Sheesh, what a
maroon.

> It would appear that yes, the earth is an example of chance. of all the
> worlds we're aware of only the earth can sustain life.

WOW!!! What a coINCIDENCE! Not.

> We're living on
> the Shakespear-writing-monkey-type-planet. :) Also it doesn't look
> like anyone is maintaining the universe.

> The proof has existed for centuries, just go down to your local bookstore


> and get any good astronomy - NOT astrology - text. Do your own damn
> research, don't rely on others to spoon feed you.

See above please, DAVE.

peterd

CHARLES JOHNSON

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to

ni...@gate.net (Magenta!!) wrote:
>Roger Connolly <bc...@scn.org> doth speak:
>>Magenta!! wrote:
>>> Roger Connolly <bc...@scn.org> doth speak:
>>>
>>> >Mike, If God is a Myth, how come many heathens come to know the Lord, but
>>> >noone that I have ever heard of who knows the Lord ever becomes a
>>> >heathen? Interesting..
>>>
(snip)
>>>
>If you say individuals who have the extreme religious faith you have
>never leave their religion, that is probably correct. But guess what?
>There are Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, and members of any number of
>other religions who experience their beliefs to the same extent you
>do, and would never deny their faith, despite your bigoted comment.
>
(snip)

>>I pray that you and millions of others WILL
>>understand before it is eternally too late. Even if I have earned the
>>right to tell you, I don't think you are ready to listen.
>
>And I think that your religious fanaticism has blinded you to the
>beauty of the world around you, a beauty that you cannot see since you
>only see RED.
>
My $0,02

You don't see many convicted rapist and murders on death row converting to
any other religion but Christianity And it is amazing how many people
statred to attend Christian Churches during Desert Storm.


==========================================================================
cha...@mci.newscorp.com |Proverbs 3:5,6 Trust in the LORD with all thine
ch...@testla.netline.net |heart; and lean not on thine own understanding.
user7...@aol.com |In all thy ways acknowledge HIM and HE shall
|direct thy path.
==========================================================================

CHARLES JOHNSON

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to

dglenfie.@pop.srv.ualberta.ca (Dave Glenfield) wrote:
>In article <peterdDK...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
>

>>John Sanger wrote:
>
>>>Sorry but your spew (the existence of God )is just not valid. Provide
>the
>>>absolute proof that your diety exists and is the only diety to exist or
>get
>>>out of this newsgroup.
>
>>No, John. I belieeve the 'proof' is due from thee. YOU provide the proof
>that
>>God does not exist, and I shall never darken your doorway again. Deal?
>
>The proof that God exists is that other people exist....
>

>>While you're at it, perhaps you could explain some of my previous
>statements.
>
>But you said above that you'd not return didn't you? So how are you
>going to read this??
>

>>Such as:
>>a) Why if the tilt of the axis were to be tilted one iota one way, we'd
>all
>>freeze, or why if it were to be tilted the other, that we'd all burn to
>a
>>crisp.
>

>How much is an iota? It's beside the point anyway, as humans have

>demonstrated an ability to thrive in freezing or ovenlike conditions.
>

>>b) Why if there were just 3 feet more (or inches, or any fwiggin' # you
>choose
>>to insert) between the celestial planets, would life be impossible as
>we
>>know it. and.....
>
>The earth, during its orbit, has a maximum distance of 152 million km and
>a minimum distance of 147 million km from the sun. Without this movement

>live as we know it wouldn't likely exist.


>
>>c) Why if the earth wer a TAD closer to the sun, a tad FURther from the
>sun,
>

>We'd have seasons, oh, wait we do have seasons....
>

>>just a TAD larger or smaller, or if it rotated at ANY speed other than
>what we

>>have, would life NOT exist as we know it.

>
>There is some evidence that the speed at which the earth rotates today
>has not been a constant. The earth is much larger today than it was 500
>years ago, and any great change in the mass of the planet will have an
>impact on the speed at which the planet rotates.
>

Pray tell where did this added mass come from?

>
>
>>
>>These are PHYSICS questions, not 'deity' questions. Is the earth a pure
>>example of 'CHANCE'? *I* don't think so, is THAT your explanation for
>the
>>creation and maintenance of the universe?
>

>It would appear that yes, the earth is an example of chance. of all the

>worlds we're aware of only the earth can sustain life. We're living on

>the Shakespear-writing-monkey-type-planet. :) Also it doesn't look
>like anyone is maintaining the universe.
>

>>I have lots MORE questions, but these will do for a start. Now, *I*
>don't
>>believe the answers to these questions are 'coincidences'. Perhaps
>(probably)
>>you do. If you DO, then the burden of PROOF belongs to you!
>

>The proof has existed for centuries, just go down to your local bookstore
>and get any good astronomy - NOT astrology - text. Do your own damn
>research, don't rely on others to spoon feed you.
>

There are to many things that have to happen in exact order for life to
happen by chance. And none of the happen stance follows directly from the
orher. Like the tilt of the earth's axis.

