JESUS CAN FIGHT PSORIASIS
Matthew J. Woken
825 Grant Street #2
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
(541) 850-0114
fa...@cvc.net
http://www.cvc.net/cvcmem/faul/index.html
Please read this. Ever since I have accepted Jesus my Psoriasis has been
better. Not cleared but better. Also I lost 30 pounds. I feel great!
A strange thing happened to me last year, and I want to tell you about it
because this story might help both of us. If I reteach the people I used to
know, I might help myself by teaching the right things, and this story will
help you if you do the things I am teaching.
The Bible says "Love your neighbor as yourself." Do I want to get in
trouble with Yeshua (Jesus)? No. Do I want to see my dad get in trouble
with Him? No. So if I love you like my dad or myself, I don't want you to
get in trouble with Him either. In fact I would rather see Him say to all
of us "Great job guys. Keep up the good work," but in order to receive that
we will have to turn from our sins and do some other stuff as well. I may
seem a bit preachy at times, but I am just trying to help you. Please
forgive me if I sound preachy.
**WARNING: The following has Satanic material in it, which is worse than
XXX. If you read this, you are agreeing to read Satanic material. END OF
WARNING**
During college I thought I was in love with a professor named Rhonda
Dillman at Montana State University - Billings, but I never told anybody
because I wasn't sure if I really did love her, and besides that I really
didn't have the guts to tell anybody, especially Rhonda. In her Organic
Chemistry class I would often sit there writing my love and sex thoughts
about Rhonda into my notebooks, and by the end of the year I had a lot of
those comments in my notebooks. I would often stare at her body parts too.
After a few semesters passed, during my last semester in college, I let a
girl borrow my notebooks because she needed help with the class. After I
graduated from college, that girl still had my notebooks, and for some
reason I started thinking more and more about my notebooks. I was scared
that the girl had found all of the sex comments in my notebooks and she had
given the notebooks to Rhonda. I thought I was going to get in trouble.
It kept getting worse. I couldn't stop thinking about my notebooks. I even
had bad dreams about how much trouble I was going to get in for the sex
comments in my notebooks. Then one night while sleeping I woke up very
suddenly. After I woke I could feel something on my left arm but I could
not see anything there. Whatever was there was hurting me, pushing down on
me, and pulling me around. I did not know what was going on. I never had
this happen before and I never saw anything like it before except in horror
movies.
I thought that I might look like a weirdo for telling people about this
thing, but I also thought that I better do something about this because
"the thing" seemed dangerous. It felt really foreign and hurtful. I got up
the guts to tell my dad about it, but he had no idea what "the thing" was.
I e-mailed Rhonda and some other professors at MSU-Billings and told them
about "the thing" as well as the sex comments in my notebooks, but nobody
responded back, which hurt my feelings. I needed some help and nobody
wanted to help me.
Some days later I went out and tried to find a job, but this "thing" was
distracting me. At one place of employment I had to take a test, but I
could not concentrate on the test for this one simple reason: this thing
was in me. It was not just on my left arm but was in my brain distracting
me. I couldn't concentrate very well at all. That scared me.
I didn't know what to do, but I believed in Yeshua. I didn't follow the
laws of The Bible or read The Bible too much but I believed in Yeshua. The
only thing I could think to do was to go to church. So after I flunked the
test I went to church, a Christian church. I told the church members my
story. They said it was a spirit on me, then they prayed for me. Then a
force came upon me. The force made me sleepy and it made me feel real good.
The church members said the force was The Presence of God. But even so, the
spirit remained on me. In addition to pulling me around, hurting me, and
pushing down on me, it did other things. When I knelt to pray, it stuck
something in my anus. It also stuck something in my mouth a few times. It
made me sick.
I begged Yeshua to take the spirit away, but each time I begged Him, I had
a dream of Yeshua: He was just sitting there reading the paper. To me this
meant "I will not take it away." I got mad at Yeshua because He would not
take it away. I called Him all sorts of names. I called Him faggot, fucker,
asshole, you name it. At one point I even raised my middle finger into the
air and yelled "Fuck you Jehovah!" After I did that my middle finger
started to hurt. It felt like it was not even there, but I could still see
it there. My middle finger did not quit hurting for days. I was really
scared.
I called Yeshua those names for these reasons: 1. I did not know why He
lets the spirit(s) hurt me and cast spells on me or whatever, especially
when other people do worse sins and even more sins than me 2. Yeshua called
all the Canaanites dogs of Jews. I thought "Surely every Jew cannot be
better than every Canaanite" 3. I thought "Surely many of those Jews in The
Bible did worse than I did" and 4. I thought "Why do the Jews get to have a
great life and then go to heaven when I get a poor life and then just maybe
I get to go to heaven? That isn't fair." All those thoughts hurt my
feelings. Then I got mad and called Him those names and stuff.
But now I think of it a different way. When a bad thing happens to me I
think "Good! Maybe if I suffer I can pay for some of these bad things I
did." This is not to say that I like suffering, it just means that I think
we sinners need to suffer a little or maybe even a lot for what we do.
Romans 2:8-16 says that too. So when someone picks on me or hurts me, I try
not to retaliate in any form. In this way I am getting punished a little
bit for my sins, and I am also loving my enemy by not retaliating (I am not
doing eye for an eye or tooth for tooth). This is very hard to do
sometimes, but I always try to do it.
Later I read The New Testament in The King James version of The Bible and I
think the spirit is more specifically a demon. If you read Revelation
12:7-12 it says that Satan and all his angels are in and on the earth, so I
think it is a demon or a spell from a demon or something like that. In
addition, ever since this spirit got on me I keep having dreams about
demons doing bad things, so I think it is at least one small demon
attacking me. Here are some of the dreams I had:
1. A small female demon with a witch hat on her head had sex with a pig,
then she proceeded on into a large white house with a white picket fence
around it.
2. I saw two spirits yelling at me very loudly. They looked like super
witches to me, witches that have more power than witches. They were yelling
so loudly that I could not hear their words. Then I woke up suddenly. Both
of my arms hurt pretty bad. There was a force on each of my arms hurting
me. I shook my arms to try to get the things off, but they didn't come off
for a while. My arms didn't stop hurting for what seemed like a long time
after that. Later on I thought maybe the two spirits in the dream might
have "Satan-wiched" me: one demon on each arm hurting me.
3. I saw Satan. He had on gold armour and he seemed very vain. He seemed to
say "I gather figs and thistles," then he ate something. I think this means
he picks on both good and bad people. I think he does this to confuse
people.
4. A strong little demon with tattoos was biting my left ear. He had his
arms crossed and seemed quite arrogant.
5. I saw a female demon biting off my penis
6. I saw a demon squishing my head between his or her legs. S/he had no
genitals. They look good but they're not anatomically correct (kinda like
Barbie dolls).
7. A large female demon put a man with a white and blue robe on into a
rack, then she masturbated him. That was a very potent dream. It made me
want to masturbate a lot.
8. A very little chubby female demon with huge horns growing out of her
forehead was chasing me with a huge sword. She said "Hate!" then a bright
light radiated out of her eyes.
Because of these dreams, I think all the demons seek to defile the laws of
The Lord. They do exactly opposite of what Yeshua wants us to do; something
good needs to be defiled. Even the little demons are very bad; they seem to
have lots of power and strength. I think this demon could probably kill me
with ease even though I suspect s/he is a small one. Also I think demons
kiss each other and stuff. One day while walking along I just started
singing this: Two little cherubs sitting in a tree: K-I-S-S-I-N-G. I
couldn't stop laughing at what I was singing. Where did that come from?
Maybe Yeshua gave me the words to sing?
So beware: demons do all of the following things to me, and they might do
them to you too: put thoughts in my head, push down on me, make me sick,
hurt me, read my thoughts, put dreams in my head, watch me, pull me around,
and even try to possess me. I think that only a few people have hedges of
protection around them or guardian angels watching over them. Think about
it: if you are a sinner, do you think Yeshua allows them to be around you?
And if you are a married couple: do you think Yeshua wants a good angel to
see you make love? I wouldn't think so. And even if a "good" angel shows up
in your room remember this: evil angels can disguise themselves as angels
of light quite well. And I do mean well. So I think if there are any angels
watching you they are all evil. Any good angels are probably not stationed
around you at all times, but are in heaven most of the time. See
specifically Revelation 12:7-12 and Hebrews 13:2.
So basically my conclusion is this, and here is where I might get preachy,
but really I am only trying to help you and give you some good suggestions:
1. Stop sinning. 2. Contact everybody you know and used to know and tell
them you are trying to turn your life around and be a Christian. Ask for
forgiveness if necessary. 3. I would start praying to Jehovah Elohim Yahweh
(The Father) using the name of Yeshua (The only begotten Son of The Father)
asking for His forgiveness. Or you can pray directly to Yeshua because He
is God. (John 1:1 and John 1:14). Jehovah's Witnesses may want to tell you
differently, but I do not believe them. 4. I would start reading the King
James version of The Bible and obey it, especially the New Testament. 5. I
would go to a Christian church. I would not suggest the Mormons or
Jehovah's Witnesses.
