Why?
Erik Roelants
Why did God create the Earth?
Erik Roelants
--
Honores mutant mores, sed raro in meliores
David Balfoort
Erik Roelants wrote:
> Just a little question:
> Why did God create the Earth?
She needed an asylum for all the nut cases from other planets.
David
Erik Roelants
Erik Roelants
--
Honores mutant mores, sed raro in meliores
Marks of honour (couldn't find a better translation, suggestion?) change
someone's way of life, but seldom for the better
Erik Roelants
"David Balfoort" <dsba...@library.syr.edu> schreef in bericht
news:3BE7133B...@library.syr.edu...
:), but beside that
rogue
him/her/it?
Why not the opposite? Men started off in tribes for protection. Their
stories to explain the natural world around them that they didn't understand
became myths. Later, those myths became codified as religion, so that they
could make sense of the world around them.
It doesn't mean that god exists. It simply means that men created god to
explain the things they didn't understand otherwise.
--
"Erik Roelants" <erik...@pi.be> wrote in message
news:DgFF7.10714$7k4.64...@hestia.telenet-ops.be...
Jim Morrison
> Why do you believe that there is a god and that all life originated from
> him/her/it?
>
> Why not the opposite? Men started off in tribes for protection. Their
> stories to explain the natural world around them that they didn't understand
> became myths. Later, those myths became codified as religion, so that they
> could make sense of the world around them.
And what were they before they were men, apes? And what before that,
lemurs? And before that ad nauseam, a polyp attached to a rock on the
ocean floor? I don't think so, monkey boy.
> It doesn't mean that god exists. It simply means that men created god to
> explain the things they didn't understand otherwise.
>
Hmm, looks like another Jethro Tull fan.
Jim
Erik Roelants
there is a god.
"rogue" <rog...@earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
news:krLF7.17719$S4.16...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Erik Roelants
the earth, what would his motivations be
"Erik Roelants" <erik...@pi.be> schreef in bericht
news:LCVF7.90$yf7.31...@hestia.telenet-ops.be...
rogue
> "rogue" <rog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<krLF7.17719$S4.16...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> > Why do you believe that there is a god and that all life originated from
> > him/her/it?
> >
> > Why not the opposite? Men started off in tribes for protection. Their
> > stories to explain the natural world around them that they didn't understand
> > became myths. Later, those myths became codified as religion, so that they
> > could make sense of the world around them.
>Morrison (not THE Morrison cause he's buried in Paris)
> And what were they before they were men, apes?
JERRY
No, they were an earlier form of man.
The Lizard Kling then wrote:
And what before that, lemurs? And before that ad nauseam, a polyp
attached to a rock on the ocean floor? I don't think so, monkey boy.
JERRY
I keep trying to point this out to brainless fundies. What you
*think* is not relevent to the discussion. (It's still unproven
whether or not fundies CAN think!) Only what you can back up.
Evolution is a proven fact. No, before that earlier version of man
was another earlier version, and before that another, all the way back
to a common ancestor between apes and humans. Humans went one way in
the evolutionary tree and apes another. (Dealing with fundies, I
sometimes think that apes got the better deal. They don't have
brainless religous fundies pushing pictures of fetuses in their faces
or blow up clinics.)
> > JERRY
> > It doesn't mean that god exists. It simply means that men created god to
> > explain the things they didn't understand otherwise.
> >
> JIMBO the former CHIMPBO
> Hmm, looks like another Jethro Tull fan.
JERRY
As a matter of fact, I am. Also a major Doors fan, Fleetwood Mac fan
and a whole bunch of other music. But that's not important now. ;-)
Morgoth's Cat
<stevo...@iprimus.com.au> scribed:
>
>"rogue" <rog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:krLF7.17719$S4.16...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> Why do you believe that there is a god and that all life originated from
>> him/her/it?
>>
>> Why not the opposite? Men started off in tribes for protection. Their
>> stories to explain the natural world around them that they didn't
>understand
>> became myths. Later, those myths became codified as religion, so that
>they
>> could make sense of the world around them.
>>
>> It doesn't mean that god exists. It simply means that men created god to
>> explain the things they didn't understand otherwise.
>
>
>
>you seem to be trying very hard to push God away, arent you Jerry.
>>
Don't worry Steve - you seem to be the expert in that.
Best Regards,
Dave
--
**************************************************************
* Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young-Earth Creationism *
* http://www.valinor.freeserve.co.uk/supernova.html *
**************************************************************
rogue
news:3be7d0e1$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> STEVE
> you seem to be trying very hard to push God away, arent you Jerry.
JERRY
And still he doesn't get it.
Steve, I'm trying to push "god" away just as you are striving so hard to
push away the Easter Bunny. Let the Easter Bunny come into your heart and
be saved. Cast off your useless superstitions and embrace the Easter Bunny
and spend an eternity in the Meadowlands, gathering eggs, singing songs and
having mad bunny sex!
Aren't you convinced? Don't you get it at all, you simpering moron? I
don't "push god away" since there is nothing to push away. It's just more
senseless question begging on your part because you aren't smart enough to
understand logical reasoning, abstract thought or debate.
Jim Morrison
> "steve muscat" <stevo...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3be7d0e1$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> >
> > STEVE
> > you seem to be trying very hard to push God away, arent you Jerry.
>
> JERRY
> And still he doesn't get it.