Brian Westley

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
pet...@netcom.com (Peter F. DeMos) writes:
...

>Let's see now. Random creation? Big bang? Coincidence? Myth? Then can those
>of you explain a couple of things for me?

Sure thing.

>a) If one were to raise, or lower, the universe's rate of expansion one
>IOTA, that would rule out the possibility of life in this universe. Don't
>belEVE me? Check your physics :-)

I don't believe you. First, show that life (any kind of life, not just
carbon-based life) would be impossible with a different expansion rate.

>b)Change the tilt of the earth's axis one iota (again that iota thing),
>and we would freeze. Change it the OTHER way, we would burn up within 12-15
>minutes. Again, don't wish to believe ME? Check your physics :-)
>c) If the earth were a tad closer, or a tad further from the sun, or just a
>TAD larger or smaller, or if it rotated at any speed different than what it
>does right now, the temp changes would be fatal. Again, don't believe moi?

It is hardly surprising that life which exists on the earth can live
on the earth and not on a planet similar to earth but closer or farther from
the sun, different tilt, etc.

For example, take some of the worms that live near deep-sea volcanic vents
and put them in your swimming pool. They don't live very long, right?
But *I* can live in a pool for quite a bit longer, because I evolved
under a very different environment.

---
Merlyn LeRoy

HazChem

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.951229...@prairie.NoDak.edu>,
"Stu T." <sto...@prairie.NoDak.edu> wrote:


> First, there is a difference between the one who follows the rituals and=20
> the ones who truely know the Lord. The "Christians" who get converted=20
> back to other religions were never truely Christians to begin with.

Therefore, by definition christians do not convert to other religions.
Why you could say something like this and then think that "hey, christians
never convert, but atheists sometimes do" is an argument, I don't know. I
could define atheist the same way to prove that atheists never convert to
christianity. (Because if they did, they wouldn't have ever been 'real
atheists') Do you see my point?

--
-HazChem <URL=http://www.geopages.com/Paris/1134/>
*********************************************************************
Seen in Time magazine: "If we lose our children to cyberporn, free speech won't matter." In my opinion, if we lose free speech our children won't matter.
*********************************************************************
Cynic,n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. (Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_)
*********************************************************************

John Sanger

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
In article <peterdDK...@netcom.com> pet...@netcom.com (Peter F. DeMos) writes:
>John Sanger writes, like a fwiggin' moron with:

>
>>>No, John. I belieeve the 'proof' is due from thee. YOU provide the proof that
>>>God does not exist, and I shall never darken your doorway again. Deal?
>
>>You are the one insisting that this mythical creature exists. It is up
>>to you to provide the proof absolute that such a diety does infact
>>exist and that that diety is the only one to exist.
>>Provide the proof as requested or get out of this newsgroup.
>
>Tell you what, oh John boy. Let's play a game. You may remember it. Then again,
>I'm assuming you had any sort of normal childhood which included having
>FRIENDS.
>
>It's easy. It's called: Did too, did not, did too. I'll start, k?
>
>Did too!
>
>Sheesh, what a maroon.
>

Your attempt at changing the subject will not work and is so very
childish.
Provide the proof or get out of a.p.h with such mythology.

--
Ciao!
John S. 8^{)>
tedd...@netcom.com
__


John Sanger

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
In article <4c917j$j...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> dglenfie.@pop.srv.ualberta.ca (Dave Glenfield) writes:
>In article <peterdDK...@netcom.com>, pet...@netcom.com says...
>
>>John Sanger wrote:
>
>>>Sorry but your spew (the existence of God )is just not valid. Provide
>the
>>>absolute proof that your diety exists and is the only diety to exist or
>get
>>>out of this newsgroup.
>
>>No, John. I belieeve the 'proof' is due from thee. YOU provide the proof
>that
>>God does not exist, and I shall never darken your doorway again. Deal?
>
>The proof that God exists is that other people exist....
>
That presupposses that people have some tie to this non existant diety.
Prove the tie if we are to accept your statement.

Patrick Rogoschewsky

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to

But you missed my point. I was not creating an analogy but giving an
example of a not-a-true-Scotsman fallacy.
Now the fallacy does not depend on something begin genetic or based on
behaviour or whatever the case might be. At the heart of the fallacy is a
high-order redefinition of a term - in the case above it was a Scotsman.
What I was responding to was someone's claim that a "true Christian" can
never leave abandon his belief systems. So I asked the question what is a
"true Christian". If you answer is that "true Christians" are those
defined by their (good) behaviour - then I would charge even given this
definition - where is the logical ban on there being ex-Christians.

