Give God your all (live true faith)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Give God your all (live true faith):

As the world dives deeper and deeper into self-absorption, seek your
path from the strength and security of the living God. Learn of Him and
His ways, and why they are that way. It's not by accident. God has a
real plan that is coming to fruition. Be part of the victory by
placing your faith in Jesus Christ, and then into motion.

Give God your all. Turn your faith into action. Speak the words
of life (His words), and watch God grow in those around you, for
Jesus is life (the very wellspring of it).

-----
A teaching by Pastor Darrell Myatt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzZmxD5o4yI

-----
Listen to these lyrics, performed by Lauren Daigle:

"Here's My Heart, Lord"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFw42tZVDKI

"Once And For All"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oaRYLEIeis

-----
The victory of the cross: "It is done. I am the Alpha and Omega,"
says the Lord God, "The Beginning and the End."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjrivXWczGU

Jesus loves you. He wants to forgive your sin and give you eternal
life. Receive His free gift and enter into a new phase of your life,
one you never thought possible. God makes it possible for you.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[JiiPee]

I am actually a christian myself, but I dont think its a good idea to
post these messages in technical forums like this.
Maybe a general chat forum? i post these sometimes even in Finnish
evolution forum (as people there seems to be fine with it) ... but I
dont think people are here fine with this ... you know what I mean? :)

[JiiPee]

cannot say am 100% sure of this, but thats why I do not send these
messsages here. If I was fine with it I would do it here myself as
well... :)

[Rick C. Hodgin]

JiiPee wrote:
> but I dont think people are here fine with this ... you know
> what I mean? :)

Will the people in this forum be in general chat forums? Or evolution
forums? Did Jesus die to only save those people who somehow find
their way to a church service or religion-only forum? When Jesus
was on the Earth, did He stick to synagogues and religious festivals?
Or did He speak to five-time divorcées who were shamefully out
getting water in the middle of the day? And did He speak to the
people in fields and on hills? Did He approach lepers? And heal them?

When I look up to that cross, I see His blood stained body,
wrongly beaten and put to shame so that I will not have to be
judged for my sin. I look around to the people of this Earth,
realizing that we are all sinners, we are all in need of forgiveness,
of salvation, and I consider that Christ's death was sufficient not
just for my sin, but for everybody's sin world-wide, and I remember
the deception I was under before I became a believer, and the Lord's
commission to go and teach. When I consider these things, I cannot
hide His love offer of total forgiveness and eternal life just to
certain forums, or just to those places the unsaved would say
are appropriate. Of course Satan wants Jesus silenced wherever
possible. Jesus really saves people. Really restores. Really redeems.
That means defeat for him, hence the call for segregation.

It should be Christ, our Lord, guiding our life, not Satan.

Where I go in my life I bear within me knowledge of the living
God. That knowledge is alive and active and cannot be silenced
or compartmentalized. It is fully replete, and occupies the sum
total of my being continuously, then naturally outpouring into all
things I do.

-----
Jesus is life. And I care too much about the people around me to
not at least give them the opportunity to hear from my mouth the
way to forgiveness and eternal life.

Remember that this message is only for those who will be saved.
Not one drop of blood, nor one teaching of God is given to those
who won't be saved. They are already condemned, and will not
share in eternal life, but only eternal torment.

Teach those around you wherever you are so they will have the
chance to hear and believe, for it is pleasing to God to teach others
in this way. Some will hear, and it is for those few we labor.

Remember His love, and walk...

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 2 June 2016 12:41:15 UTC+3, JiiPee wrote:
> cannot say am 100% sure of this, but thats why I do not send these
> messsages here. If I was fine with it I would do it here myself as
> well... :)

From receiver's viewpoint it irrelevant if the author of quoted (by you)
off-topic spam is Rick or you. such messages fully and then replying
to those repeatedly is equivalent to sending those.

What is obvious to me is that God (if He exists) is extremely modest.
So modest that He is impossible to detect. Various annoying people
claiming knowledge and telling things about God in wrong places
have apparently nothing to do with neither Him nor His wishes.