So that you can get a better idea of what to do, here are some of my sins
and what I have done to correct things:
1. THEFT
A. I stole candy bars, but I paid for them recently.
B. I stole some money from Pizza Hut which I paid back.
C. I stole a book from a library which I gave back.
2. I used to watch porno movies, but I threw them away. I should have
burned the pornos because someone digging in the trash may have found them.
3. LIES
A. I lied to an old girlfriend of mine: I told her I went out with and
slept with a lot of women so that she would get jealous. The truth is that
I went out with a lot of girls, kissed them and fondled them, but I didn't
have sex with them. I also told her that my family rented both floors of a
house when we only rented the bottom floor. She was a rich girl and I was
just a poor kid. I thought she wouldn't like me if I was poor. I called her
up and told her the truth, which made me cry. I cried right there on the
phone with her, even though I tried to hold it back. Then immediately after
I got off the phone with her the hearing in my left ear was better. I can
hear quite well in that ear now.
B. I lied about where I lived because we lived in a run down house. I
thought all the kids would make fun of me if I told the truth. I will
contact that guy and tell him the truth.
C. I told an old friend that I was the manager of Pizza Hut even though I
was just a Delivery Driver because I wanted to appear like I was doing well
in the rat race. I will contact the guy and tell him the truth.
D. I told some old friends that I was not a virgin because I thought
everybody would make fun of me for being a virgin. I called the guys and
told them I am a virgin.
4. I made some counterfeit coins and played video games with them at Circle
K, so I paid Circle K back.
5. I used to listen to music that promotes sex, drugs, violence, and
cussing in it, but I burned all my CDs promoting that stuff.
6. I cheated on tests in college, so I wrote the chancellor of the college
and asked what he wanted to do about it.
7. I went to a naked girl bar once.
I still have some sins that I am trying to stop: masturbating, bad thoughts
(sex, anger at The Lord & at people), outright anger at The Lord & at
people, and cussing.
--
~Matt
Matthew 7:21 reads:
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."
Matthew J. Woken
A.K.A. Faul, FuMattChu
825 Grant Street #2
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
(541) 850-0114
fa...@cvc.net
http://www.cvc.net/cvcmem/faul/index.html
Starrb6181
zzzzzzzz guffawsnore zzzzzzz
billings? try bozeman maybe
Moloch
guy....
Lindemarie Crawford
>Matthew J. Woken
>825 Grant Street #2
>Klamath Falls, OR 97601
>(541) 850-0114
>fa...@cvc.net
>I still have some sins that I am trying to stop: masturbating, bad thoughts
>(sex,
What?????????? masturbating, bad thoughts, sex...........a SIN?
Well as Gomer Pyle would say: GOLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Now I know why I have psoriasis.
Thanks!
Linde
prjohnny
lot of
the posts in this group.
>Please read this. Ever since I have accepted Jesus my Psoriasis has been
>better. Not cleared but better. Also I lost 30 pounds. I feel great!
>
>A strange thing ........
Fenris
<fa...@cvc.net> wrote:
> Please read this. Ever since I have accepted Jesus my Psoriasis has been
> better. Not cleared but better. Also I lost 30 pounds. I feel great!
Sure it wasn't the change in diet that led to the weight loss? Diet works
extremely well for me. Haven't noticed any relationship to sin or
acceptance of Jesus.
Best wishes,
Terry
--
Legitimate e-mailers (not spammers) should remove the "spam.sucks" and replace it with "azstarnet" in my address.
Paul L. Allen
molo...@yahoo.com (Moloch) writes:
> Freud would have absolutely KILLED to have a few hours with this
> guy....
I figure he was doing some *serious* drugs at the time. And I'd like
to know where to get them because those sounded like some damn good
dreams.
--Paul
Paul L. Allen
nat...@mountain.net (Lindemarie Crawford) writes:
> On 12 Aug 98 04:36:31 GMT, "Matthew J. Woken" <fa...@cvc.net> wrote:
>
> >Matthew J. Woken
> >825 Grant Street #2
> >Klamath Falls, OR 97601
> >(541) 850-0114
> >fa...@cvc.net
>
> >I still have some sins that I am trying to stop: masturbating, bad thoughts
> >(sex,
>
> What?????????? masturbating, bad thoughts, sex...........a SIN?
> Well as Gomer Pyle would say: GOLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>
> Now I know why I have psoriasis.
I would suggest that abstinence from all those things would cause stress
that is likely to make P worse.
--Paul
Fenris
> I would suggest that abstinence from all those things would cause stress
> that is likely to make P worse.
Actually, I've found my stress level goes WAY up with caffeine. My skin
doesn't seem to respond to extreme, non-caffeine realted stress. :)
Arlene Allen
I am glad to hear that you have found Jesus.
However, many people are probably going to "flame"
you for sharing this and the other information
that you wrote in this newsgroup about Psoriasis.
After reading what you said, I truly believe that
you should share this with a more appropriate person.
Hopefully, a psychologist will be able to give you
some feedback. There is probably one at your school
who can give you student rates.
I'm glad that your Psoriasis has improved, too.
Please take the above advice as something that I would
have told my own son for I do care about you as
Jesus would want me to. You will be glad you did.
Let me know what happens and God Bless.
AKG PDR
>>better. Not cleared but better. Also I lost 30 pounds. I feel great!
Will Jesus appy Dovenex and Tazarac to my elbows and legs too?
Jerry Jensen
--snip--
> (the last natasha I encountered was a jealously-crazed six foot tall
> superfit post operative transexual in boots and rubber, wielding a broken
> bottle over her ex. So from there, everything is better!)
Poor Boris! Was Fearless Leader watching?
Steve Cassidy
Woken) wrote:
> Please read this. Ever since I have accepted Jesus my Psoriasis has been
> better. Not cleared but better. Also I lost 30 pounds. I feel great!
Print this out and take it to your priest. He may suggest that you need
help with your religious philosophy and interpretation. I've forwarded
your message to my sister, who is a PhD psychiatrist and former nun; she
specialises in the religiously disturbed.
Steve Cassidy
wrote:
> Freud would have absolutely KILLED to have a few hours with this
> guy
The joke is, Siggy would probably have prescribed a course of cocaine for
him!
Steve Cassidy
(Lindemarie Crawford) wrote:
> What?????????? masturbating, bad thoughts, sex...........a SIN?
> Well as Gomer Pyle would say: GOLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>
> Now I know why I have psoriasis.
mmmmph! mmmm!
Natasha(linde! whatever!), the cure for both of us is only a thought away!
(four pages of schizophrenic near-logic deleted)
...and this proves that the Knights of St John are actually....
(ten pages of Trialteral/Freemason/Sex stuff deleted)
...so you can see why it wasn't at all surprising I flunked my exam!
S (the last natasha I encountered was a jealously-crazed six foot tall
Belvet
> Matthew J. Woken
> 825 Grant Street #2
> Klamath Falls, OR 97601
> (541) 850-0114
> fa...@cvc.net
> http://www.cvc.net/cvcmem/faul/index.html
>
> Please read this. Ever since I have accepted Jesus my Psoriasis has been
> better. Not cleared but better. Also I lost 30 pounds. I feel great!
Hi Matt,
very happy to have the chance to consult an expert. Did Adam,Eve
and the snake suffer from P ?
Oscar from Italy
Lady Andy2
>and the snake suffer from P ?
>Oscar from Italy
>
I don't know about Adam and Eve, but that snake sure had scales! <g> Couldn't
resist.
Best regards,
LadyAndy2
jscott
however, I would credit that to divine intervention in only the most
roundabout way...
...since God came into my life, I have less stress; therefore, less
psoriasis problems. Also, practicing the spiritual disciplines such as
prayer and Bible reading leads to discipline in other areas -- such as
tending to my psoriasis like I should.
Knowing God has certainly helped me better accept my psoriasis problem.
Should He one day decide to heal me -- great. If not -- great also. I
will serve Him never-the-less.
As for Matthew's original article, I must admit I didn't read all the
way through it; thus, I must remain silent about some of the more
supernatural content. I am, however, glad Matthew came to know Jesus.
-Scott
------------------
J. Scott Davis
jscot...@alltel.net
May the Peace of Christ be with you!
------------------
Steve Cassidy wrote:
>
> In article <01bdc5aa$a20e4bc0$9ad86ac6@faul>, fa...@cvc.net (Matthew J.
> Woken) wrote:
>
> > Please read this. Ever since I have accepted Jesus my Psoriasis has been
> > better. Not cleared but better. Also I lost 30 pounds. I feel great!
>
Steve Cassidy
> Poor Boris! Was Fearless Leader watching?
Err, wot?
It's no word of a lie. We had the paramedic in afterwards and everything
('she' broke the bottle on ber beau's forehead, missed his carotid, but
slashed someone's leg on the back-stroke). These bloody twankies; go for
the feminine wiles routine once they've had the chop but when they get
pissed off, they revert to male type!