>
> Steve, I'm trying to push "god" away just as you are striving so hard to
> push away the Easter Bunny. Let the Easter Bunny come into your heart and
> be saved. Cast off your useless superstitions and embrace the Easter Bunny
> and spend an eternity in the Meadowlands, gathering eggs, singing songs and
> having mad bunny sex!
>
Hey buttmunch, the easter bunny didn't suffer on the cross for your
worthless soul. The easter bunny didn't come back from the dead and
neither did Buddha, Mohammed nor Krishna. Jesus Christ *is* God and I
should know about such things. The easter bunny is nothing more than
a simple fairy tale for little children, like you. So grow up, ya
polyp turd.
Jim
Erik Roelants
asks a question, and they just start shouting: There is a god! No there
isn't! Yes, there is, etc...
The question i'm simply asking is, supposed there has been some sort of God,
what his motivations where...
Oh, and Buddha didn't have to come back, because he didn't found a religion,
Buddhism is just a way of Life, it doesn't say anything about a God.(and no,
i'm not a buddhist) Neither did Mohamed, because he wasn't said (and
certainly never claimed) to be the son of God (or God himself), he just
reminded people that there was a god (or he said that there was one).
Erik Roelants
--
Honores mutant mores, sed raro in meliores
Marks of honour change the way of someones life, but seldom for the better.
rogue
> > > you seem to be trying very hard to push God away, arent you Jerry.
> >
> > JERRY
> > And still he doesn't get it.
> >
> > Steve, I'm trying to push "god" away just as you are striving so hard to
> > push away the Easter Bunny. Let the Easter Bunny come into your heart and
> > be saved. Cast off your useless superstitions and embrace the Easter Bunny
> > and spend an eternity in the Meadowlands, gathering eggs, singing songs and
> > having mad bunny sex!
> >
> <snip>
> Hey buttmunch, the easter bunny didn't suffer on the cross for your
> worthless soul.
JERRY
Neither did your Jesus. Please show extrabiblical documentation that
shows that anyone named "jesus" was crucified.
There is none. The book is myth. There is no evidence that Jesus
even existed, much less performed miracles, was crucified or was
resurrected from the dead.
MORRISON further rants:
The easter bunny didn't come back from the dead and
> neither did Buddha, Mohammed nor Krishna.
JERRY
Neither did Jesus. Please see my comments above about the lack of
evidence to support that Jesus existed.
MORRISON the QUESTION BEGGAR posits:
Jesus Christ *is* God and I should know about such things.
JERRY
Please show evidence to support the existence of god or Jesus. Hint:
the bible cannot be used to provide evidence that the bible is
correct. That is circular reasoning.
You see, dipshit, you are starting from the assumption that the bible
is true. I don't accept that assumption, and in fact have shown
repeatedly in this newsgroup that the bible fails three critical tests
to be divine:
1. Consistency (sometimes called Harmony). The bible contains
numerous contradictions that cannot be harmonized within the text,
only rationalized by the reader.
2. History. The bible fails the test of history miserably. Either
there is no evidence to support the bible (I have statements and
articles from Egyptologists and biblical scholars and archaeologists
that attest to this) or the physical evidence on the ground completely
disproves the bible, such as the case of Noah's Flood or Joshua and
Jericho.
3. Prophecy. The bible is a mass of unfulfilled or false prophecies,
the most famous of which is the destruction of Tyre in Ezekiel chapter
27. Supposedly, the island city of Tyre (or Tyrus) was supposed to be
destroyed by King Nebs according to prophecy, but King Nebs failed to
take the city.
In fact, Ezekiel is FULL of false prophecies. We can debate those if
you like.
MORRISON
The easter bunny is nothing more than a simple fairy tale for little
children, like you.
JERRY
So is the bible, you just don't seem to be smart enough to realize it.
MORRISON
So grow up, ya polyp turd.
JERRY
Hey, I'm not the one praying to a non-existent god from a book of
mythology that is easily proven wrong.
hey...@shellyeah.org
> As a matter of fact, I am. Also a major Doors fan, Fleetwood Mac fan
> and a whole bunch of other music. But that's not important now. ;-)
Of course it is. Music is always more important than most of the other
stuff. :-) Leaving Jethro Tull and the Doors out of it for the moment (I
mean all right thinking people are fans) the real question is what kind of
Fleetwood Mac fan are you? This is the sort of question that splits
religions into denominations, after all. Please check all that apply:
[ ] Fleetwood Mac is Mick and John and anybody else playing with them.
[ ] Fleetwood Mac is Mick and John and Peter Green and whoever.
[ ] Fleetwood Mac is Mick and John and Christine and whoever.
[ ] Fleetwood Mac is really Buckingham Nicks with a new drummer, bass, and
keyboard player.
Answer carefully. Incorrect answers may result in a visit from
inquisitors from the Congregation of the Faithful. :-)
--
H. Brent Howatt |The deluded are always filled with absolutes
hey...@shellyeah.org |The rest of us have to live with ambiguity
PGP key by email or keyserver | _Aristoi_ Walter Jon Williams
=============================================================================
Jim Morrison
<snip>
> > > having mad bunny sex!
> > >
> > <snip>
> > SHITBIRD Morrison exclaims
> > Hey buttmunch, the easter bunny didn't suffer on the cross for your
> > worthless soul.
>
> Neither did your Jesus. Please show extrabiblical documentation that
> shows that anyone named "jesus" was crucified.