Often the "not-a-true-Christian" argument comes up when some makes a
charge against a crime or evil-doings of a 'Christian'. Well if one
defines a Christian as one who holds certain beliefs *and* behaves good -
well suprise surprise - you won't find any evil or bad things that
Christians did. In effect you defined out of existence there being
anything bad or evil being done by Christians. Using this definition of
the term 'Christian' look at a phrase like: X is a Christian and X is
good.
Is such a phrase true - of course! - given the definition it is true - the
truth of that statement is known a priori (as is the case for any analytic
statement). The statement is true in the sense that the statement: A
triangle is a three-sided figure is true. But I don't think that this
vacous tautology is what Christians want to assert when they proclaim
loudly that they are morally upstanding.

John A. Stanley

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
In article <raytodd.18...@intersource.com>,
ray...@intersource.com (Ray Todd Sevens) wrote:
>In article <4c59sh$1...@globe.indirect.com> sus...@indirect.com (Susan C. Mitchell) writes:
>
>>Interesting indeed. I was a Christian for many years, and now am a
>>practicing Witch. So much for your pathetic attempt at argumentum ad
>>numerum.
>
>I firmly beleive the statement of your current status. I doubt the
>statement of your original status. The Lord has said that some Chirstians
>will fall way, but more likely you were a religious Christian, and not a true
>Christian,

A TrueChristian(TM), by definition, being those intellectually
challenged individuals who continue to believe such crap.

>>Think globally, act locally.
>
>Wouldn't it be wonderful if you just possed locally.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

--
John A. Stanley jsta...@gate.net

Barry Hofstetter

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
In article <progosch-311...@dial196165.wbm.ca>,
prog...@eagle.wbm.ca (Patrick Rogoschewsky) wrote:
> In article <9vOvmCBg...@netaxs.com>, neb...@netaxs.com (Barry
> Hofstetter) wrote:
>
> >In article <progosch-271...@dial196167.wbm.ca>,
> >prog...@eagle.wbm.ca (Patrick Rogoschewsky) wrote:

> > 2. Bats as birds and rabbits chewing their cud are based on
> > ancient, non-scientific categorizations - the best you can
> > say here is that this is an error against modern categories,
> > not an error in substance.

> Okay perhaps I can see this argument working against 'Bats as birds'. But
> why is calling a rabbit a cud-chewer a error against modern categories.
> Are you stating that they did not know what it meant to be a cud-shewing
> animal.

Essentially, yes. They see rabbits (at least, that's the animal we
think the Hebrew was referencing) chewing and not eating, and jump to a
natural conclusion. If you wish to consider this an error, then go
right ahead.


> But there is a larger problem here - even if I accept your apologetics.
> And that being that you are doing precisely what most Christians fight
> against - and that is a relativistic interpretation. By trying to argue
> out of this by saying in effect that 'this was correct in the limited
> framework of the time' is really to introduce a relativistic component.

Why? I simply see it as putting the text to be interpreted in the
framework in which it was meant to be interpreted.

> > 3. The Bible does not give the age of the earth, and attempts to
> > figure out the age based on the genealogies are problematic.

> Fine they may be problematic - but surely a maximum age (if not a specific
> one) - could be extracted.

I don't think so, and I'll lay my dollar against your donut that I have
studied the biblical texts more than you.

> >
> > 4. How do you know that evil spirits don't cause diseases? In
> > other words, to borrow an old scholastic distinction, there
> > might be a difference between the efficient and ultimate
> > causes.

> If you are suggesting (like I think you are) - that while
> virii/bacteria/genetics might be necessary for disease - that they might
> not be sufficient. That in fact there might be other factors like evil
> spirits as co-factors as it were.

Actually, what I am suggesting is that the scientific paradigm might not
itself be sufficient for the interpretation of all reality.

> There is probably no way to show that you are incorrect on this point.
> But Okham's razor really would favour the model currently in existence -
> over the one that you hypothesise - because 1) It covers the facts well 2)
> It is simplier.

One of the problems with old Occam is that in a real universe (and
Occam, of course, was dealing the philosophical truth, not science),
explanations might just be more complicated than one thinks.


> Your theory offers no new predictive power - unless you are suggest that
> not only can evil spirits be detected but that their causaul relation to
> disease can also be determined. In short such an extension of the theory
> is useless.

Hey, I'm a theologian (I guess), not a scientist. My theories don't
have to offer predictive power - they simply have to be in accord with
spiritual reality. All I am suggesting is that there might be more to
the universe than what can be measured in a laboratory, and that the
nature of spiritual things is such that investigating them with a test
tube might just be the wrong methodology...

N.E. Barry Hofstetter

If it were true - as conceited shrewdness, proud of not being
deceived, thinks - that one should believe nothing which he
cannot see by means of his physical eyes, then first and foremost one
ought to give up believing in love.
- S. Kierkegaard

Barry Hofstetter

unread,
Jan 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/1/96
to
In article <4c6at4$7...@horus.infinet.com>, dion...@infinet.com () wrote:
> Barry Hofstetter (neb...@netaxs.com) said:

> } 1) Where in the Bible does it claim that God created 10% of the
> } population with a same "sex orientation?"