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:11:03 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> JiiPee wrote:
> > but I dont think people are here fine with this ... you know
> > what I mean? :)
>
> Will the people in this forum be in general chat forums? Or

> evolution forums? Jesus die to only save those people who

> somehow find their way to a church service or religion-only
> forum?

If to read Bible then it writes that Jesus did die because in Judaea
the local political authorities (elders), lawyers (scribes) and
religious authorities (priests) did demand his crucifixion from
prefect Pontius Pilate (who found Jesus innocent of charges himself).

Aren't you, Rick, wannabe of one of those types? Wannabe of priest,
wannabe of religious authority? Yes, Jesus did die because of people
like that and not because of nonsense about hellfire, sins, salvation
and other gibberish that such priesty types usually talk about.

[JiiPee]

On 02/06/2016 12:10, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> JiiPee wrote:
>> but I dont think people are here fine with this ... you know
>> what I mean? :)
> Will the people in this forum be in general chat forums? Or evolution
> forums? Did Jesus die to only save those people who somehow find
> their way to a church service or religion-only forum? When Jesus
> was on the Earth, did He stick to synagogues and religious festivals?
> Or did He speak to five-time divorcées who were shamefully out
> getting water in the middle of the day? And did He speak to the
> people in fields and on hills? Did He approach lepers? And heal them?
>

yes he did. But I do not think he went to a school class and in the
middle of the class stood up and started preaching :). At least there
are no records of this. So there is a place and time for doing it and
sometimes not. You can see that he is doing it in public areas, like on
the streets, which is totally legal etc.

[JiiPee]

On 02/06/2016 13:22, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 12:41:15 UTC+3, JiiPee wrote:
>> cannot say am 100% sure of this, but thats why I do not send these
>> messsages here. If I was fine with it I would do it here myself as
>> well... :)
> From receiver's viewpoint it irrelevant if the author of quoted (by you)
> off-topic spam is Rick or you. such messages fully and then replying
> to those repeatedly is equivalent to sending those.
>

but answering inside the main topic does not really affect anything. You
did not need to look at the answers he got! Why did not read my
message?? You did not have to ... and it was under his message so you
dont even see it. :)

[JiiPee]

At least on my thunderbird I only see the beginning/first message and
not the replies to it. I have to open the first message purposely to see
its replies

[David Brown]

On 02/06/16 11:41, JiiPee wrote:
> cannot say am 100% sure of this, but thats why I do not send these
> messsages here. If I was fine with it I would do it here myself as
> well... :)
>
>
> On 02/06/2016 10:39, JiiPee wrote:
>> I am actually a christian myself, but I dont think its a good idea to
>> post these messages in technical forums like this.
>> Maybe a general chat forum? i post these sometimes even in Finnish
>> evolution forum (as people there seems to be fine with it) ... but I
>> dont think people are here fine with this ... you know what I mean? :)
>>

Rick is beyond saving. Don't copy his behaviour.

The general attitude in technical forums is that religious posts are not
particularly welcome. In many forums, there is some tolerance for the
/occasional/ off-topic thread, whether it be about religion, science,
history, or whatever. There are some people who disapprove of all such
posts, but a fair amount who think it is okay within a clearly labelled
thread.

But while an occasional discussion /about/ religion is not bad,
evangelising is /always/ bad. Rick (when posting religious stuff - his
technical posts and discussions are absolutely fine) never answers any
questions, and takes no heed of anything other people write - he just
rambles, posts links that no one ever views, and gives quotations from
the Bible as though they were argument enough in themselves. His
position is basically that he (and apparently, since he disagrees with
other Christians, he alone) knows the truth and the facts - therefore it
is neither religion nor a matter of belief, and there is no need to
apply any thought or rationality, or consider any evidence or
counter-evidence. The Bible is "true" because it says so in the Bible,
and that must be correct since the Bible is "true".