>
> There is none. The book is myth. There is no evidence that Jesus
> even existed, much less performed miracles, was crucified or was
> resurrected from the dead.
Surely you're not trying to deny the historical evidence?![1] Under
the rule of Pontius Pilate, a man was crucified in Jerusalem for being
a religious fanatic. Now a little about this man. "A man who was
merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a
great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with
a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell.
You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God,
or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool
or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not
come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human
teacher. He has not left that open to us.[2]"
> MORRISON further rants:
> The easter bunny didn't come back from the dead and
> > neither did Buddha, Mohammed nor Krishna.
>
> POLYP TURD JERRY
> Neither did Jesus. Please see my comments above about the lack of
> evidence to support that Jesus existed.
ibid, ye polyp turd.
> MORRISON the QUESTION BEGGAR posits:
> Jesus Christ *is* God and I should know about such things.
>
> POLYP TURD JERRY
> Please show evidence to support the existence of god or Jesus. Hint:
> the bible cannot be used to provide evidence that the bible is
> correct. That is circular reasoning.
The historical evidence provided proves that Jesus lived on this
Earth. Whether He is God or not is a matter of faith. Perhaps you
could prove that He is not God without ignoring the evidence or
engaging in circular reasoning, where the conclusion is set forth in
the premise.
> You see, dipshit, <snip lame flame>
<snip, polyp turd jerry preaches mindless drivel>
> MORRISON
> The easter bunny is nothing more than a simple fairy tale for little
> children, like you.
>
> POLYP TURD JERRY
> So is the bible, you just don't seem to be smart enough to realize it.
Oh ye of little faith. Perhaps you will never understand that one
does not have to be smart to be correct. And intelligence can be an
obstacle to understanding things that are not seen, i.e., eternal
truths. Here, the paradoxical passion of the Reason comes repeatedly
into collision with the Unknown, which does indeed exist, but is
unknown, and insofar does not exist.[3] Rationalist always desire
proofs in an attempt to evade the claim of revelation.
> MORRISON
> So grow up, ya polyp turd.
>
> POLYP TURD JERRY
> Hey, I'm not the one praying to a non-existent god from a book of
> mythology that is easily proven wrong.
And I'm not the one arguing with a dead rockstar. You can go on
believing in the easter bunny if you must. I choose to put my eggs in
another basket. Anyway, even if you do decide to grow up one day, you
will still be a turd.
Jim
1. http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html
2. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
3. Søren Kierkegaard, God's Existence Can Not Be Proved
--
Break on through to the other side yeah!
rogue
> rogue <rogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> JERRY
> > As a matter of fact, I am. Also a major Doors fan, Fleetwood Mac fan
> > and a whole bunch of other music. But that's not important now. ;-)
>
> Of course it is. Music is always more important than most of the other
> stuff. :-) Leaving Jethro Tull and the Doors out of it for the moment (I
> mean all right thinking people are fans) the real question is what kind of
> Fleetwood Mac fan are you? This is the sort of question that splits
> religions into denominations, after all. Please check all that apply:
>
> [ ] Fleetwood Mac is Mick and John and anybody else playing with them.
> [ ] Fleetwood Mac is Mick and John and Peter Green and whoever.
> [ ] Fleetwood Mac is Mick and John and Christine and whoever.
> [ ] Fleetwood Mac is really Buckingham Nicks with a new drummer, bass, and
> keyboard player.
Let's try this one:
[x] Fleetwood Mac is Buckingham Nicks with the McVies and Mick
writing and performing as well as Lindsey and Stevie. ;-)
I never liked the band with Peter Green. Thought their music was a
bit too esoteric for my taste. I enjoy the songwriting, especially
Lindsey and Christine, who I think are the two biggest musical talents
in the band. Mick is a great drummer and John is a wonderful bassist,
but it's the songwriting that carry the band. Lindsey and Christine
do the bulk of that, with augmentation by Stevie and whomever she gets
to write the music for her lyrics.
rogue
> rogu...@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message news:<6e14bcdc.01110...@posting.google.com>...
> <snip>
> > > > having mad bunny sex!
> > > >
> > > <snip>
> > > SHITBIRD Morrison exclaims
> > > Hey buttmunch, the easter bunny didn't suffer on the cross for your
> > > worthless soul.
> >
> > POLYP TURD JERRY
> > Neither did your Jesus. Please show extrabiblical documentation that
> > shows that anyone named "jesus" was crucified.
> >
> > There is none. The book is myth. There is no evidence that Jesus
> > even existed, much less performed miracles, was crucified or was
> > resurrected from the dead.
>
> Surely you're not trying to deny the historical evidence?![1]
JERRY
Except that the page you show is not correct. You see, the earliest
copies we have of this by Tacitus show the name not of christus but
"chrestus" a common Greek name meaning "good."
I've already debated and debunked this particular page for two others.
You can look it up in the archives if you wish.
MORRISON
Under
> the rule of Pontius Pilate, a man was crucified in Jerusalem for being
> a religious fanatic. Now a little about this man. "A man who was
> merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a
> great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with
> a man who says he is a poached egg - or he would be the devil of hell.
> You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God,
> or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool
> or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not
> come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human
> teacher. He has not left that open to us.[2]"
JERRY
Hearsay. You quote C.S. Lewis, a poet and writer from the last
century who didn't know Jesus personally, so he was just offering his
opinion based upon his own question begging.