Steve Cassidy
jsc...@thomastonmills.com (jscott) wrote:
> As for Matthew's original article, I must admit I didn't read all the
> way through it; thus, I must remain silent about some of the more
> supernatural content. I am, however, glad Matthew came to know Jesus.
It's all a matter of context Scott: I don't suggest you take his simple
statement in isolation. The context of the rest of the message changes
it's meaning away from the statement of faith you evidently think it is.
Oh, and nobody, anywhere on this planet, at all, ever, would think I was
either godly or christian. Just in case you were under any
misapprehension...
TheShanty
religion is part of Psoriasis, other than maybe a Plague, I am just alarmed at
how sarcastic so many of you have been to this, surely misguided, disturbed
individual. While I am not even implying his story is not true, I have had to
stop and wonder now if maybe I have this disease because I am effected by the
same bad feelings towards my faith as so many of you have exhibited. I had not
thought so, and had considered myself a so so Christian, but now I must need to
look a bit deeper to see if I am as ridiculing and so far right as many of the
ridiculous responses, especially Mr. Athias, Steve, or would that be Agnostic?
Either way, I need to look a bit deeper, as it seems like many of you blame
if you believe God for your disease. Even my friend Oscar, although I might
have misinterpreted his message about Adam and Eve, I know the snake was pretty
scaly, can't say the same for Adam and Eve though. I just wonder if much of
the Leaper that is spoken about in the Bible is in some cases just people with
awfully bad Psoriasis. Maybe all this healing we have read about was nothing
more than the healing powers of more than just Psoriasis from the Rivers and
Seas over thataway!
Scott "I would rather believe there is a superior being than transforming from
Monkeys or normal so-called Evolution" As, I have not seen a monkey evolve
into a man all 38 years I have been on earth. But in concession, I have seen
many of us act like them!
"Stop, Look, Feel, Smell, There may not be a tomorrow"
Scott M. Gray
thes...@aol.com
sha...@elp.rr.com
http://www.shanty.com
Lindemarie Crawford
>
>Natasha(linde! whatever!), the cure for both of us is only a thought away!
>
>(four pages of schizophrenic near-logic deleted)
>
>...and this proves that the Knights of St John are actually....
>
>(ten pages of Trialteral/Freemason/Sex stuff deleted)
>
>...so you can see why it wasn't at all surprising I flunked my exam!
>
>S (the last natasha I encountered was a jealously-crazed six foot tall
>superfit post operative transexual in boots and rubber, wielding a broken
>bottle over her ex. So from there, everything is better!)
Ha, ha -- well, at one time I might have been a Russian Spy with a
boyfriend named Boris and I am 5'10 but I never wear boots of any
kind, hehehehe
Our poster "friend" used a fake email address to send his/her message.
What does that tell ya? My deepest concern is in this individual's
misguided form of "witnessing." There are people on this list who are
darn near suicidal over their condition and, I must admist, I have
been quite depressed at times during my 38 year battle with it. This
kind of posting can only do harm. I'm glad prayer worked for him/her,
it hasn't for me and many others. Also pretty cheeky of them to
assume that all the members of this list are Christian!
Linde (looking for another line of work now that Russian spies are
somewhat passe')
P.S. just received another email from this person, again, email
address is a fake!
Anova9
I cannot believe what I've read in this group lately either. The dry wit,
literary allusions and metaphors are more than I ever could have hoped for in a
newsgroup about such a yukky topic! Without humor this would be one dismal
"place."
And I think the diversity of this group (and we are not just Christians and
Atheists!) is a fabulous thing. It's the diversity that feeds our awareness
that there are different points of view, different experiences and keeps us
skeptical of all dogmatic, unproven claims, whether religous or medical!
Cheers,
Amy
Paul L. Allen
thes...@aol.com (TheShanty) writes:
> I just cannot believe what I have read in this group.
There is objective evidence to show that what you read has been posted.
> While I am not sure religion is part of Psoriasis,
For some religion relieves stress. For some, relieving stress makes their
P better.
> other than maybe a Plague,
That's the kind of thinking that worries me. God's special punishment
upon us. And yet it strikes the deeply devout as well as the confirmed
atheist. Strange how Christian dogma has to state that God has gone
into "hand's-off" mode because of all mankind's sins (otherwise we'd
have to wonder if all the plagues and earthquakes affecting innocent
people today were his handiwork just as they were 2000 years ago) yet people
believe that God gives them special treatment. If they're not devout then
it's God's punishment for their wickedness; if they're devout then it's God
"testing their faith". God no longer puts signs in the sky or casts
plagues of locusts upon people (they just happen automatically these days)
but he does give people P to punish or test them (or for some other
mysterious purpose). I don't buy that argument.
> I am just alarmed at how sarcastic so many of you have been to this,
> surely misguided, disturbed individual.
Perhaps some of us doubted that his post was factual whilst the rest
doubted that any rational post would have the slightest hope of getting
through his delusions and affecting him in any way.
> While I am not even implying his story is not true, I have had to stop
> and wonder now if maybe I have this disease because I am effected by the
> same bad feelings towards my faith as so many of you have exhibited.
Which is a damn good reason to be sarcastic towards that moron. He has
probably managed to upset many of those here who do believe in God into
thinking that it's all down to their "wickedness".
> Scott "I would rather believe there is a superior being than transforming
> from Monkeys or normal so-called Evolution"
I would rather believe in Santa Claus. For the first seven years of my
life there was at least *some* objective evidence of his existence, even
if it appeared only once a year. I have yet to see any objective evidence
for a superior being.
> As, I have not seen a monkey evolve into a man all 38 years I have been on
> earth.
And yet there is evidence of evolution all around us. It can be seen
over a few days or months in laboratory experiments. It can be seen
over centuries in pre- and post-industrial England in the colour of
moths changing to match their surroundings. It can be seen in fossils.
Not only do we have fossils of dinosaurs and fossils of their eggs, we
even find fossils of their droppings (known as coprolites, a word I now
use to refer to management types). It is also a fact that we share 99% of
our DNA with chimpanzees.
Of course, when you invoke supernatural beings, you can explain anything,
including fossils. In fact God could have created everything 5 minutes
ago and given each of us memories of a past that never happened and created
all the evidence to back it up. If the evidence all around us is a joke by
God to make us challenge our faith then it's just a bit too detailed - as
though he'd prefer us to believe the evidence of our own eyes rather than
believe in a supernatural being.
All of which is beside the point, except it shows that there are many
beliefs and non-beliefs in this group and I don't think any of them
benefit from people who go around saying that P is God's special
punishment. The devout are going to be upset and feel guilt that will
stress them out and probably make their P worse. The faithless are going
to poke fun at such posts.
I would say we'd do well to keep religion out of the group. There are
so many sub-branches of each religion that somebody is going to get
offended. Where I live, not only did the protestants break away from
the catholic church, but they in turn split, and the split itself split
and there's now something nicknamed the "wee wee frees" to distinguish
them from the "wee frees". Both varieties of "free" believe that the
papacy is satanic and the pope is the devil's disciple. One UK MP was
excommunicated from the wee wee frees for attending a catholic mass for
another UK MP. As I said, this seems to be a subject area we'd do best to
avoid if at all possible because it's only going to lead to all sorts of
squabbles.
--Paul
Starrb6181
>> surely misguided, disturbed individual.
unless he was joking or someone was using his name to play a joke if he was
serious I suspect a good many faithful Christians would be offended by the
implied notion that they are insincere in their faith, lest they wouldn't have
psoriasis. I am sure their are plenty of fine Jesus believers that are covered
from head to toe with psoriasis. I thought he received a light treatment
considering ...
Starrb6181
>What does that tell ya?
it was a joke from get go as I thought while reading the post and laughing so
hard my stomach hurt (still does)?
Lady Andy2
>beliefs and non-beliefs in this group and I don't think any of them
>benefit from people who go around saying that P is God's special
>punishment. The devout are going to be upset and feel guilt that will
>stress them out and probably make their P worse. The faithless are going
>to poke fun at such posts.
>
>I would say we'd do well to keep religion out of the group. There are
>so many sub-branches of each religion that somebody is going to get
>offended.
That's how I feel about the whole subject. I decided this post was by a nut,
and we all (the ones who were here not that long ago) remember how useless
following the reasoning of the mentally unbalanced can be.
I'm for ignoring the whole thing, with perhaps a tiny bit of snickering when
alone in my room.
Scott, get over it... nobody really thinks this guy has anything to offer to
help here. What I believe and what others believe has absolutely nothing to do
with having psoriasis, other than perhaps in lowering or raising stress.
Best regards,
LadyAndy2
Arlene Allen
the world of Christians, Atheists, or whatever. Why would so many of you
in this group choose to hurt someone who has come to us to offer what he
truly believes is a way that we might be able to become clear?
I certainly haven't seen this much cruelty when anyone else came up with
any other idea that they thought helped them. It's interesting that
religion brings out the worst in so many of us. Lovingkindness
could make things a little bit nicer.