> Where does the Bible mention the creation of North America? If you don't
> get my point, the Bible doesn't mention a LOT of specific things. Are we
> supposed to ignore all the items not mentioned, simply because they're
> not mentioned? No automobiles, telephones, computers, modems, Visa or
> Mastercards for you!

North America, I assume, would be included in Gen 1:1 without being
specifically mentioned. Your other examples do not support your point,
since they are all man-made creations. In Genesis, what we do have is
the creation of Adam and Even (male and female) and the institution of
the heterosexual marriage order, with no correponding mention of the
creation a "same-sex" order. Lack of support with a positive
counter-example does not bode well for those who wish to find biblical
support for homosexuality.


> }Reread the passage. The gentlemen of the town wanted Lot's male
> }visitors, and being offered the woman only seemed to make them angrier!

> They had a right to the anger. Inviting strangers into cities sans
> approval was a "no, no". Lot wasn't even a resident of the city, which
> meant he'd committed a grave error. Those angels were just as likely to

Could you please cite a reference in support of your argument? My
understanding of the hospitality code in the ANE is a bit different than
this, but I am willing to be corrected.

> have been beaten to a bloody pulp as to have been gang raped. (And lest
> you have doubts, allow me to assure you that rape is not the same thing as
> homosexual -- not even heterosexual -- sex.) They were out to "teach a
> lesson". Can you think of a better way to punish and humiliate a straight
> man (we shall assume, for the sake of the argument, that the angels in
> question were straight) than to be raped by another man?

I can think of no historical examples in which such took place.
Rape yes - of the women. Straight men seem to find more satisfying to
beat other men to a pulp rather than rape them. Surely rape in any form
is not "normal" sex, but the sexual element still seems to be an
important factor, the object of the rape will be according to one's
sexual "preference." Again, perhaps if you could cite a few historical
examples in support of your contention...

jpet...@counsel.com

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
CHARLES JOHNSON <cha...@mci.newscorp.com> wrote:
>You don't see many convicted rapist and murders on death row converting >to any other religion but Christianity And it is amazing how many people
>statred to attend Christian Churches during Desert Storm.

Charles:

Not that your point had anything to do with the topics under discussion
but it was just a little too absurd to pass up. There are active prison
"ministries" for lack of a better term among many different religions.
The Muslims being one of the major ones. There have been several court
cases regarding the right of prisoners to change their names and to have
themselves referred to by their new muslim names. There are also several
active Buddhist outreaches as well as Baha'is and others.

I didn't know that anyone was keeping numbers on the issue or that it
would mean anything if someone were. Still it is not unusual that people
in times of stress, will return to their religious institutions for
solace. Whether they are "revolving door whatevers" or not, I can't
say. However increased church attendance doesn't mean a hill of beans
under those conditions, whther it be a war, other natural disaster or a
prison term..


jpet...@counsel.com

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
pet...@netcom.com (Peter F. DeMos) wrote:

And you conTINue to avoid the BASIC premise that this universe was NOT
created by chance. Tell me, DAVE, who/whom creATED the gasses that
resulted in what I'm sure you consider the 'Big Bang' time. Zeus for
Heave's sakes? Sheesh, what a maroon.

Ah Peter:

If Dave is maroon, what color are you? I sense a fair amount of
hostility here, what with all the SHOUTING and everything. The fact is
Peter that there is no eveidence which supports the notion that this
deity of yours exists. Nada, zilch, zip. As to chance, well I don't
suppose that you have ever considered the law of cause and effect. The
earth is where it is and life has developed within the parameters of the
conditions that exist. Those are not the same parameters which existed
say at the time of the dinosauers for example so life as we know it would
not have existed (at least very easily) under those conditions. It is
simple cause and effect. No need for deities at all. You are describing
natural phenomena which have natural reasons as to why they have come
about. You might think it took some entity to think it all up but really
I think you just being a tad anthropormorphic. You are of course,
entitled to your beliefs but please don't try to disguise them as
science. So far as I know, there are no scientific textbooks which refer
to deities starting the "Big Bang" unless the fundies have decided to
publish one of their own.


jpet...@counsel.com

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
CHARLES JOHNSON <cha...@mci.newscorp.com> wrote:
>

>There are to many things that have to happen in exact order for life to
>happen by chance. And none of the happen stance follows directly from the

>orher. Like the tilt of the earth's axis.
>

As to happenstance, well I don't suppose that you have ever considered
the law of cause and effect. Your problem here is that you are looking
back and assuming some sort of "recipe" was followed. The earth is where

it is and life has developed within the parameters of the conditions that

exist on the planet. Those are not the same parameters which existed say

at the time of the dinosauers for example so life as we know it would not

have existed (at least very easily) under those conditions. As condition
have changed, life has changed. It is simple cause and effect. No need

for deities at all. You are describing natural phenomena which have
natural reasons as to why they have come about. You might think it took
some entity to think it all up but really I think you just being a tad
anthropormorphic. You are of course, entitled to your beliefs but please
don't try to disguise them as science. So far as I know, there are no

scientific textbooks which refer to deities "tilting the axis" unless the

Peter F. DeMos

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
jpet...@counsel.com writes, amongst other things:

>If Dave is maroon, what color are you?