>
> > MORRISON further rants:
> > The easter bunny didn't come back from the dead and
> > > neither did Buddha, Mohammed nor Krishna.
> >
> > POLYP TURD JERRY
> > Neither did Jesus. Please see my comments above about the lack of
> > evidence to support that Jesus existed.
>MORRISOn
> ibid, ye polyp turd.
JERRY
Back at ya, fuckwit.
>
> > MORRISON the QUESTION BEGGAR posits:
> > Jesus Christ *is* God and I should know about such things.
> >
> > POLYP TURD JERRY
> > Please show evidence to support the existence of god or Jesus. Hint:
> > the bible cannot be used to provide evidence that the bible is
> > correct. That is circular reasoning.
>MORRISON
> The historical evidence provided proves that Jesus lived on this
> Earth.
JERRY
Actually, it doesn't.
MORRISON
Whether He is God or not is a matter of faith. Perhaps you
> could prove that He is not God without ignoring the evidence or
> engaging in circular reasoning, where the conclusion is set forth in
> the premise.
JERRY
Except that you can't logically prove a negative, so the premise is
doomed before it begins. Perhaps you would like to advance the
affirmative, that Jesus IS the son of god and then attempt to defend
it? Of course, I can also challenge you to write the same premise
that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. Of course, every thing you do to
attempt to prove it could just as easily be turned to Jesus.
>
> > You see, dipshit, <snip lame flame>
> <snip, polyp turd jerry preaches mindless drivel>
JERRY
Let's take a look at that "mindless drivel," shall we?
JERRY
You see, dipshit, you are starting from the assumption that the bible
is true. I don't accept that assumption, and in fact have shown
repeatedly in this newsgroup that the bible fails three critical tests
to be divine:
1. Consistency (sometimes called Harmony). The bible contains
numerous contradictions that cannot be harmonized within the text,
only rationalized by the reader.
2. History. The bible fails the test of history miserably. Either
there is no evidence to support the bible (I have statements and
articles from Egyptologists and biblical scholars and archaeologists
that attest to this) or the physical evidence on the ground completely
disproves the bible, such as the case of Noah's Flood or Joshua and
Jericho.
3. Prophecy. The bible is a mass of unfulfilled or false prophecies,
the most famous of which is the destruction of Tyre in Ezekiel chapter
27. Supposedly, the island city of Tyre (or Tyrus) was supposed to be
destroyed by King Nebs according to prophecy, but King Nebs failed to
take the city.
In fact, Ezekiel is FULL of false prophecies. We can debate those if
you like.
JERRY
May I take it that this is your admission that you can't respond to
any of it?
>
> > MORRISON
> > The easter bunny is nothing more than a simple fairy tale for little
> > children, like you.
> >
> > POLYP TURD JERRY
> > So is the bible, you just don't seem to be smart enough to realize it.
>
> Oh ye of little faith. Perhaps you will never understand that one
> does not have to be smart to be correct.
JERRY
Especially debating fundies. ;-)
Morrison
And intelligence can be an
> obstacle to understanding things that are not seen, i.e., eternal
> truths.
JERRY
This is just another way of saying that if you don't already believe
you can't understand it. The problem is that I've been where you are
now, and did my homework, reading the bible (something I advise all
theists to actually do, not just have some dork in a pulpit interpret
it for you.
MORRISON
Here, the paradoxical passion of the Reason comes repeatedly
> into collision with the Unknown, which does indeed exist, but is
> unknown, and insofar does not exist.[3] Rationalist always desire
> proofs in an attempt to evade the claim of revelation.
JERRY
Except I'm not trying to evade anything. Been there, done that
crucified the T-shirt. As for Kierkegaard, we recently had someone in
here trying to debate philosophy. He didn't do too well, since his
argument was flawed from the beginning. But you can take your shot at
it if you wish.
>
hey...@shellyeah.org
OK, so you have clearly demonstrated that you do not believe in Jesus and
the Christian message. In what do you believe?
Jim Morrison
> Jim Morrison <mr_moj...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > "rogue" <rog...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<cx4G7.20376$S4.19...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >> "steve muscat" <stevo...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> >> news:3be7d0e1$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> >> >
> >> > STEVE
> >> > you seem to be trying very hard to push God away, arent you Jerry.
> >>
> >> JERRY
> >> And still he doesn't get it.
> >>
> >> Steve, I'm trying to push "god" away just as you are striving so hard to
> >> push away the Easter Bunny. Let the Easter Bunny come into your heart and
> >> be saved. Cast off your useless superstitions and embrace the Easter Bunny
> >> and spend an eternity in the Meadowlands, gathering eggs, singing songs and
> >> having mad bunny sex!
> >>
> > <snip>
>
> > Hey buttmunch, the easter bunny didn't suffer on the cross for your
> > worthless soul. The easter bunny didn't come back from the dead and
> > neither did Buddha, Mohammed nor Krishna. Jesus Christ *is* God and I
> > should know about such things. The easter bunny is nothing more than
> > a simple fairy tale for little children, like you. So grow up, ya
> > polyp turd.
> > Jim
>
> OK, so you have clearly demonstrated that you do not believe in Jesus and
> the Christian message. In what do you believe?
Hey, lighten up dude, I'm just having a little mad bunny fun. The
message is still intact, with a touch of spice. God has a sense of
humor ya know, or else he wouldn't have allowed Jerry to exist.