We are all here in this support group to share ideas and hope in dealing
with a very difficult disease. Why would anyone twist someone's words
around to mean anything other than what was said at face value? As I see
it, it was offered in good faith and some people just can't recognize
good faith when they see it.
As a matter of fact, my message got through with no problem. Perhaps,
the others were blocked out because they were hateful remarks.
I d has to be a Christian, an Atheist or
MarkWest61
>excommunicated from the wee wee frees for attending a catholic mass for
>another UK MP.
Please explain to me, why I can't see the diference between the wee and wee
wee frees.
Dr Suess
Dr. Suess Describes the Clinton Scandal
I am Starr. Starr I are.
I'm a brilliant barri-star.
I'm here to ask, as you'll soon see.
Did you grope Miss Lew-in-sky?
Did you grope her in your house?
Did you grope her beneath her blouse?
Did she give you gifts and ties?
Were you spied by prying eyes?
I did not do that here or there!
I did not do that anywhere!
I did not do that in a chair!
I went not near her giant hair!
I did not join - even in fun,
The Mile High Club in Air force One.
So stow your feathers and your tar,
I did not do her Starr you are.
Did you smile?
Did you flirt?
Did you peek beneath her skirt?
And did you tell the girl to lie,
When called upon to testify?
That is it; you've gone too far!
I do not like you Starr you are!
I will not answer any more!
In fact, I think I'll start a war!
The public's easy to distract,
When bombs are falling on Iraq!
-author unknown
Kim Malo
<snip>
What Paul said. Was going to respond to Scott or add some comments and
realized I really wasn't adding anything important. Yes Scott, some of
what got said in response to the original post was mean. But if that
poster lead one person to believe that they have P as punishment for
their sins and what a bad person they are -well, considering the shame
and self esteem problems a lot of people already have with this stuff,
what the original poster did was a hell of a lot meaner. So I just
wanted to post my support of everything Paul said. Except maybe for
wanting to believe in Santa Claus...
-Kim
kma...@idt.net.
"From far, from eve and morning
And yon twelve winded sky
The stuff of life to knit me
Blew hither, here am I"
-A. E. Housman
Paul L. Allen
markw...@aol.com (MarkWest61) writes:
> >One UK MP was
> >excommunicated from the wee wee frees for attending a catholic mass for
> >another UK MP.
>
> Please explain to me, why I can't see the diference between the wee and wee
> wee frees.
Buggered if I know the difference - all religions look the same to me.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all share the same God but two of them
think that the other is an extreme form of heresy. Catholicism and
Protestantism share the same God to an even greater extent and the same
sub-God? part-God? fractional-God? that Judaism and Islam think is
heretical. To me Catholicism and Protestantism are close enough to being
the same religion, but the people of Ireland regularly blow each other up
because they think there are differences (there are other reasons too, but
the religious differences play a large part in it).
Protestantism comes in several varieties depending upon whether Bishops are
important or not. The Church of England and the Church of Scotland are
separate entities with separate traditions but (if I understand correctly)
have some sort of alliance. The Free Church of Scotland (the wee frees)
split from the Church of Scotland. The wee wee frees (I can't remember their
proper name) split from the wee frees. Both frees have some wacky ideas,
amongst them being that catholic mass is a form of devil worship. The only
difference is that the wee wee frees are even more extremist than the wee
frees. When that UK MP got kicked out of the wee wee frees the wee frees
took him on.
I hope that makes it clearer to you. Or about as clear as this stuff ever
can be. No doubt to the people concerned the differences are great, the
reasons for the differences are important and the splits were necessary.
From my perspective they all believe in JHVH, God of the Jews and all
incorporate books from the Jewish Torah into their holy literature.
But given that people throughout history have been willing to kill each
other over thosw differences, and continue to do so today, I don't think
there's much benefit in this group focusing on religion.
--Paul
Nathan Engle
> Apparently, there is no monopoly on poor taste and meanspiritedness in
> the world of Christians, Atheists, or whatever.
Correct.
> Why would so many of you
> in this group choose to hurt someone who has come to us to offer what he
> truly believes is a way that we might be able to become clear?
Mmmm. My understanding was that sticks and stones can
break my bones, but names can never hurt me. The Bible even
assures its followers that there's a strong likelihood that
they will be ridiculed and rejected by their fellow men when
they testify about their faith.
While it isn't entirely true that there's nothing new under
the sun, I think it's fair to note that there are still an
alarming number of "sequels".
> I certainly haven't seen this much cruelty when anyone else came up with
> any other idea that they thought helped them. It's interesting that
> religion brings out the worst in so many of us.
Religion has the twin traits of being simultaneously
the most spiritually-uplifting and badly-marketed concept
in the course of human history.
> Loving kindness could make things a little bit nicer.
Correct, yet my assertion would be that most of the
venom you've seen here is just juice that's been festering
in rabid fundy bites from many years gone by. People don't
just become vehemently hostile towards religion overnight -
it takes years of condescension and pious hypocrisy to do
that.
> We are all here in this support group to share ideas and hope in dealing
> with a very difficult disease. Why would anyone twist someone's words
> around to mean anything other than what was said at face value? As I see
> it, it was offered in good faith and some people just can't recognize
> good faith when they see it.
I think I recognize good faith. I'm just not sure it
counts for much of anything.
> As a matter of fact, my message got through with no problem. Perhaps,
> the others were blocked out because they were hateful remarks.
I hear some sites have started screening usenet posts
based on keyword content - something designed to keep electro-
sex pimps at bay.
--
Nathan Engle
Shop Steward Electron Juggler's Guild, Local #1
BLOBn...@indiana.eduBLUB BLOBhttp://php.indiana.edu/~nengleBLUB
"Some Assembly Required"
Zbob2
There must be other boards for that kind of thing. I am not of the Christian
faith and believe everyone has the right to believe in whatever makes them
happy - but I would rather read about helpful or insightful things for this
disorder than testimonials. No offfense meant to anyone.
Zandra
Paul Ford
>
> I just cannot believe what I have read in this group. While I am not sure
> religion is part of Psoriasis, other than maybe a Plague, I am just alarmed at
> how sarcastic so many of you have been to this, surely misguided, disturbed
> individual.
Believe it. Whether this guy was really off his rocker or just trolling
for laughs, I doubt the responses will make a huge difference one way or
the other.
<...>
> Either way, I need to look a bit deeper, as it seems like many of you blame
> if you believe God for your disease.
Which would seem to be a bit self-defeating. As the saying goes,
"Sometimes the dragon wins." I think He can't be everywhere at once, thus
evil and adversity have their occasional victories. Of course, if you
believe in an All Powerful God, and that nothing happens without his
direct say-so, then you're obviously going to be pretty disappointed in
this world.
As far as religion and P goes, I think a lot of people get a considerable
amount of comfort from their religion. It can be a significant stress
reducer, as can yoga, transcendental meditation, etc. If it works, great!
<...>
> Scott "I would rather believe there is a superior being than transforming from
> Monkeys or normal so-called Evolution"
Any problem with the idea that a superior being could have used evolution
as a tool? Is there any reason he _couldn't_ have done so?
> As, I have not seen a monkey evolve
> into a man all 38 years I have been on earth. But in concession, I have seen
> many of us act like them!
A little education in biology would seem to be warranted. 1) Individual
animals do not evolve -- populations do. 2) As such, it takes quite a bit
longer than one human's lifetime for speciation to occur in a large
animal. However, in smaller species, like bacteria and some plants,
speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. Thus,
evolution continues to occur as we speak.
Try the talk.origins newsgroup and the talk.origins archive at
http://www.talkorigins.org/. Specifically, look for the "God and
Evolution FAQ" to see a number of ways of reconciling the two. (Be
forewarned, though -- the talk.origins newsgroup can be a flamefest at
times.)
--
"This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and
all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow
I see that written which is Doom..."
- Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"
Scott
> I have yet to see any objective evidence for a superior being.
Except for the fact that you're alive.
> And yet there is evidence of evolution all around us. It can be seen
> over a few days or months in laboratory experiments.
Never has evolution been 'observed'. Almost all evolutionary scientists would
agree with me.
> It can be seen over centuries in pre- and post-industrial England in the
> colour of
> moths changing to match their surroundings.
The moth DNA structure never changed. The black and white moths are exactly the
same creature with different traits. There were both white and black varieties
already.
> It can be seen in fossils. Not only do we have fossils of dinosaurs and
> fossils of their eggs, we even find fossils of their droppings (known as
> coprolites, a word I now use to refer to management types).
We have also found 'fossil' footprints, including some so detailed that they
appear to be made by a 3' long lizard tracking an insect. However, not one
single fossil showing transition from one species to another (a transitional
state) has EVER been discovered. Some have claimed to find the 'missing link',
but every one has proved to be errors or frauds.
> It is also a fact that we share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees.
It can be expected that a God of Law created an ordered universe (the
assumptions the great scientists of a few centuries ago). Thus, why wouldn't he
create DNA and modify it a little for each of his creations.