Oh, guhREAT! Another fwiggin' Bugs illiterate. You weinies are hopeless. Praise
the Lord, I was raised during the period of Bugs, and not the st00pid 'Power
Rangers'. What fwiggin' quote can you provide us from *them*? 'Power on' for
goodness sakes? You poor people.

>I sense a fair amount of
>hostility here, what with all the SHOUTING and everything.

SHOUTING?!?!?!?!?! WHAT shouting ?!?!?!?!?! It's called EMPHasizing, Mr Newbie.
Tell me, did all you people come on to our beloved 'net when Windoze 95 was
introduced with msc.com? For goodness sakes, you people come up with some of
the DUMBest stuff I've ever seen.

>The fact is
>Peter that there is no eveidence which supports the notion that this
>deity of yours exists.

Nor is there any diRECT evidence that proves the fwiggin' LIGHTS will turn
on, when you flick on the switch, eh? But I don't seen any of YOU maroons
wondering whether THAT might happen, eh?

Sheesh, what a BUNCH of maroons.

Hehehehe.

peterd

Peter F. DeMos

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
John Sanger wrote, after peter d wrote:

>>It's easy. It's called: Did too, did not, did too. I'll start, k?
>>Did too!
>>Sheesh, what a maroon.

>Your attempt at changing the subject will not work and is so very
>childish.
>Provide the proof or get out of a.p.h with such mythology.

Did not!

peterd
PS Hehehehe.
PPS Listen, Mr. Angry Political Homosexual. I could not care LESS what your
sexual leaning/falling is, unlike *many* of my Christian friends. Your attempt
to fight ALL Christians is incredibly st00pid.
PPPS Did too! Hehehehe.

Magenta!!

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
Joe Burke <joe...@zeus.jersey.net> doth speak:

> You said you are an atheist.
> Let me ask you a question?
> How intelligent do you have to be to build a bird house?
> Not too intelligent right?
>
> How smart do you have to be to build a house?
> Takes a little more brains right?
> Now who can build and program a super computer?
> You'll agree it will take someone very, very intelligent...
>
> OK, you may already know where I'm heading...but let me
>go thru it?
>
> What kind of intelligence will it take to create
> -- millions of suns and planets
> -- to make a human being (even we don't understand
> the complexity of ourselves
> we are just beginning to understand DNA structures ,for
> instance)
> -- to create the laws of physics, the chemicals, the
> complex rock structures...
>
> Do I have to go further???
>
> According to you, it takes more intelligence to build the bird house
> than it took to make the entire universe...
>
> does that make sense?

No, it does not. Your analysis is based on the assumption that the
universe came into being as a single creative act. You are not arguing
the existence of god, rather you are arguing that the god who created
the universe must be real smart to do so.

The universe was not created in all of it's complexity from one single
act. It was created as a gradual, step by step process, with one
simple initial creative action creating reactions which created
further reactions. The complexity that develops is a result of the
natural process of simple occurrences compounding.

(I, by the way am not an atheist, so don't ask me how an atheist
explains that initial "big bang" act of creation.)

To extend your metaphor, the grand canyon was made by a little winding
river, growing and shrinking and winding over time.

Is the water smart?

The grand canyon is definitely far more complex than a bird's nest or
a human house. Is water smarter than humans and birds?

By the way, the process of building a house is also a gradual
development of cause and effect relationships.

first, we lived in natural caves, than simple structures made from
sticks and skins, then logs, than clay, then brick, then cinder block
and concrete with electrical wiring and plumbing, and someday
synthetic materials with fiber optic cables and built-in energy
sources.

Were the architects of the renaissance dumb because they did not build
high-tech futuristic houses back then?

Are we dumb for not doing them now?

Peace & Love, "Pray look better, Sir...
/| /| _ _ _ ___ those things yonder are no giants,
/ |/ ||_|/_ |_ |\ | | |\ but windmills." --Miguel de Cervantes
/ || |\_>|_ | \| | |-\ (Sancho Panza to Don Quixote)
Harassing E-Mail to my address may be posted to Usenet.

Magenta!!

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
ray...@intersource.com (Ray Todd Sevens) doth speak:

>In article <4c59sh$1...@globe.indirect.com> sus...@indirect.com (Susan C. Mitchell) writes:
>
>>Interesting indeed. I was a Christian for many years, and now am a
>>practicing Witch. So much for your pathetic attempt at argumentum ad
>>numerum.
>
>I firmly beleive the statement of your current status. I doubt the
>statement of your original status. The Lord has said that some Chirstians
>will fall way, but more likely you were a religious Christian, and not a true
>Christian,

That is entirely your perspective as someone who does not understand
the Wiccan religion. I'm sure you do not know the wiccan religion as
fully and deeply as she does, because if you did you would abandon
christianity to be a witch.