-Jim
Erik Roelants
"Jim Morrison" <mr_moj...@my-deja.com> schreef in bericht
news:6669c5ec.01110...@posting.google.com...
Alle gekheid op een stokje...
Still, doesn't someone knows what the motivations would be for God, if he
would exist, to create life.
rogue
JERRY
I'm sure he does. That's why he ordered the complete destruction of
the Amalekites for something that had been done to the Israelites 400
years before. He's such a crazy kidder, that god. ;-)
rogue
>
> > Hey buttmunch, the easter bunny didn't suffer on the cross for your
> > worthless soul. The easter bunny didn't come back from the dead and
> > neither did Buddha, Mohammed nor Krishna. Jesus Christ *is* God and I
> > should know about such things. The easter bunny is nothing more than
> > a simple fairy tale for little children, like you. So grow up, ya
> > polyp turd.
> > Jim
>
> OK, so you have clearly demonstrated that you do not believe in Jesus and
> the Christian message. In what do you believe?
JERRY
Don't worry about it. He can't help himself. He believes in an
invisible sky pixie that rules through fear. He is only responding to
what he knows. ;-)
steve muscat
"rogue" <rogu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e14bcdc.01110...@posting.google.com...
Do you have MPD Jerry? You now believe eh...........
rogue
> > > MORRISON
> > > Hey, lighten up dude, I'm just having a little mad bunny fun. The
> > > message is still intact, with a touch of spice. God has a sense of
> > > humor ya know, or else he wouldn't have allowed Jerry to exist.
> >
> > JERRY
> > I'm sure he does. That's why he ordered the complete destruction of
> > the Amalekites for something that had been done to the Israelites 400
> > years before. He's such a crazy kidder, that god. ;-)
>STEVIE
> Do you have MPD Jerry? You now believe eh...........
JERRY
MPD? Not familiar with that acronym, wonderboy. But no, I don't believe.
It's called "sarcasm" and it's a form of entertainment that you haven't
shown any real talent for yet. ;-)
hey...@shellyeah.org
> hey...@shellyeah.org wrote in message news:<8FfG7.13943$lV4.1...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com>...
>> rogue <rogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> JERRY
>> > As a matter of fact, I am. Also a major Doors fan, Fleetwood Mac fan
>> > and a whole bunch of other music. But that's not important now. ;-)
>>
>> Of course it is. Music is always more important than most of the other
>> stuff. :-) Leaving Jethro Tull and the Doors out of it for the moment (I
>> mean all right thinking people are fans) the real question is what kind of
>> Fleetwood Mac fan are you? This is the sort of question that splits
>> religions into denominations, after all. Please check all that apply:
>>
>> [ ] Fleetwood Mac is Mick and John and anybody else playing with them.
>> [ ] Fleetwood Mac is Mick and John and Peter Green and whoever.
>> [ ] Fleetwood Mac is Mick and John and Christine and whoever.
>> [ ] Fleetwood Mac is really Buckingham Nicks with a new drummer, bass, and
>> keyboard player.
> Let's try this one:
> [x] Fleetwood Mac is Buckingham Nicks with the McVies and Mick
> writing and performing as well as Lindsey and Stevie. ;-)
I can live with that, but my preference is the first above. :-)
> I never liked the band with Peter Green. Thought their music was a
> bit too esoteric for my taste.
I did like them then. In fact, "Then Play On" is still the Fleetwood Mac
album I play the most (Thank God for CD rereleases.)
> I enjoy the songwriting, especially
> Lindsey and Christine, who I think are the two biggest musical talents
> in the band. Mick is a great drummer and John is a wonderful bassist,
> but it's the songwriting that carry the band. Lindsey and Christine
> do the bulk of that, with augmentation by Stevie and whomever she gets
> to write the music for her lyrics.
I have a solo album by Christine that I like a lot. I do agree that this
lineup is absolutely wonderful. In a sense there were two totally
different bands, except for the common thread of Mick and John (and
belatedly Christine) running through.
Jim Morrison
> rogue <rogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > hey...@shellyeah.org wrote in message news:<8FfG7.13943$lV4.1...@e420r-atl1.usenetserver.com>...
> >> rogue <rogu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> JERRY
> >> > As a matter of fact, I am. Also a major Doors fan, Fleetwood Mac fan
> >> > and a whole bunch of other music. But that's not important now. ;-)
> >>
> >> Of course it is. Music is always more important than most of the other
> >> stuff. :-) Leaving Jethro Tull and the Doors out of it for the moment (I
> >> mean all right thinking people are fans) the real question is what kind of
> >> Fleetwood Mac fan are you? This is the sort of question that splits
> >> religions into denominations, after all. Please check all that apply:
> >>
> > I never liked the band with Peter Green. Thought their music was a
> > bit too esoteric for my taste.
Oh Well,
Now when I talked to God I knew he'd understand
He said stick by me, I'll be your guidin' hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to.
> I did like them then. In fact, "Then Play On" is still the Fleetwood Mac
> album I play the most (Thank God for CD rereleases.)
Me too, but I'm wondering why I can't reply to many of the posts on
this thread. Hmm, must be controlled by the polyp turd brigade.
Abiogenesis, Bah! Equating evolution to quantum mechanics, Bwahaha!
<snip>
-Jim
--
Break on through to the other side yeah.