> Of course, when you invoke supernatural beings, you can explain anything,
> including fossils.
Similarly, when you invoke evolution, you seem to be able to explain away God.
Let us not forget that the very premise of evolution is to figure out how the
life on this planet came into existence through 'natural', explainable process.
Thus, by its very nature, evolution assumes that there is no God. It therefore
cannot be used to prove that God doesn't exist -- that's called circular
reasoning.
About fossils: the best explanation for them actually is listed in the Bible --
under the story about a world-wide flood. We have found whole fossils and
footprints, right? For them to be preserved, they would have to be covered up
quickly when the creature dies (or leaves footprints behind). Otherwise,
scavengers would scatter the bones and footprints would be destroyed by wind and
rain. A major flood that deposits sand and, later, clay (which will only settle
out in still water) would cause the fossilization effect. There is a world-wide
layer of sand (that is 90%-99% quartz grains) with clay on top which turns up
continuously in archeological digs. Good evidence for flooding.
> All of which is beside the point, except it shows that there are many
> beliefs and non-beliefs in this group and I don't think any of them
> benefit from people who go around saying that P is God's special
> punishment.
I agree.
> The devout are going to be upset and feel guilt that will stress them out and
> probably make their P worse.
Some might.
> The faithless are going to poke fun at such posts.
Obvious. ;-)
> I would say we'd do well to keep religion out of the group... ... this seems
> to be a subject area we'd do best to avoid if at all possible because it's
> only going to lead to all sorts of squabbles.
I disagree. This one was labeled with the name 'JESUS' on it. You can skip it
if you want. People of faith shouldn't be told to be silent because those
without it get aggravated about it. If Muslims and Mormons and whoever else
want to put in their own views on things, I would consider it educational, not
offensive. I would suggest, however, that the subject label reflect the
content.
> --Paul
Thanks, Paul. I am sorry I was so long winded. A concise reference for the
material I presented above can be found in Josh McDowell's book: "Reasons
Skeptics should consider Christianity". He does a good job of quoting people
with opposing views and references the material he gets their writings from.
--
Scott Davis.
jscot...@alltel.net
"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
- Hebrews 11:1
Scott
feel the desire to differentiate.
> > Scott "I would rather believe there is a superior being than transforming from
> > Monkeys or normal so-called Evolution"
>
> Any problem with the idea that a superior being could have used evolution
> as a tool? Is there any reason he _couldn't_ have done so?
Evolutionary theory tries to explain how life came into existence by natural
(mechanistic) processes. Evidence of instantaneous creation is overlooked because
the universal assumption in scientific circles seems to be that there is no
Creator. In essence evolutionism is more a naturalistic philosophy than pure
science.
> > As, I have not seen a monkey evolve
> > into a man all 38 years I have been on earth. But in concession, I have seen
> > many of us act like them!
>
> A little education in biology would seem to be warranted. 1) Individual
> animals do not evolve -- populations do. 2) As such, it takes quite a bit
> longer than one human's lifetime for speciation to occur in a large
> animal. However, in smaller species, like bacteria and some plants,
> speciation has been observed both in the lab and in the wild. Thus,
> evolution continues to occur as we speak.
Actually, it doesn't. Evolution has NEVER been 'observed' -- only postulated and
upheld by the will of the scientists who preach it. All mutations result in death
or nasty side effects in the creature that mutates. The ones that survive mutation
with some beneficial effect are invariably weaker (and thus less able to compete)
than the non-mutated form. For example, DDT-resistant flies take longer to develop
than normal flies thus reducing the 'fitness' of the new strain. Also, anti-biotic
resistant bacteria are also less fit (and thus would be naturally-selected out).
60% of the streptomycin-resistant mutants in a colony of colon bacteria were also
found to be streptomycin-dependent. Remove the medication, and they die.
Every mutation OBSERVED has been bad. Evolution is merely a philosophy -- not
science. In science, you can conduct experiments to prove your postulation.
> Try the talk.origins newsgroup and the talk.origins archive at
> http://www.talkorigins.org/. Specifically, look for the "God and
> Evolution FAQ" to see a number of ways of reconciling the two. (Be
> forewarned, though -- the talk.origins newsgroup can be a flamefest at
> times.)
Thanks. I'll check it out sometime.
- J. Scott
Henry Bowman
<aa...@erols.com> got together with an infinite number of monkeys and
typed:
>Apparently, there is no monopoly on poor taste and meanspiritedness in
>the world of Christians, Atheists, or whatever. Why would so many of you
>in this group choose to hurt someone who has come to us to offer what he
>truly believes is a way that we might be able to become clear?
>
>I certainly haven't seen this much cruelty when anyone else came up with
>any other idea that they thought helped them. It's interesting that
>religion brings out the worst in so many of us. Lovingkindness
>could make things a little bit nicer.
>
>We are all here in this support group to share ideas and hope in dealing
>with a very difficult disease. Why would anyone twist someone's words
>around to mean anything other than what was said at face value? As I see
>it, it was offered in good faith and some people just can't recognize
>good faith when they see it.
>
>As a matter of fact, my message got through with no problem. Perhaps,
>the others were blocked out because they were hateful remarks.
As a user of Usenet & a lurker in quite a few ng's, I've seen
Bible-Thumpin' trolls come & go.
Perhaps the original post (which I did not read BTW) was sincere.
Perhaps not.
TheShanty
Like you got over my admitted over-zealous belief in Skin-Cap...Oh, I
understand now!
Paul L. Allen
Scott <jscot...@alltel.net> writes:
> This topic has already gone way off psoriasis, so I'll join the fray:
Umm, you were largely responsible for it going off topic. And this is
yet another reason why religious argument is not really a good idea here.
> > I have yet to see any objective evidence for a superior being.
>
> Except for the fact that you're alive.
I see. So the only way a sentient being could come into existence is
through the direct action of God (either on the being or on the being's
ancestors). So who was God's dad? And God's grandad? If God can spring
into existence, so can life. If life can't spring into existence without
God, then how did he get created. If you can explain one thing away
with "just is" then you can explain anything away with it.
> > And yet there is evidence of evolution all around us. It can be seen
> > over a few days or months in laboratory experiments.
>
> Never has evolution been 'observed'.
Yes it has. It has been observed many times in the laboratory with
bacteria (which have a short enough generational time for it to be
observable). It's been observed in the laboratory with flies.
> Almost all evolutionary scientists would agree with me.
No evolutionary scientist would agree with you.
> > It can be seen over centuries in pre- and post-industrial England in the
> > colour of moths changing to match their surroundings.
>
> The moth DNA structure never changed.
This is nonsense. All DNA structure changes. There are micromutations
going on all the time.
> The black and white moths are exactly the same creature with different
> traits.
Traits that breed true. Traits that are determined by DNA.
> There were both white and black varieties already.
Possibly. Nobody seems to know for sure. However, the fact that
varieties increase or decrease in number according to how well they
are suited to the environment is a cornerstone of evolution and the
moths are part of it.
> > It can be seen in fossils. Not only do we have fossils of dinosaurs and
> > fossils of their eggs, we even find fossils of their droppings (known as
> > coprolites, a word I now use to refer to management types).
>
> We have also found 'fossil' footprints, including some so detailed that they
> appear to be made by a 3' long lizard tracking an insect. However, not one
> single fossil showing transition from one species to another (a transitional
> state) has EVER been discovered.
Do you know what *tiny* fraction of animals are ever fossilized (conditions
have to be just right)? Do you know what *tiny* fraction of those are
ever found? Do you know what *tiny* fraction of all living beings could
be unambiguously classified as a transitional stage if we ever found one?
BTW, archaeopteryx has features of both lizards and birds. Taxonomists
can't decide how to classify it. Looks very much like what you'd
call a transitional state to me.
> > It is also a fact that we share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees.
>
> It can be expected that a God of Law created an ordered universe (the
> assumptions the great scientists of a few centuries ago). Thus, why
> wouldn't he create DNA and modify it a little for each of his creations.
Because he's omnipotent. He could have made it that every single species
on Earth had totally different DNA with no more effort on his part. Why
should he do it that way? Except to make it look as though he didn't have
a hand in it, and then we're back to God-the-joker.
> > Of course, when you invoke supernatural beings, you can explain anything,
> > including fossils.
>
> Similarly, when you invoke evolution, you seem to be able to explain away
> God.
You do away with the need to invoke magic (or God) as an explanation for
life.
> Let us not forget that the very premise of evolution is to figure out how
> the life on this planet came into existence through 'natural', explainable
> process.
Not entirely true. Its goal was to explain how life works, not how it
came about. The fact that it can be used to explain how life came about
came later.
> Thus, by its very nature, evolution assumes that there is no God.
No it doesn't. There could be a God who sits around but didn't create
life. There could be a God who created the first bacteria and then
left them to evolve. But there doesn't *need* to be a God. Evolution
doesn't say there is no God, Occam's razor says that it's pointless
invoking a God to explain something that evolution does much more
simply - you can if you want, but it's rather silly.