If you are interested in Rick-style posting, then please do it
elsewhere. This is particularly the case if you really believe that you
have a duty to help others join your particular flavour of religion -
Rick does a fine job of ensuring that no one else would ever want to be
like him or believe the stuff he does.

But if there is already an active thread about religion, then you might
as well post there, within limits - you won't annoy anyone who isn't
already annoyed, and if you are able to express your beliefs and
opinions rationally, it might be interesting. It can't be worse than
than the repetitive posts with Bible quotes, complaints about swearing,
more swearing to annoy the complainers, idiotic claims that "evolution
disproves the Bible", and equally idiotic claims that there is
archaeological evidence that proves it.

[JiiPee]

On 02/06/2016 13:52, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 June 2016 14:11:03 UTC+3, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> JiiPee wrote:
>>> but I dont think people are here fine with this ... you know
>>> what I mean? :)
>> Will the people in this forum be in general chat forums? Or
>> evolution forums? Jesus die to only save those people who
>> somehow find their way to a church service or religion-only
>> forum?
> If to read Bible then it writes that Jesus did die because in Judaea
> the local political authorities (elders), lawyers (scribes) and
> religious authorities (priests) did demand his crucifixion from
> prefect Pontius Pilate (who found Jesus innocent of charges himself).
>
> Aren't you, Rick, wannabe of one of those types? Wannabe of priest,
> wannabe of religious authority?

I have no reason to doubt his sincerity.... just was saying that
preaching has a wrong place. Like in the middle of a maths class.

[JiiPee]

On 02/06/2016 13:59, David Brown wrote:
> On 02/06/16 11:41, JiiPee wrote:
>> cannot say am 100% sure of this, but thats why I do not send these
>> messsages here. If I was fine with it I would do it here myself as
>> well... :)
>>
>>
>> On 02/06/2016 10:39, JiiPee wrote:
>>> I am actually a christian myself, but I dont think its a good idea to
>>> post these messages in technical forums like this.
>>> Maybe a general chat forum? i post these sometimes even in Finnish
>>> evolution forum (as people there seems to be fine with it) ... but I
>>> dont think people are here fine with this ... you know what I mean? :)
>>>
> Rick is beyond saving. Don't copy his behaviour.

am not saying anything about his faith-sincerity.. .just about this issue.

>
> The general attitude in technical forums is that religious posts are not
> particularly welcome.

I agree

> In many forums, there is some tolerance for the
> /occasional/ off-topic thread, whether it be about religion, science,
> history, or whatever.

like in Finnish evolution forum... they seem to all accept offtopic
issues, its more like friends chatting all kind of things...although
even there I prefer to FOCUS on evolution, but i dont mind here and
there other topics, i think its actuallly good there.

But ye, this is about programming, not really suitable here.

> There are some people who disapprove of all such
> posts, but a fair amount who think it is okay within a clearly labelled
> thread.

I actgually think nothing else here than programming :). and I believe :).
But one can put religious stuff inside their singature, isnt it? Thats
ok becouse its optional to read.

> But while an occasional discussion /about/ religion is not bad,
> evangelising is /always/ bad.

well here i disagree. In public area everybody has a right to say their
opinion of anything... its just freedom of speech, isnt it? I let
muslims/atheists talk... so let me also talk about christianity.

> Rick (when posting religious stuff - his
> technical posts and discussions are absolutely fine) never answers any
> questions, and takes no heed of anything other people write - he just
> rambles, posts links that no one ever views, and gives quotations from
> the Bible as though they were argument enough in themselves.

yes agree that is he starts something should at least answer and be
involved.

> His
> position is basically that he (and apparently, since he disagrees with
> other Christians, he alone) knows the truth and the facts - therefore it
> is neither religion nor a matter of belief, and there is no need to
> apply any thought or rationality, or consider any evidence or
> counter-evidence. The Bible is "true" because it says so in the Bible,
> and that must be correct since the Bible is "true".

again, I have not met him... so its difficult to say who he really is
only by reading text on my screen. its so much different when you meet
in person...