Jim Morrison
> mr_moj...@my-deja.com (Jim Morrison) wrote in message news:<6669c5ec.01110...@posting.google.com>...
> > rogu...@hotmail.com (rogue) wrote in message news:<6e14bcdc.01110...@posting.google.com>...
> > <snip>
> > > > > having mad bunny sex!
> > > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > > SHITBIRD Morrison exclaims
> > > > Hey buttmunch, the easter bunny didn't suffer on the cross for your
> > > > worthless soul.
> > >
> > > POLYP TURD JERRY
> > > Neither did your Jesus. Please show extrabiblical documentation that
> > > shows that anyone named "jesus" was crucified.
> > >
> > > There is none. The book is myth. There is no evidence that Jesus
> > > even existed, much less performed miracles, was crucified or was
> > > resurrected from the dead.
> >
> > Surely you're not trying to deny the historical evidence?![1]
>
> JERRY
> Except that the page you show is not correct. You see, the earliest
> copies we have of this by Tacitus show the name not of christus but
> "chrestus" a common Greek name meaning "good."
It's Christus as Tacitus wrote,
"Consequently ... Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most
exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations. Called
Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its
origin, suffered the extreme
penalty during the reign of Tiberias at the hands of ... Pontius
Pilatus, and a deadly superstition, thus checked for a moment, again
broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but also in
the City."
Then there's the account from Josephus,
"Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man ... a doer of
wonderful works - a teacher .... He drew over to him both many of the
Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was 'Christ'; and when Pilate, at
the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to
the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, ... and
the tribe of 'Christians' so named after him, are not extinct at this
day."
> I've already debated and debunked this particular page for two others.
> You can look it up in the archives if you wish.
Cite?
<snip for brevity>
> 1. Consistency (sometimes called Harmony). The bible contains
> numerous contradictions that cannot be harmonized within the text,
> only rationalized by the reader.
A subjective assessment from skeptical observer.
> 2. History. The bible fails the test of history miserably. Either
> there is no evidence to support the bible (I have statements and
> articles from Egyptologists and biblical scholars and archaeologists
> that attest to this) or the physical evidence on the ground completely
> disproves the bible, such as the case of Noah's Flood or Joshua and
> Jericho.
Archaeologists are finding new evidence all the time that confirms the
Biblical accounts. A few recent finds that come to mind are the
"House of David" inscription, the tomb of Caiaphas, the location of
Sodom and Gomorrah, two intact Phoenician or Canaanite ships,
Goliath's hometown of Gath, Herod's palace, radar soundings revealing
significant regional flooding and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which matched
the Masoretic text (1,100 years later) word for word.
> 3. Prophecy. The bible is a mass of unfulfilled or false prophecies,
> the most famous of which is the destruction of Tyre in Ezekiel chapter
> 27. Supposedly, the island city of Tyre (or Tyrus) was supposed to be
> destroyed by King Nebs according to prophecy, but King Nebs failed to
> take the city.
>
> In fact, Ezekiel is FULL of false prophecies. We can debate those if
> you like.
This is easy, in Ezekiel 27-28, the King of Tyre is Satan and Tyre is
his domain. I hope this helps with your re-reading. Don't mess with
my buddy Ezek, he's the Watchman.
> JERRY
> May I take it that this is your admission that you can't respond to
> any of it?
Don't bet on it.
> > > MORRISON
> > > The easter bunny is nothing more than a simple fairy tale for little
> > > children, like you.
> > >
> > > POLYP TURD JERRY
> > > So is the bible, you just don't seem to be smart enough to realize it.
> >
> > Oh ye of little faith. Perhaps you will never understand that one
> > does not have to be smart to be correct.
>
> JERRY
> Especially debating fundies. ;-)
Dream on monkey boy. ;)
> Morrison
> And intelligence can be an
> > obstacle to understanding things that are not seen, i.e., eternal
> > truths.
>
> JERRY
> This is just another way of saying that if you don't already believe
> you can't understand it. The problem is that I've been where you are
> now, and did my homework, reading the bible (something I advise all
> theists to actually do, not just have some dork in a pulpit interpret
> it for you.
>
> MORRISON
> Here, the paradoxical passion of the Reason comes repeatedly
> > into collision with the Unknown, which does indeed exist, but is
> > unknown, and insofar does not exist.[3] Rationalist always desire
> > proofs in an attempt to evade the claim of revelation.
>
> JERRY
> Except I'm not trying to evade anything. Been there, done that
> crucified the T-shirt. As for Kierkegaard, we recently had someone in
> here trying to debate philosophy. He didn't do too well, since his
> argument was flawed from the beginning. But you can take your shot at
> it if you wish.
> >
Nah, the faith based argument is obviously too deep for your polyp
turd brain.
-Jim
rogue
> > > > > Hey buttmunch, the easter bunny didn't suffer on the cross for your
> > > > > worthless soul.
> > > >
> > > > POLYP TURD JERRY
> > > > Neither did your Jesus. Please show extrabiblical documentation that
> > > > shows that anyone named "jesus" was crucified.
> > > >
> > > > There is none. The book is myth. There is no evidence that Jesus
> > > > even existed, much less performed miracles, was crucified or was
> > > > resurrected from the dead.
> > >
> > > Surely you're not trying to deny the historical evidence?![1]
> >
> > JERRY
> > Except that the page you show is not correct. You see, the earliest
> > copies we have of this by Tacitus show the name not of christus but
> > "chrestus" a common Greek name meaning "good."