> It therefore cannot be used to prove that God doesn't exist -- that's
> called circular reasoning.
No, you're just trotting out all the tired creationist clap-trap again.
Evolution happens to provide an explanation for life that doesn't require
the intervention of God. It doesn't preclude the intervention of God
anywhere along the way, it just says that God isn't necessary for the
explanation.
> About fossils: the best explanation for them actually is listed in the
> Bible under the story about a world-wide flood.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The same bible that shows the Earth was
created in 4004 BC and documents a river flooding in the middle east
a couple of thousand years ago as a world-wide catastrophe. The fossils
date back a *lot* further than biblical chronology permits, let alone
the flood.
> > All of which is beside the point, except it shows that there are many
> > beliefs and non-beliefs in this group and I don't think any of them
> > benefit from people who go around saying that P is God's special
> > punishment.
>
> I agree.
So let's take this argument out of the group because it doesn't belong here.
> > The devout are going to be upset and feel guilt that will stress them
> > out and probably make their P worse.
>
> Some might.
Some indeed have. Several have posted here to that effect.
> > I would say we'd do well to keep religion out of the group... ... this
> > seems to be a subject area we'd do best to avoid if at all possible
> > because it's only going to lead to all sorts of squabbles.
>
> I disagree. This one was labeled with the name 'JESUS' on it. You can
> skip it if you want.
Yes, I can skip it if I want. I chose not to, as did several others. The
results are a lot of upset people. I didn't say it should be banned, I said
we'd do well to keep religion out of the group - i.e., not start arguing
over religion.
> People of faith shouldn't be told to be silent because those without it get
> aggravated about it.
Yes, but those people of faith get aggravated when those without it poke
fun at religion. Just as it's your right to post saying how much you
believe in God, it's their right to post saying he doesn't exist and
poke fun at your beliefs. In a support group, religious wars are
not really a good idea...
> Thanks, Paul. I am sorry I was so long winded. A concise reference for the
> material I presented above can be found in Josh McDowell's book: "Reasons
> Skeptics should consider Christianity". He does a good job of quoting people
> with opposing views and references the material he gets their writings from.
Umm, if what you wrote was an example, I'd prefer to read the National
Enquirer for objective facts - the stuff it prints is just as incorrect,
but at least you get a bigger laugh reading it.
I'd recommend any book by Richard Dawkins to you, starting with
The Blind Watchmaker, going through The Selfish Gene and finishing with
The Extended Phenotype if you can handle the technicalities.
--Paul
TheShanty
I did not exhibit Psoriasis while I still believed in Santa, it might not be a
bad thing....
Robin King
devils
cause psoriasis, anyway, and they're mostly afraid of light and
sunshine,
which is why sunshine often has a beneficial effect on lesions.
Robin "I was only kidding! Now would you kindly undo the ropes and put
out
the fire?"
Belvet
<199808161733...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
zb...@aol.com says...
Hi Zandra,
you've addressed your post to the wrong person. LadyAndy is a
milestone of this NG. She's always ready to support. So let her ( and me,
and all of us ) taste sometimes a bit of humor. I think it won't
worse your P.
Oscar from italy
Zbob2
>you've addressed your post to the wrong person. LadyAndy is a
>milestone of this NG. She's always ready to support. So let her ( and me,
>and all of us ) taste sometimes a bit of humor. I think it won't
>worse your P.
>Oscar from italy
LadyAndy was not who I thought I was sending it to my comments to. I thought I
was just responding to the topic-not a person. I have taken her advice many
times. My apologies to LadyAndy.
Zandra
Lady Andy2
>I
>was just responding to the topic-not a person. I have taken her advice many
>times. My apologies to LadyAndy.
>Zandra
LOL... no offense taken! I understood it to be a general comment as well, and
heartily agree with the spirit of it. (now if we can all get back to skin-deep
problems <G>)
Best regards,
LadyAndy2
Steve M.
>the world of Christians, Atheists, or whatever. Why would so many of you
>in this group choose to hurt someone who has come to us to offer what he
>truly believes is a way that we might be able to become clear?
>
>I certainly haven't seen this much cruelty when anyone else came up with
>any other idea that they thought helped them. It's interesting that
>religion brings out the worst in so many of us. Lovingkindness
>could make things a little bit nicer.
>
>We are all here in this support group to share ideas and hope in dealing
>with a very difficult disease. Why would anyone twist someone's words
>around to mean anything other than what was said at face value? As I see
>it, it was offered in good faith and some people just can't recognize
>good faith when they see it.
>
>As a matter of fact, my message got through with no problem. Perhaps,
>the others were blocked out because they were hateful remarks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I am very active in this newsgroup because I want to benefit my
psoriasis, not listen to someone's religious experiences. I am very
happy for whoever it was.
I thought that MarkWest61's riposte was extremely funny ; it probably
helped my p. !!!.
Now, can we get back to treatments...............??
Steve Cassidy
wrote:
> Evolution has NEVER been 'observed' -- only postulated and
> upheld by the will of the scientists who preach it.
100% wrong.
Had flu this year? That's evolution in action. Not on you: on the bug.
Steve Cassidy
(Paul Ford) wrote:
> If it works, great!
Why is it, I wonder, that so many w ho get that comfort seem so inclined
to use their state of mind as a stick to beat the agnostic, then?
Steve Cassidy
wrote:
> Similarly, when you invoke evolution, you seem to be able to explain
> away God.
Err, this is a non sequitur. Why should evolution be ungodly? There's no
satisfactory answer to that, ever - except the Transactional one. Anti
evolutionists see scientists having Answers, in ways they don't. They want
to be the People With The Answers, so they make up some of their own, and
embark (as you have done here) in a slanging match, as if all Answers
(even made up ones) were equally good.
In the 13th century, people used to see the Virgin mary all the time.
Quite a few of them died. The religious authorities of the time had a
fully defined, well understood, agreed view of the phenomenon, and were
content with it, what with it being the way of God and all.
Turns out it was a fungus of wheat, called Ergot: fatal if ingested in
sufficient quantities...
Steve Cassidy
wrote:
> it takes years of condescension and pious hypocrisy to do
> that.
Exactly. Not to mention all those who are *very* devout and yet still have
Psoriasis; manifestly, the promise didn't add up for them. Which invites a
particularily american form of brutality, in which I fully expect to see a
follow-up suggesting that they're just following the wrong god, and so
long as they hold a Gold Visa card, they can be introduced to the One True
Way...
(though I'd like to hear the opinion of the assembled devouts and
born-agaions over the theory that stigmata - the Roman Catholic phenomenon
of simulations of the wounds on the cross - is in fact psoriasis with a
strong psychosomatic twist...)
dan etcheto
>Now, can we get back to treatments...............??
>
No, let's talk about politics now.
Paul L. Allen
afr...@btinternet.com (angus m. fraser) writes:
> > The Free Church of Scotland (the wee frees)
>
> Wrong. The Wee Frees are/is the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
My encyclopaedia missed out the Presbyterian bit. I assume they got it
wrong. Not that I care much one way or the other.
> who, as you say, split from the COfS over doctrinal differences ages ago.
Yeah, considering the catholic mass to be satanic is a rather extreme
difference.
> More recently the APC(Associated Presbyterian Churches) split from the
> FPCofS over the Lord Mackay fiasco.
Another split? So who are the wee wee frees? Not that it worries me
greatly, but just so I can keep track of who's who...
--Paul
Paul Ford
<...>
> Never has evolution been 'observed'. Almost all evolutionary scientists would
> agree with me.
Depends upon your definition of "observed." Speciation is one of the most
important observations which can be made, and it _has_ been observed both
in the laboratory and the wild.
> > It can be seen over centuries in pre- and post-industrial England in the
> > colour of
> > moths changing to match their surroundings.
>
> The moth DNA structure never changed. The black and white moths are exactly the
> same creature with different traits. There were both white and black varieties
> already.
The black and white varieties were the same species with two different
gene sequences (alleles) for color. Over time, the frequency of the dark
and light varieties changed. A change in allele frequencies within a
population over time is, by definition, evolution.
> We have also found 'fossil' footprints, including some so detailed that they
> appear to be made by a 3' long lizard tracking an insect. However, not one
> single fossil showing transition from one species to another (a transitional
> state) has EVER been discovered. Some have claimed to find the 'missing link',
> but every one has proved to be errors or frauds.
A rather surprising statement, given the excellent fossil record for the
evolution of the horse... or the existence of Archaeopteryx... You can
find many more examples of transitional fossils at the talk.origins
archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/).
> > Of course, when you invoke supernatural beings, you can explain anything,
> > including fossils.
>
> Similarly, when you invoke evolution, you seem to be able to explain away God.
A person who attempted to do so would fail a course in logic. They are
apples and oranges. It would make just as much sense to say that the fact
that bees make honey proves the Second World War never happened.
> Let us not forget that the very premise of evolution is to figure out how the
> life on this planet came into existence through 'natural', explainable process.