>>Think globally, act locally.
>
>Wouldn't it be wonderful if you just possed locally.

If she did that, then you would forever live in ignorance, and
continue to practice your silly superstitions instead of learning of
the wonders of wicca.


Peace & Love,
/| /| _ _ _ ___ "There are none so blind as
/ |/ ||_|/_ |_ |\ | | |\ they that will not see..."
/ || |\_>|_ | \| | |-\ --Jonathan Swift

Magenta!!

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
pet...@netcom.com (Peter F. DeMos) doth speak:

>Mike, God is not a myth, as much as those of you who wish to belIEVE so
>spew that idea.


>
>Let's see now. Random creation? Big bang? Coincidence? Myth? Then can those
>of you explain a couple of things for me?
>

>a) If one were to raise, or lower, the universe's rate of expansion one
>IOTA, that would rule out the possibility of life in this universe. Don't
>belEVE me? Check your physics :-)

[snip more bad science]
> Everything
>is random, expcept the things we need to have life? Come on.......
>Need I go on?


Incorrect. All of the situations you describe
would rule out LIFE AS WE KNOW IT, not LIFE.

We ARE life as we know it because of all of the occurrences that you
describe which occurred before our creation, and the cause and effect
relationships that led to our creation, not the other way around.

example: on Jupiter two creatures are looking up at the sky,
and they are looking at the earth.
The first says to the second, "is there life on that world?"
The second says to the first, "Of course not. the gravity is way too
low and the atmosphere is way too thin."

on Pluto two creatures are looking up at the sky,
and they are looking at the earth.
The first says to the second, "is there life on that world?"
The second says to the first, "Of course not. the gravity is way too
high and the atmosphere is way too thick."

>BUT, God also loves all. He does not prejudice against those that don't do
>what certain people think others ought to. Those that spout this, are just as
>guilty as any sinner/blasphemer/etc, etc, etc that they can, can't, or won't
>quote.

Thank you, I agree completely.


>Remember, God loves *you* JUST as much as He loves me. Perhaps more.

In my belief, god is love, so god does not love anyone more or less
than anyone else. God loves everyone equally.


>He will CERtainly rejoice and open the Heavens for a GREAT big party, if and
>when you accept Him. He already KNOWS I love Him. What he wishes, is for YOU
>to be saved :-)

In my belief, there is no *place* called heaven, and since god loves
us all, there is no need to be *saved*.


>Take care,
>peterd


Peace & Love,
/| /| _ _ _ ___

/ |/ ||_|/_ |_ |\ | | |\

/ || |\_>|_ | \| | |-\


Thomas Klem

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
>mi...@bga.com (Mike Maddux) writes:
>
>>Since God is a myth, you can make him spout any hate filled prejudice
your
>>heart desires, can't you?

>
>Mike, God is not a myth, as much as those of you who wish to belIEVE so
>spew that idea.
>
>Let's see now. Random creation? Big bang? Coincidence? Myth? Then can
>those of you explain a couple of things for me?
>
>a) If one were to raise, or lower, the universe's rate of expansion one
>IOTA, that would rule out the possibility of life in this universe.

I love it when people use vague terms like "one IOTA" to try to prove a
"scientific" point.


>c) If the earth were a tad closer, or a tad further from the sun, or
>just a TAD larger or smaller, or if it rotated at any speed different
>than what it does right now, the temp changes would be fatal. Again,
>don't believe moi?

Anyone know how many millions of miles make up one of these "TAD's"?

Before one makes "scientific" arguments about the probability of life for
a planet like our's to exist, one would need lots of information. Some
of this would include the percentage of solar systems with planets, the
total number of stars in the universe, and the percentage of solar
systems with stars that could generate temperature conditions conducive
to the kind of life which exists on this planet. Since we have no idea
what percentage of solar systems have planets, no genuinely scientific
argument can be made on the matter.

--
---
Thomas Klem tk...@lainet.com http://lainet3.lainet.com/~tklem
If Jesus loves me, why doesn't he ever send me flowers?


Thomas Klem

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
In article <teddyburD...@netcom.com>, tedd...@netcom.com says...

>You are the one insisting that this mythical creature exists. It is up
>to you to provide the proof absolute that such a diety does infact
>exist and that that diety is the only one to exist.

He hasn't even provided a coherent argument to the effect.

>Provide the proof as requested or get out of this newsgroup.

If those rules were applied, Christians would never be able to do their
proselytizing on alt.atheism ever again.

Thomas Klem

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
In article <4c917j$j...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
dglenfie.@pop.srv.ualberta.ca says...

>The proof that God exists is that other people exist....

This is a completely incoherent statement. Have you been reading
Berkeley or something?