>SHITBIRD writes
> It's Christus as Tacitus wrote,
> "Consequently ... Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most
> exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations. Called
> Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its
> origin, suffered the extreme
> penalty during the reign of Tiberias at the hands of ... Pontius
> Pilatus, and a deadly superstition, thus checked for a moment, again
> broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but also in
> the City."
JERRY
Except that Tacitus Annals were written in 109 AD. He didn't see
Jesus personally, only carried the rumor afterwards.
(http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.html)
> SHITBIRD further rants
> Then there's the account from Josephus,
> "Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man ... a doer of
> wonderful works - a teacher .... He drew over to him both many of the
> Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was 'Christ'; and when Pilate, at
> the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to
> the cross, those that loved him at first did not forsake him, ... and
> the tribe of 'Christians' so named after him, are not extinct at this
> day."
JERRY
Josephus dates from around 100 AD as well, so he never could have met
or seen Jesus, only reported on the rise of the new cult. And, the
quote from Josephus about Jesus being the christ has already been
debunked as something added by someone else, most likely Eusebius.
When I say "contemporary," I mean someone who was actually there, on
the ground, at the same time as Jesus that can vouch for him, or some
record, such as Pilate's, that he actually ordered the crucifixion of
Jesus of Nazareth.
Philo was there and never mentioned Jesus. He was a contemporary of
Jesus and was even in Jerusalem supposedly at the same time as Jesus
would have been, and Philo was actively seeking the Messiah. Somehow,
he never heard of Jesus, never heard of the miracles, never saw the
three hours of darkness.
Leads one to think that perhaps Jesus is more myth than man, dontcha
think?
>> JERRY
> > I've already debated and debunked this particular page for two others.
> > You can look it up in the archives if you wish.
>MORRISON
> Cite?
> <snip for brevity>
JERRY
What? The cite for my rebuttal? Not necessary, since both Tacitus
and Josephus are too late to be contemporaries of Jesus.
>>JERRY
> > 1. Consistency (sometimes called Harmony). The bible contains
> > numerous contradictions that cannot be harmonized within the text,
> > only rationalized by the reader.
>MORRISON
> A subjective assessment from skeptical observer.
JERRY
Not at all. Words mean things. If you read the words and you find
that the words show a contradiction, then it's not subjective at all.
Something cannot simultaneously be x and not x. If the bible in one
book says so-and-so died this way, and in another chapter of another
book says that so-and-so died a different way, that's a contradiction.
>>JERRY
> > 2. History. The bible fails the test of history miserably. Either
> > there is no evidence to support the bible (I have statements and
> > articles from Egyptologists and biblical scholars and archaeologists
> > that attest to this) or the physical evidence on the ground completely
> > disproves the bible, such as the case of Noah's Flood or Joshua and
> > Jericho.
>MORRISON
> Archaeologists are finding new evidence all the time that confirms the
> Biblical accounts. A few recent finds that come to mind are the
> "House of David" inscription, the tomb of Caiaphas, the location of
> Sodom and Gomorrah, two intact Phoenician or Canaanite ships,
> Goliath's hometown of Gath, Herod's palace, radar soundings revealing
> significant regional flooding and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which matched
> the Masoretic text (1,100 years later) word for word.
JERRY
As I've pointed out numerous times in this and other forums, the fact
that some places actually existed and some people named, such as
famous people, actually existed, does not mean that the primary
storyline, Jesus life, death and resurrection, is factual.
For example, both Stephen King and Anne Rice use real locations in
their stories. They both are known to include some people who
actually lived. Does that mean that there are vampires in Salem's
Lot? That Louis, Claudia et al are walking the streets of New
Orleans?
From the peer-reviewed and pro-bible Biblical Archaeology Review:
First posted in alt.bible.errancy:
>LAWYERKILL WRITES:
>
>(copied from a post I did about a year ago, even William Dever
refutes you)
>
>There was an article in Biblical Archaeology Review, August 1997,
"Biblical
>Minimalists, Face to Face, Meet their Challengers." There were 4 of
the worlds
>better scholars debating using the bible as a historical source of
information.
>Niels Lemche, Thomas Thompson, William Dever(archaeologist, been
called a
>fundamentalist). McCarter (who said nothing on these issues).
>
>I quote:
>
>Thompson: We find a great deal in the bible, it's just that we don't
find the
>Bible to be a historical record.
>
>End quote.
>
>Now talking of the time around Exodus, and remember Dever has been
labeled a
>fundamentalist.
>
>I quote:
>
>Lemche: What this means is that he was not really writing history. He
was
>making it up. He didn't know the genre of history writing. Antiquity
simply did
>not know that genre. That's a modern genre. That means there are
traditions;
>the tradents[creators and carriers of a tradition] were creating
mythologies.
>It has nothing to do with history.
>
>DEVER: I agree. But Exodus and the conquest [of the promised land]
are a bad
>case. I agree with you that [the book] Joshua has little to do with
any
>historical events. If you guys think I -or the Israeli archaeologists
- am
>looking for the Israelite conquest archaeologically, you're wrong.
We're given
>up. We're giving up the patriarchs. That's a dead issue. But the rise
of the
>Israelite State is not a dead issue, that's a better test case. I
agree on the
>late editing of the documents. I agree that there is no connected
history in
>Joshua, but maybe we should look at the Book of Judges. That fits a
lot better
>with the facts on the ground as we know them.