>
> If you are interested in Rick-style posting, then please do it
> elsewhere. This is particularly the case if you really believe that you
> have a duty to help others join your particular flavour of religion -
> Rick does a fine job of ensuring that no one else would ever want to be
> like him or believe the stuff he does.

:). heh. Well, thats one reason I adviced him not to do it... becouse I
have a feeling it has just almost totally negative effect .

>
> But if there is already an active thread about religion, then you might
> as well post there, within limits - you won't annoy anyone who isn't
> already annoyed, and if you are able to express your beliefs and
> opinions rationally, it might be interesting.

ye , true its better than totally nonsenses posts.
Its one of those things: If I have found something very very good and
interesteing (lets imagine I found a place where you can dig a lot of
Gold),,,, then is the programming forum right place to say it? :)
Like this: "Get Gold for free - I show you how!!!" <- lets imagine that
was really true, would you post it (or would it be ok to post) on forums?




>

[JiiPee]

On 02/06/2016 14:11, JiiPee wrote:
>
>> There are some people who disapprove of all such
>> posts, but a fair amount who think it is okay within a clearly labelled
>> thread.
>
> I actgually think nothing else here than programming :). and I believe
> :).
> But one can put religious stuff inside their singature, isnt it? Thats
> ok becouse its optional to read.

I am a christian, but when I work and I come here.... I am not at that
moment looking for Bible scriptures or sermons... I am looking for
solutions to my work issues (like how to use c++-threads). So it wastes
my time if there are religious posts all over the place. I can look for
those topics after the work, but there is no order if they are mixed in
work-type of issues.

Time and place for everything....

[Öö Tiib]

I have no doubt in his sincerity. I believe that the priests who
demanded death of Jesus from Pontius Pilate were not insincere or
evil people. They were good priests in their own mind. They found
teachings of Jesus about God wrong, dangerous to society and his
popularity very regrettable. They did the right thing in their own
mind. They were blind that Jesus is good man but blindness is not
sin, blindness is defect. Rick is also good and sincere ... just sort
of deaf and blind towards other people like those priests of Judaea.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

JiiPee wrote:
> yes he did. But I do not think he went to a school class and
> in the middle of the class stood up and started preaching :).

What do these verses mean?

http://biblehub.com/kjv/colossians/3-17.htm
"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do
all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving
thanks to God and the Father by him."

http://biblehub.com/kjv/1_peter/4-11.htm
"If any man speak, let him speak as the
oracles of God; if any man minister, let him
do it as of the ability which God giveth: that
God in all things may be glorified through
Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion
for ever and ever. Amen."

http://biblehub.com/kjv/2_corinthians/10-5.htm
"Casting down imaginations, and every high
thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge
of God, and bringing into captivity every
thought to the obedience of Christ;"

http://biblehub.com/kjv/james/4-15.htm
"For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we
shall live, and do this, or that."

God first in everything. By name. So as to set it right before all.
No variance, no slight of turning. Open and honest, purposed
on making other people's lives better.

-----
We are called to go into all the world and teach and make disciples.
It is a life calling, ongoing, in all things, at all times, until we leave
this world.

David is a non-believer. I advise praying for Him, that God
may open his eyes.

[James Lothian]

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Give God your all (live true faith):
>

Time for some killfile maintenance. Sigh.

[David Brown]

On 02/06/16 15:11, JiiPee wrote:
> On 02/06/2016 13:59, David Brown wrote:
>> On 02/06/16 11:41, JiiPee wrote:
>>> cannot say am 100% sure of this, but thats why I do not send these
>>> messsages here. If I was fine with it I would do it here myself as
>>> well... :)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/06/2016 10:39, JiiPee wrote:
>>>> I am actually a christian myself, but I dont think its a good idea to
>>>> post these messages in technical forums like this.
>>>> Maybe a general chat forum? i post these sometimes even in Finnish
>>>> evolution forum (as people there seems to be fine with it) ... but I
>>>> dont think people are here fine with this ... you know what I mean? :)
>>>>
>> Rick is beyond saving. Don't copy his behaviour.
>
> am not saying anything about his faith-sincerity.. .just about this issue.