Thomas Klem

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to

>Nor is there any diRECT evidence that proves the fwiggin' LIGHTS will

>turn on, when you flick on the switch, eh? But I don't seen any of YOU
>maroons wondering whether THAT might happen, eh?

When one has flicked light switches in the past, light has appeared.
There are no general and reproducible experiences that correspond to
support the view that there is a diety.

There are scientific explanations developed by people without pre-set
agendas to explain the electrical and other phenomena involved. This
does not apply to the deity proposed in Christianity or any other deities
in other religions.

Your analogy has no validity whatsoever.

>Sheesh, what a BUNCH of maroons.

Funny, I always thought maroon was a nice color.

Thomas Klem

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
In article <9vOvmCBg...@netaxs.com>, neb...@netaxs.com says...

> 4. How do you know that evil spirits don't cause diseases? In
> other words, to borrow an old scholastic distinction, there
> might be a difference between the efficient and ultimate
> causes.

Since there is no evidence to suggest that "evil spirits' actually exist,
it makes no sense to even discuss them in terms of causes. It would be
no different than doing the following.

Zingons cause disease. This is true because it is written in the book of
Zoron. The book of Zoron must be true because it is the word of the Stay
Puff Marshmallow Man---the being which created the Universe and gives us
all life.

Thomas Klem

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
In article <4c6f7m$7...@horus.infinet.com>, dion...@infinet.com says...

>} -- to make a human being (even we don't understand
>} the complexity of ourselves
>} we are just beginning to understand DNA structures ,for
>} instance)

Interestingly enough, what we have learned about gene structure in all
classes of organisms except for eubacteria suggests strongly that
evolution has happened. Most genes in these organisms are segmented into
what are known as "exons" and "introns." Exons are DNA that code for the
amino acid sequences of proteins, and introns are the segnments of DNA
between the exons. After RNA polymerization, the RNA is "spliced,"
removing the intron RNA.

Exons often correspond to functional domains of proteins. The introns
make it more likely that mutational events involving crossing over will
lead to the formation of novel proteins with two intact functional
domains. This makes it possible for evolution to work at a much faster
pace.

If you use the alternative creationist hypothesis, the introns would
merely be wasted space that would not correspond to the intelligent
design proposed by creationists to explain life on this planet.

ASCII Visual AID

-------************/\/\/\/\/\/\/************/\/\/\/\/\/\********
EXON INTRON EXON INTRON EXON

Thomas Klem

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
In article <4c98rl$e...@merlin.delphi.com>, cha...@mci.newscorp.com
says...

>You don't see many convicted rapist and murders on death row converting
to
>any other religion but Christianity And it is amazing how many people
>statred to attend Christian Churches during Desert Storm.

The reason why convicted rapists, murders, and other criminals "get
religion" in prison is that they are more likely to get lenient treatment
if they do.

Also, in times of crisis, many people will use religion as a crutch.
This is hardly limited to Christianity in the United States.

>========================================================================


==
>cha...@mci.newscorp.com |Proverbs 3:5,6 Trust in the LORD with all
thine
>ch...@testla.netline.net |heart; and lean not on thine own understanding.
>user7...@aol.com |In all thy ways acknowledge HIM and HE shall
> |direct thy path.
>========================================================================
==
>
>

--

Daniel Philip Knauss

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
Magenta!! (ni...@gate.net) wrote:
: ray...@intersource.com (Ray Todd Sevens) doth speak:

: >In article <4c59sh$1...@globe.indirect.com> sus...@indirect.com (Susan C. Mitchell) writes:
: >
: >>Interesting indeed. I was a Christian for many years, and now am a
: >>practicing Witch. So much for your pathetic attempt at argumentum ad
: >>numerum.
: >
: >I firmly beleive the statement of your current status. I doubt the
: >statement of your original status. The Lord has said that some Chirstians
: >will fall way, but more likely you were a religious Christian, and not a true
: >Christian,

Nice speculation. But maybe the following proposal is true--or perhaps
"ex-Christians" are backsliders who know internally the truth and verbally
deny it. That could be true of every human in some sense. Where do you
draw lines for the mystery of grace? Maybe we'd be better of not trying...

: That is entirely your perspective as someone who does not understand


: the Wiccan religion. I'm sure you do not know the wiccan religion as
: fully and deeply as she does, because if you did you would abandon
: christianity to be a witch.


: >>Think globally, act locally.
: >
: >Wouldn't it be wonderful if you just possed locally.

: If she did that, then you would forever live in ignorance, and
: continue to practice your silly superstitions instead of learning of
: the wonders of wicca.

This got a laugh out of me. What a historical reversal! "Paganism"
calling Religion superstition. Wicca is a religion even though some
people may deny it. What's the difference in designation?
Christianity--Wicca: they're both religions. Wicca is a syncretic
construct of Celtic and Egyptian religious rites plus some modern
thought. Wicca undoubtedly has common sources with/in Christianity as
Christianity has some roots in "Paganism" as well.