> Thus, by its very nature, evolution assumes that there is no God.
Incorrect -- evolution says nothing about God, one way or the other. It
only says that all evidence points to the conclusion that species evolve.
> It therefore
> cannot be used to prove that God doesn't exist -- that's called circular
> reasoning.
I have yet to hear of a sane biologist who would claim that the fact of a
species changing over time precludes the existence of the Almighty.
> About fossils: the best explanation for them actually is listed in the Bible --
> under the story about a world-wide flood.
Except for the fact that the ages of those fossils differ by hundreds of
millions of years. And that specific fossils are always found in specific
layers, hundreds of vertical feet apart. If the worldwide flood story
were true, then they would all be found intermixed in the same layer,
dated at the same time.
I am honestly confused by people who get panicky about evolution or the
existence of a four-billion-year-old earth. I see no reason why that
should cause a "faith crisis." For someone whose sect strictly insists
upon the literal interpretation of the Bible, then yes, I could see some
consternation. But given the fact that the earth is billions of years
old, evolution would seem to be the least of their worries.
Paul L. Allen
Paul Ford <ford...@bah.nospam.com> writes:
[Everything else I agree with]
> I have yet to hear of a sane biologist who would claim that the fact of a
> species changing over time precludes the existence of the Almighty.
True, even Dawkins says that evolution does not *preclude* the existence
of God. But he does point out that it is an explanation that makes it
unnecessary to invoke God to explain life and that it is also in principle
a better explanation. Evolution says that life formed from simple causes.
Creationism says that life is so complex it could only be created by a
being who is even more complex (since God can do anything a man can do and
is also omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, answers prayers, takes
special note of the fall of a sparrow, etc). Huh? Run that one by me
again...
--Paul
angus m. fraser
> greatly, but just so I can keep track of who's who...
There are no Wee Wee Frees, at least I've never heard of that expression,
unless you want to call the APC that. There aren't many of them.
It's easy to get confused. You have the Church of Scotland, the Free
Church of Scotland(who split from the COfS), the FP Church of Scotland(who
split from the FreeCofS and are the Wee Frees) and now the APC(who spilt
from the FPCofS):-)
--
Angus(in N.W Scotland where there are loads of Proddy God botherers.)
Paul L. Allen
afr...@btinternet.com (angus m. fraser) writes:
> > Another split? So who are the wee wee frees? Not that it worries me
> > greatly, but just so I can keep track of who's who...
>
> There are no Wee Wee Frees, at least I've never heard of that expression,
> unless you want to call the APC that. There aren't many of them.
I heard of the Wee Wee Frees at the time of the Mackay affair. Mackay
was with the Wee Wee Frees, when he got booted out he switched to
the Wee Frees.
> It's easy to get confused. You have the Church of Scotland, the Free
> Church of Scotland(who split from the COfS), the FP Church of Scotland(who
> split from the FreeCofS and are the Wee Frees) and now the APC(who spilt
> from the FPCofS):-)
I suspect it may be different terminology used by different people, but
I thought I remembered the Frees, Wee Frees and Wee Wee Frees. Not that
it matters much to this group except to show what a big can of worms we
open if we start arguing about religion.
BTW, I see the original poster cross-posted something even more
inflamatory to several groups, at least one of which is totally
irrelevant to his claims that God cured his skin or that the devil
was in him previously. It looks to me like he's a troller and since he
didn't get a good enough response with his original post he's trying
the usual trolling trick of posting inflammatory crap to several groups
in the hopes of getting cross-group flamewars going.
> Angus(in N.W Scotland where there are loads of Proddy God botherers.)
Hmmm. That wasn't a particularly smart comment to make...
--Paul
Steve Cassidy
Allen) wrote:
> Evolution says that life formed from simple causes.
Can't go with that. The word 'simple' just ain't right to describe what
happens, either at the genesis of life, or during natural selection; and
it's the one thing which gets the fundies' goat about the whole process.
Isaac Asimov had the most elegant version of that I've yet heard, in an
essay with the giveaway title of 'Darwinian Pool Room'. Pool's a 'simple'
game - the ball goes in the hole. Yet it's by no means simple to do a
three cushion cannon to take the eight ball down from close to the top
bumper.
If God is garden-variety smart, then he did it the way the Creationists
say he did. If he's *seriously* clever, then he set up the conditions
which bring about natural selection, and that really would be worthy of
respect. For some odd reason, Creationists don't want God to be that
clever; strangely, they're quite short on holy fear, and long on the
acquired rights to hand out retribution to unbelievers. An interesting
combination of sins...
angus m. fraser
> I heard of the Wee Wee Frees at the time of the Mackay affair. Mackay
> was with the Wee Wee Frees, when he got booted out he switched to
> the Wee Frees.
No. Mackay was an elder of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, when
he went to a mass for a Catholic colleague - they are the Wee Frees. This
caused the split and the formation of the APC which maybe is what is being
called the Wee Wee Frees.
> > Angus(in N.W Scotland where there are loads of Proddy God botherers.)
Shrug.
--
Angus
Dittohead
cass...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Steve Cassidy") sed:
This is the best post I've ever read in here.
Scary.
William E. Irving
Arlene Allen wrote in message <35D67F...@erols.com>...
>Apparently, there is no monopoly on poor taste and meanspiritedness in
>the world of Christians, Atheists, or whatever. Why would so many of you
>in this group choose to hurt someone who has come to us to offer what he
>truly believes is a way that we might be able to become clear?
>
>I certainly haven't seen this much cruelty when anyone else came up with
>any other idea that they thought helped them. It's interesting that
>religion brings out the worst in so many of us. Lovingkindness
>could make things a little bit nicer.
>
>We are all here in this support group to share ideas and hope in dealing
>with a very difficult disease. Why would anyone twist someone's words
>around to mean anything other than what was said at face value? As I see
>it, it was offered in good faith and some people just can't recognize
>good faith when they see it.
>
>As a matter of fact, my message got through with no problem. Perhaps,
>the others were blocked out because they were hateful remarks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I d has to be a Christian, an Atheist or
>
>
I agree that such vituperation is unseemly and unnecessary, but this is a
newsgroup is about a SKIN DISEASE, not about religious faith. Show me an
independent and well-controlled study that demonstrates that the population
of religious faithful suffer a significantly lower incidence of psoriasis
(or most any other disease, for that matter) exceeding the limits of
statistical error, and I will be MOST attentive.
Until that fine day arrives, I would like to be spared the conjecture,
superstition and pseudo-science in favor of safe and effective treatments -
or at least good, solid, first-hand anecdotes. So far as I can see,
disillusioned Catholic, agnostic and condemned to eternal damnation though I
be, I am no less healthy than my "born again" friends and acquaintances.
Perhaps people can be forgiven if they become angry when instead of getting
the practical advice they seek, they are spammed by religious
prostheletizing from people whose agenda has little to do with helping
people who suffer from disease and everything to do with selling their
religious point of view to those who didn't come here to read it (Go to
<alt.religion> for that if you want that stuff).
You impute higher motives to these folks than they merit, in my opinion. I
know I am cynical, but to quote the great philosopher Lily Tomlin, "No
matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up."
I repeat that I don't support vicious flamings and ridicule, but I won't
bend over backwards to show tolerance, love and kindness to these people,
either. I lost my faith in religion some time between the Easter Bunny and
Santa Claus - I am simply not interested in it. When I come here, I AM
interested in learning about how to live as well as I can with psoriasis.
Bill Irving
Bob Mackie
and look after Psoriasis while He battles the big stuff .
Bob
Lady Andy2
>know I am cynical, but to quote the great philosopher Lily Tomlin, "No
>matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up."
LOL... thanks for that one.
Best regards (and shall do my best to ignore all religious rantings from here
on),
LadyAndy2
Paul L. Allen
cass...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Steve Cassidy") writes:
> In article <evobu...@sktb.demon.co.uk>, p...@sktb.demon.co.uk (Paul L.
> Allen) wrote:
>
> > Evolution says that life formed from simple causes.
>
> Can't go with that. The word 'simple' just ain't right to describe what
> happens, either at the genesis of life,
Yes it is. See Dawkins. The whole point is that evolution at every
stage from the beginnings of life right through to us is about organized
complexity arising from simple causes. In that sense it is a better
theory than "God" where in order to explain organized complexity (us)
you have to invoke even greater organized complexity (God) and are left
with then having to explain God. If God can "just happen" then life
can "just happen" and you don't need God to explain life. If organized
complexity can only be explained in terms of even greater complexity
then you have an infinite loop (or, the question as children put it -
who created God?)
> or during natural selection;
Simple causes, complicated effects.
> Isaac Asimov had the most elegant version of that I've yet heard, in an
> essay with the giveaway title of 'Darwinian Pool Room'. Pool's a 'simple'
> game - the ball goes in the hole. Yet it's by no means simple to do a
> three cushion cannon to take the eight ball down from close to the top
> bumper.
That's getting closer to it, with simple causes having complicated
effects, but it's still a poor analogy.