As am I.

>
>>
>> The general attitude in technical forums is that religious posts are not
>> particularly welcome.
>
> I agree
>
>> In many forums, there is some tolerance for the
>> /occasional/ off-topic thread, whether it be about religion, science,
>> history, or whatever.
>
> like in Finnish evolution forum... they seem to all accept offtopic
> issues, its more like friends chatting all kind of things...although
> even there I prefer to FOCUS on evolution, but i dont mind here and
> there other topics, i think its actuallly good there.
>
> But ye, this is about programming, not really suitable here.
>
>> There are some people who disapprove of all such
>> posts, but a fair amount who think it is okay within a clearly labelled
>> thread.
>
> I actgually think nothing else here than programming :). and I believe :).
> But one can put religious stuff inside their singature, isnt it? Thats
> ok becouse its optional to read.

Signatures can pretty much be anything you want, including religious
stuff. Of course, there are limits - people will rightly be annoyed at
racism, bigotry, or other "hate" comments. But religious comments, a
link to a website, etc., are all fine if you follow the proper format
for a Usenet signature.

>
>> But while an occasional discussion /about/ religion is not bad,
>> evangelising is /always/ bad.
>
> well here i disagree. In public area everybody has a right to say their
> opinion of anything... its just freedom of speech, isnt it? I let
> muslims/atheists talk... so let me also talk about christianity.

You have the right to freedom of speech - but you don't have the right
to expect people to appreciate whatever you say! So of course neither I
nor anyone else can tell you that you may not evangelise here - but I
can advise you that people will not like it.

>
>> Rick (when posting religious stuff - his
>> technical posts and discussions are absolutely fine) never answers any
>> questions, and takes no heed of anything other people write - he just
>> rambles, posts links that no one ever views, and gives quotations from
>> the Bible as though they were argument enough in themselves.
>
> yes agree that is he starts something should at least answer and be
> involved.
>

(Rick, I know you are reading this too - I would not write about someone
in the third person without them being aware of it. But you already
know everything I am writing below - it is not the first time I have
made these points. If you want to discuss any of the points -
seriously, without Bible quotations or circular arguments - you know my
email address.)


He gets involved, in that he continues to post - but he does not appear
to properly read posts or consider a what people are asking. (Again,
this only applies to his religious posts - I have no problems with his
technical posts.)

>> His
>> position is basically that he (and apparently, since he disagrees with
>> other Christians, he alone) knows the truth and the facts - therefore it
>> is neither religion nor a matter of belief, and there is no need to
>> apply any thought or rationality, or consider any evidence or
>> counter-evidence. The Bible is "true" because it says so in the Bible,
>> and that must be correct since the Bible is "true".
>
> again, I have not met him... so its difficult to say who he really is
> only by reading text on my screen. its so much different when you meet
> in person...

Absolutely true. And my guess is that any religious discussion with
Rick would be far more informative and enjoyable in person than in a
newsgroup - Usenet is not a good medium for evangelism or religious
arguments.

>
>>
>> If you are interested in Rick-style posting, then please do it
>> elsewhere. This is particularly the case if you really believe that you
>> have a duty to help others join your particular flavour of religion -
>> Rick does a fine job of ensuring that no one else would ever want to be
>> like him or believe the stuff he does.
>
> :). heh. Well, thats one reason I adviced him not to do it... becouse I
> have a feeling it has just almost totally negative effect .
>

I would go further - I think it has a very strong negative effect, in
several ways. One is that he highlights the negative so much - "fire
and brimstone" preaching rarely wins new converts. Two is that he jumps
straight in - religion is an all-or-nothing affair for Rick, and his
"all" is much more extreme than most believers. Anyone who has ever
"converted" someone to Christianity, or seen someone converted, knows it
is a gradual process of awakening an interest, questioning and
answering, over a long period of time. That is something that simply
cannot be done on Usenet. And finally, because he writes the way he
does, people cannot help but associate his manic behaviour with
Christianity - no one wants to be associated with that sort of thing,
and I am sure that most Christians in the groups where Rick posts are
bothered by that.