: Peace & Love,
: /| /| _ _ _ ___ "There are none so blind as
: / |/ ||_|/_ |_ |\ | | |\ they that will not see..."


: / || |\_>|_ | \| | |-\ --Jonathan Swift
: Harassing E-Mail to my address may be posted to Usenet.


--
_____________________________________________________________________________
"You're just one microscopic cog in his catastrophic plan,
Designed and directed by his red right hand." -Nick Cave
______d...@unity.ncsu.edu_______________________________w.a.s.t.e________

dion...@infinet.com

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
Apuleius (eea...@mixcom.com) said:

}Obiously a moral lesson that it is better to give Give GIVE than
}to receive, and that you better give it all, baby.

<sigh> Somebody didn't read that last book of the Old Testament. Therein
one will clearly find that it is possible to buy your way into Our
Father's good graces.


--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key

And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...

"Part of our cultural heritage as Texans is that at some point in our
rearing, each one of us has decide whether we really are as crazy as other
people think we are, or if this is just our little joke."
-- Gary N. Reese


dion...@infinet.com

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
jpet...@counsel.com said:

}No. No more than I believe that your deity parted the waters of the Red
}Sea or that Jesus was born of a virgin. It is a religious tract, not a
}historical account.

Actually, that bit about the Red Sea has been experimentally demonstrated
as being possible. (Which is different than saying that it actually
happened.) An actual staging of this event would be a little hard, even
with today's technology, but it could be done. What's more interesting
though is that, according to the model, the weather situation which would
allow for the parting of the water is actually possible for that area.
(Though we need to determine if it was equally possible back then too.
Weather dynamics can change drastically over a few thousand years... )

--
<a href="http://www.infinet.com/~dionisio">Finger</a> for PGP public key

And the Thought of the Moment (tm) is...

I loathe people who keep dogs -- they're cowards who don't have
the courage to bite people themselves


Vortex

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
pet...@netcom.com (Peter F. DeMos) wrote:

>John Sanger wrote:

>>Sorry but your spew (the existence of God )is just not valid. Provide the

>>absolute proof that your diety exists and is the only diety to exist or get
>>out of this newsgroup.

>No, John. I belieeve the 'proof' is due from thee. YOU provide the proof that


>God does not exist, and I shall never darken your doorway again. Deal?

No, the burden of proof is upon those who claim that god exists,
because god is not evident nor readily accessible to confirm his
existence. If god exists, show him to us. What you have is faith, not
proof.

>While you're at it, perhaps you could explain some of my previous statements.
>Such as:
>a) Why if the tilt of the axis were to be tilted one iota one way, we'd all
>freeze, or why if it were to be tilted the other, that we'd all burn to a
>crisp.
>b) Why if there were just 3 feet more (or inches, or any fwiggin' # you choose
>to insert) between the celestial planets, would life be impossible as we
>know it. and.....
>c) Why if the earth wer a TAD closer to the sun, a tad FURther from the sun,
>just a TAD larger or smaller, or if it rotated at ANY speed other than what we
>have, would life NOT exist as we know it.

>These are PHYSICS questions, not 'deity' questions. Is the earth a pure
>example of 'CHANCE'? *I* don't think so, is THAT your explanation for the
>creation and maintenance of the universe?

No, life grows where conditions are favorable, and even then they take
centuries to develop. If the conditions you describe were true, life
would not have developed in the same way, or at all. You obviously
don't have a great amount of education when it comes to science, and
reject Darwin completely. You're trying to put the cart before the
horse.

>I have lots MORE questions, but these will do for a start. Now, *I* don't
>believe the answers to these questions are 'coincidences'. Perhaps (probably)
>you do. If you DO, then the burden of PROOF belongs to you!

>I'm waiting.......

>peterd

I'm sure you have a lot more questions, because if you're trying to
use the bible to explain complex scientific problems and theories you
undoubtedly have arrived at very few answers for yourself.



######
####
### vor...@in.net
##
#


Bruce Garrett

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96
to
Brad, who hasn't a clue about what that From: field is for, writes...

B> The bible doesn't say I won't get killed if I jump off a cliff so I guess
B> I can do it right?

Sounds like a good experiment to me...go ahead and give it a try,
bud...

B> Be honest with yourself, GOD made man, then made a woman, he said very
B> plainly that a woman is the reason that a man leaves his house. What do
B> you think he is talking about?

Going to the town beer joint to swill beer so cheap even Price Club
won't stock it, while bellyaching to the drunkard next to him that his "old
lady" isn't giving him any...isn't that it? I suppose the question is why
would God want so many men to live such a disgusting lifestyle...


--
-Bruce Garrett \ finger bru...@access.digex.net
Cockeysville, MD. / \ Final: Kinsey 6 Skinner 0

CHARLES JOHNSON

unread,
Jan 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/2/96