> If God is garden-variety smart, then he did it the way the Creationists
> say he did. If he's *seriously* clever, then he set up the conditions
> which bring about natural selection, and that really would be worthy of
> respect.
Do you mean he set things up with no idea what would turn up at the end
of it and we just happened along by chance? That upsets a lot of religious
applecarts. Or do you mean he set it up like a trick pool shot so that we
popped out at the end? That makes God *very* smart because such a problem
is completely insoluble - the numbers of variables involved and the need to
specify each one absolutely precisely (or chaotic effects ruin your
calculations) is a hell of a trick. Of course, He's magic so He's not
subject to limitations that we are. Oh, and the simulation would have
to be so complete in whatever He uses for a computer that the simulated
us would actually be intelligent, thinking beings so he's no need to
actually create us in reality (in fact, this could all *be* a simulation
inside God's head, except it's simpler computationally to build the
real thing and see what happens).
> For some odd reason, Creationists don't want God to be that
> clever;
Well, that view of things would allow them to believe in evolution
as well as God. I doubt any biologist (who wasn't also deeply religious)
would take it seriously, though.
Back (vaguely) on topic. There's a genetic predisposition to P. That
means we suffer it because of who our ancestors were. So if it's God's
punishment it's either exceedingly unfair or he predicted in advance of
our being born that we would be sinful enough to merit it (bang goes
free-will). And if it's not God's punishment but he did set up the
system, why did He include P genes that punish people for no good reason?
It can't be a random inducement to get us to embrace faith and be cured
(as the original troller implied) either - that would be unfair on those who
don't get the inducements.
I never did find the concept of "original sin" particularly plausible.
A rational God would judge me for what I do, not for what my remote
ancestors did. And the alternative explanations mean that God knows
ahead of time everything I'm going to do anyway so my eventual destiny
in the afterlife was fore-ordained before my birth.
--Paul
Steve Cassidy
(Dittohead) wrote:
> This is the best post I've ever read in here.
> Scary.
(man buffs bumpy fingernails, strikes Frasier-esque pose)
MarkWest61
>>If God is garden-variety smart, then he did it the way the Creationists
>>say he did. If he's *seriously* clever, then he set up the conditions
>>which bring about natural selection, and that really would be worthy of
>>respect. For some odd reason, Creationists don't want God to be that
>>clever; strangely, they're quite short on holy fear, and long on the
>>acquired rights to hand out retribution to unbelievers. An interesting
>>combination of sins...
>
>From: Sne...@dittosrush.com (Dittohead)
>This is the best post I've ever read in here.
>Scary.
Did it cure your Psoriasis?
God said, let there be P, I mean tree.
Nope sorry to late. You can have tree if you want it but its to
late stop P, you already said it.
But I don't want P, says God.
To bad, nobody else wants it either. What else can I get you today?
God says how about peace and love on Earth.
Sorry were all out of peace, but I got a good deal on love, half
price!
What's wrong with it?
Nothing it just doesn't stay fresh long.
OK give me love and better throw in some doctor maybe that will make up for P,
All righty then anything else?
Naaa that's enough for today.
How about some lawyers that-al go good with doctors.
Oh all right, but not to many you know how fast they go bad, and the way they
multiply they could ruin everything in no time.
Mark
By the way who was God talking to?
Steve Cassidy
Allen) wrote:
> Yes it is. See Dawkins.
Then you say
> Simple causes, complicated effects.
The point is that declaring something to be simple, in the midst of an
audience who don't agree with your definition, is just going to produce
feelings of unease in the audience. Dawkins doesn't manage to compress
'Climbing Mount Improbable' into a set of cue-cards: it's a dense and very
carefully argued book, filled with a mode of thinking which runs counter
to the normal (and wrong!) deductive reasoning traditionally employed by
people.
Yes, the mechanisms are elegant. Yes, they plainly are as described, both
by Dawkins and more intriguingly by Ridley in 'The Red Queen'. However, by
no stretch of the imagination is any of this stuff simple.
Maybe you have a different personal meaning for that word? Hmm?
> Do you mean
(long red herring left out)
No I don't. I mean that there's plenty of reaction patterns in religious
dogma which *could* allow the fundies to be happy with evolution, either
as simply described by Darwin, or much more subtly by Dawkins, Ridley et
al: in particular, fundies are excused the evident frustration you show
with the 'do you mean' para, because they are allowed to admit that 'God
moves in Mysterious Ways'. Yet, with anti-evolutionism, they skip that
option and draw up some battle lines.
Why do they do this?
Could it *possibly* be because over-reductionist intellectual arrogance
pisses them off?
Not *every* argument is won by laying out all the factors without letting
the other guys get a word in edgewise. Some people can't adopt ideas they
don't feel they *own*. Weird notion, I know, but get round this: not
everybody is like you, or like me. They have to be carried along, by fair
logical means or foul subterfuge.
Paul L. Allen
cass...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Steve Cassidy") writes:
> In article <eWEA8...@sktb.demon.co.uk>, p...@sktb.demon.co.uk (Paul L.
> Allen) wrote:
>
> > Yes it is. See Dawkins.
>
> Then you say
>
> > Simple causes, complicated effects.
>
> The point is that declaring something to be simple, in the midst of an
> audience who don't agree with your definition, is just going to produce
> feelings of unease in the audience. Dawkins doesn't manage to compress
> 'Climbing Mount Improbable' into a set of cue-cards: it's a dense and very
> carefully argued book, filled with a mode of thinking which runs counter
> to the normal (and wrong!) deductive reasoning traditionally employed by
> people.
I didn't say they were simple to explain or to understand. For a long
time philosophers believed that things in motion had a natural tendency
to stop. It took Newton to reverse that idea and come up with calculus
to explain the planets moving in their orbits. The maths of planetary
orbits is not easy for everyone to understand and the idea that things
in motion stay in motion runs counter to everyday experience in an
atmosphere which provides wind resistance. But the forces acting on the
planets are *very* simple.
The mechanisms by which evolution happens are very simple. Explaining them,
understanding them and understanding some of the very counter-intuitive
consequences is hard. But the fundamental principle - that there are
replicators which sometimes make copying errors is a very simple one
in terms of the *mechanisms* involved. God is very simple to explain
and understand, but God embodies enormous complexity - he can make worlds,
stars, people, be everywhere at once, answer prayers, etc. God is simple
to understand but the mechanisms by which he achieves all he is claimed
to must be very complex.
> Yes, the mechanisms are elegant.
And simple. That's the point. Simple enough that each step could happen
by accident right the way back to lightning and sunlight acting on the
chemicals in the earth's atmosphere to produce simple organic compounds.
Nothing at any step of the way requires a designer or a mind.
> Yes, they plainly are as described, both by Dawkins and more intriguingly
> by Ridley in 'The Red Queen'. However, by no stretch of the imagination
> is any of this stuff simple.
To understand? No. To explain, in *detail*, what happens when you add
vinegar to baking soda requires degree-level chemistry. To explain in
great detail requires a knowledge of quantum mechanics too. But the
reaction itself is a very simple one which anyone can perform.
> Maybe you have a different personal meaning for that word? Hmm?
Yep. Adding 2 + 2 is so simple almost anyone can *do* it. For a
mathematician to explain it *rigorously* takes a frightening amount of
paper because he has to justify concepts we all take for granted. Simple
things sometimes require complex explanations and/or a great deal of
understanding.
> > Do you mean
>
> (long red herring left out)
>
> No I don't. I mean that there's plenty of reaction patterns in religious
> dogma which *could* allow the fundies to be happy with evolution, either
> as simply described by Darwin, or much more subtly by Dawkins, Ridley et
> al: in particular, fundies are excused the evident frustration you show
> with the 'do you mean' para, because they are allowed to admit that 'God
> moves in Mysterious Ways'.
You can explain *anything* with that one. God created it that way so
that's how it is. God created it that way complete with plausible
evidence to show that he didn't have anything to do with it because he
likes a good joke. Etc.
> Yet, with anti-evolutionism, they skip that option and draw up some
> battle lines.
>
> Why do they do this?
I suggest that one possibility is that even they have an intuitive
understanding of Occam's razor. Even they feel that an explanation which
goes: "the theory of evolution is *all* you need to explain life, but if
you wish you can believe that God tweaked something somewhere even though
that is totally unnecessary to explain what we see around us" is just a
little disqueiting.
> Could it *possibly* be because over-reductionist intellectual arrogance
> pisses them off?
I doubt it. They drew up the battle lines right from the start.
> Not *every* argument is won by laying out all the factors without letting
> the other guys get a word in edgewise.
Trouble is, it doesn't work like that. The words they want to get in
they do get in - as soon as Darwin's book was published various believers
were rubbishing it to the best of their abilities.
> Some people can't adopt ideas they don't feel they *own*.
I doubt this one will ever feel their own. It does not say that God
cannot exist, but it does say that you don't *need* God to explain the
existence of life. And explaining the existence of life is the primary
reason people invent the concept of God in the first place.
--Paul