>>
>> But if there is already an active thread about religion, then you might
>> as well post there, within limits - you won't annoy anyone who isn't
>> already annoyed, and if you are able to express your beliefs and
>> opinions rationally, it might be interesting.
>
> ye , true its better than totally nonsenses posts.
> Its one of those things: If I have found something very very good and
> interesteing (lets imagine I found a place where you can dig a lot of
> Gold),,,, then is the programming forum right place to say it? :)
> Like this: "Get Gold for free - I show you how!!!" <- lets imagine that
> was really true, would you post it (or would it be ok to post) on forums?
>

Such situations are so rare that it is difficult to know if people would
think it were okay. I expect people would assume it is spam - you'd
have to work hard to convince anyone. But repeating the same message in
much the same words certainly won't help!

[JiiPee]

On 02/06/2016 14:58, David Brown wrote:
>>> But while an occasional discussion /about/ religion is not bad,
>>> evangelising is /always/ bad.
>> well here i disagree. In public area everybody has a right to say their
>> opinion of anything... its just freedom of speech, isnt it? I let
>> muslims/atheists talk... so let me also talk about christianity.
> You have the right to freedom of speech - but you don't have the right
> to expect people to appreciate whatever you say! So of course neither I
> nor anyone else can tell you that you may not evangelise here - but I
> can advise you that people will not like it.

but I think here its more like an issue: preaching in a class room vs
preaching on the streets
So its not about do people like it, its more about is it right/legal?
The reason I do not want him to do it here is becouse its "wrong" (or
thats how I see it), not becouse some dont like it. So I dont think its
so much about people liking it.

For example if its illegal/wrong, then there is no way there the message
is gonna be accepted by anybody.

Somebody conveying their message on the streets... its not about whether
people like it or not... people always gonna dislike almost anything.
Freedom of speech is not about liking in the first place....its about
expressing your ideas in public.

>
>
>
> Such situations are so rare that it is difficult to know if people would
> think it were okay. I expect people would assume it is spam - you'd
> have to work hard to convince anyone. But repeating the same message in
> much the same words certainly won't help!

Thats the issue: its very difficult to convince people something on the
internet even if its true and something very good.
And maybe this is one of the reasons actually that its many times a bit
waste of time to spread these "good messages" becouse how can people
trust it? How can people know its true what the message says?

>
>

[Cholo Lennon]

+1

Why religious nuts keep coming to comp.lang.*? They are a pest :-(

--
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG

[Mr Flibble]

On 02/06/2016 13:59, David Brown wrote:

> ... idiotic claims that "evolution
> disproves the Bible" ...

Evolution is a fact but the Bible is at odds with evolution being a fact
ergo evolution disproves the Bible. Simples.

/Flibble

[Rick C. Hodgin]

Mr Flibble wrote:
> Evolution is a fact

Evolution of the kind "molecules to man" is not a fact, has never
had even the tiniest inkling of a far reaching stretch of possible
correctness, and is currently being systematically dismantled by genetics
research.

Evolution is a fairy tale.

> but the Bible is at odds with evolution being a fact ergo evolution
> disproves the Bible. Simples.

God is the creator. Evolution does not exist. It is only because you
are not seeking the truth that it eludes you.

[Mr Flibble]

On 02/06/2016 17:07, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>
> Evolution is a fairy tale.

So you assert (with no evidence to backup that assertion).

>
> God is the creator.

So you assert (with no evidence to backup that assertion).

> Evolution does not exist.

So you assert (with no evidence to backup that assertion).

> It is only because you
> are not seeking the truth that it eludes you.

So you assert (with no evidence to backup that assertion).