>
>LEMCHE: No. One thing is missing in Judges-the Egyptians.
>
>END QUOTE
>
>. Now Biblical Archaeology Review (April 2000 pages 24-25) wrote
about the
>conference in Oct 1999 at Northwestern University, " The Origins of
the Jewish
>People and Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Now some of the people
that was
>there were, Peter Machinist of Harvard University, he holds the third
oldest
>academic chair in the US. Baruch Levine, of New York University, who
wrote
>distinguished commentaries on Leviticus and Numbers, Marc Brettler
who wrote
>"The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, William Dever(Diehard
Fundie
>Archaeologist), and many others. In other words the heavy weights in
Biblical
>Archaeology. Let me quote what Philip Davies wrote;
>
>"The Conference was structured to address a "crisis" in the study of
history as
>described in the Bible; "crisis was the word used in the title of the
principal
>address delivered by Machinist: "The Crisis of History in the Study
of Jewish
>Origins."... "Not a single speaker at the conference defended the
historicity
>of the patriarchal in Genesis."
>
>
>Now April 2000 issue is devoted to the search for history in the
bible. Let me
>quote from the editor:
>
>Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark may have been beyond the reach of
historical
>inquiry, but everthing else in the bible was thought by scholars to
accord well
>with what was known about the ancient Near East, in general if not in
detail.
>That view no longer holds, and debate now rages over whether the
tenth-century
>kings David and Solomon-never mind Abraham and Moses-were rel or
merely
>glorious mythic figures." "The Search for History in the Bible"
Hershel Shanks,
>Biblical Archaeology Review April 2000.
>
>
>
>Professor G. E. Wright wrote that most of the sacrificial rituals in
the book
>of Leviticus were borrowed from Canaanite texts, particularly from
Ras Shamra(
>Biblical Archaeology 1962 p.117). William F. Albright wrote, "It must
be
>emphasized that there are many important parallels between Canaanite
and
>Israelite temple-service and sacrificial ritual."(Biblical
Archaeology 1957 p
>115)
>
>The Anchor Bible Dictionary(vol 4 p 769, article: Mesopotamia,
History of
>Babylonia) says that the similarities between the ten commandments
and the Code
>of Hammurabi, "Cannot be explained away...there is a clear connection
here."
>> JERRY
> > 3. Prophecy. The bible is a mass of unfulfilled or false prophecies,
> > the most famous of which is the destruction of Tyre in Ezekiel chapter
> > 27. Supposedly, the island city of Tyre (or Tyrus) was supposed to be
> > destroyed by King Nebs according to prophecy, but King Nebs failed to
> > take the city.
> >
> > In fact, Ezekiel is FULL of false prophecies. We can debate those if
> > you like.
> > MORRISON
> This is easy, in Ezekiel 27-28, the King of Tyre is Satan and Tyre is
> his domain. I hope this helps with your re-reading. Don't mess with
> my buddy Ezek, he's the Watchman.
JERRY
Ah, humor, an interesting concept. ;-)
>
> > JERRY
> > May I take it that this is your admission that you can't respond to
> > any of it?
>MORRISON
> Don't bet on it.
JERRY
I hope you can, as I thrive on the debate, and I don't make any claims
that I can't back up authoritatively. You can browse the archives and
check on the attempts by others to debate these topics here.
>
> > > > MORRISON
> > > > The easter bunny is nothing more than a simple fairy tale for little
> > > > children, like you.
> > > >
> > > > POLYP TURD JERRY
> > > > So is the bible, you just don't seem to be smart enough to realize it.
> > >
> > > Oh ye of little faith. Perhaps you will never understand that one
> > > does not have to be smart to be correct.
> >
> > JERRY
> > Especially debating fundies. ;-)
>MORRISON
> Dream on monkey boy. ;)
JERRY
Now *there's* an intelligent response! Try again. ;-)
>
> > Morrison
> > And intelligence can be an
> > > obstacle to understanding things that are not seen, i.e., eternal
> > > truths.
> >
> > JERRY
> > This is just another way of saying that if you don't already believe
> > you can't understand it. The problem is that I've been where you are
> > now, and did my homework, reading the bible (something I advise all
> > theists to actually do, not just have some dork in a pulpit interpret
> > it for you.
> >
> > MORRISON
> > Here, the paradoxical passion of the Reason comes repeatedly
> > > into collision with the Unknown, which does indeed exist, but is
> > > unknown, and insofar does not exist.[3] Rationalist always desire
> > > proofs in an attempt to evade the claim of revelation.
> >
> > JERRY
> > Except I'm not trying to evade anything. Been there, done that
> > crucified the T-shirt. As for Kierkegaard, we recently had someone in
> > here trying to debate philosophy. He didn't do too well, since his
> > argument was flawed from the beginning. But you can take your shot at
> > it if you wish.
> > >
> MORRISON
> Nah, the faith based argument is obviously too deep for your polyp
> turd brain.
JERRY
I've heard it from deists, from Buddhists, from Muslims and fundy
christians and it's all the same: I have the only true path.
Try again.
Anon
Ralf
"Erik Roelants" <erik...@pi.be> wrote in message
news:y1DF7.5413$pg3.61...@hebe.telenet-ops.be...
> Just a little question:
>
> Why did God create the Earth?