/Flibble

[David Brown]

On 02/06/16 16:15, JiiPee wrote:
> On 02/06/2016 14:58, David Brown wrote:
>>>> But while an occasional discussion /about/ religion is not bad,
>>>> evangelising is /always/ bad.
>>> well here i disagree. In public area everybody has a right to say their
>>> opinion of anything... its just freedom of speech, isnt it? I let
>>> muslims/atheists talk... so let me also talk about christianity.
>> You have the right to freedom of speech - but you don't have the right
>> to expect people to appreciate whatever you say! So of course neither I
>> nor anyone else can tell you that you may not evangelise here - but I
>> can advise you that people will not like it.
>
> but I think here its more like an issue: preaching in a class room vs
> preaching on the streets

I don't really think public streets are an appropriate place for
preaching either. A quiet stand where people can come to /you/ for
information is okay, but someone waving banners and shouting "the end is
nigh" or "repent your sins" is a public nuisance.

> So its not about do people like it, its more about is it right/legal?

Certainly there is nothing illegal about posting things here, as long as
they don't break normal free speech laws (such as inciting hatred, etc.)
- though it is far from clear which country's laws would apply.

As for what is "right" or "wrong", I would regard what people "like" as
being the main way to judge that. A Usenet group is made up of the
people who frequent it - and their "group opinion", to the extent that
it exists, is what determines what is right or wrong behaviour in that
group.

> The reason I do not want him to do it here is becouse its "wrong" (or
> thats how I see it), not becouse some dont like it. So I dont think its
> so much about people liking it.
>
> For example if its illegal/wrong, then there is no way there the message
> is gonna be accepted by anybody.

People accept wrong (and illegal) messages all the time. There are vast
numbers of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., and also vast
numbers of atheists. Many of these have probably only ever heard one
"message" in all their lives, but many have heard different ones and
picked different ones as "true" for them. But one thing for certain is
that they are not /all/ right - most people have got things profoundly
wrong.

>
> Somebody conveying their message on the streets... its not about whether
> people like it or not... people always gonna dislike almost anything.
> Freedom of speech is not about liking in the first place....its about
> expressing your ideas in public.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Such situations are so rare that it is difficult to know if people would
>> think it were okay. I expect people would assume it is spam - you'd
>> have to work hard to convince anyone. But repeating the same message in
>> much the same words certainly won't help!
>
> Thats the issue: its very difficult to convince people something on the
> internet even if its true and something very good.
> And maybe this is one of the reasons actually that its many times a bit
> waste of time to spread these "good messages" becouse how can people
> trust it? How can people know its true what the message says?
>

You've hit the nail on the head here. A Usenet post giving fantastic
news is never going to be believed, especially when it comes with no
evidence or justification.

[David Brown]

Yes, evolution is a fact (to the extent that it is possible to describe
something as large and complex as the term "evolution" in such simple
words). But no, the Bible is not at odds with evolution. The Bible
provides one explanation for how humans, and nature around us, arose -
evolution provides another explanation. The Bible's one provides no
evidence or justification, while evolution is strongly grounded in
historical evidence, science, rational theories, and experimental
evidence. But the Bible's story cannot be disproved by rational logic
or science - if you first accept the idea of God being omnipotent, then
"God made it look that way and created all that evidence" trumps any
logic. Or even, if you prefer, "/Satan/ made it look that way and
created all that evidence (and God let him for reasons unfathomable by
mortal men)".

And of course evolution only relates to one part of the Bible - a few
verses in the oldest book. Even if you - incorrectly - believe that
evolution /disproves/ the Bible's creation stories, it does not relate
directly to the rest of it. The Bible is not one single hypothesis that
can be proved or disproved in an all-or-nothing manner.

Evolution makes the Bible's creation stories, like the creation stories
of other religions, unnecessary - those were just stories written by
people long ago who didn't understand what was really going on.

But talking about "disproving" the stories gives those stories far too
much credit - like the "intelligent design" nonsense, these are not
rational or scientific hypotheses, and cannot be "disproved" any more
than they can be painted yellow or glued to a wall. The term simply
doesn't make sense in that context.

[Mr Flibble]

Evolution is a fact. Evolution disproves the Bible, period.

/Flibble