An explanation for Easter
misanthropic_curmudgeon
gsw...@gmail.com
> http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/03/27/eggs/
1 Corinthians 1 : 18
For the preaching of the Cross is to that perish foolishness,
but unto us who are saved it is the power of God
1 Corinthians 1 : 21
...the world by wisdom knew not God,
it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that
believe.
Through Adam sin came into God's perfect creation bringing death.
Through Jesus Christ's righteousess He triumphed over death and was
resurrected (came back to life) and can give Everlasting Life on His
terms - through faith in Him.
For by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves,
it is the gift of God. Not of works lest anyone should boast.
Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
The 'ball is in our court' Misanthropic.
You can choose to have everlasting life by faith in Jesus Christ
or not.
Gladys Swager
Barry
> http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/03/27/eggs/
That's funny. Bookmarked.
1 Corinthians 1 : 18
For the preaching of the Cross is foolishness.
1 Corinthians 1 : 21
...the world by wisdom knew not God.
Through God sin came into God's perfect creation bringing death.
Through Jesus Christ's righteousess He triumphed over God and was
resurrected (came back to life) and can give Everlasting Life on His
foolish terms - through faith in Him.
For by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves,
it is a holy protection racket
Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
The 'ball is in your court' Misanthropic.
You can choose to make the best of what life you have or waste it
worshipping something that does not exist.
gsw...@gmail.com
> On Apr 1, 7:01 pm, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
> >http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/03/27/eggs/
>
> For the preaching of the Cross is foolishness.
>
> 1 Corinthians 1 : 21
> ...the world by wisdom knew not God.
>
> Through God
Not through God. God amde all things perfect. You are still twisting
the truth by your own opinions. Tha tis what satan did in the Garden
of Eden.
sin came into God's perfect creation bringing death.
> Through Jesus Christ's righteousess He
........ was
> resurrected (came back to life) and can give Everlasting Life on His ...... terms - through faith in Him.
>
> For by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.
> Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
>
> The 'ball is in your court' Misanthropic.
And also yours, Barry.
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
[snip]
> Not through God. God amde all things perfect.
As Sir David Attenborough is reported to have said:
"My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every
individual species as a separate act, they always instance
hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend
to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of
a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's
going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that
the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who
cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created
this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's
eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's
full of mercy'.[1]
> You are still twisting the truth by your own opinions.
> Tha tis what satan did in the Garden of Eden.
Ah, Gladys, if the twisting of truth is the role of this (mythical)
devil of yours, then you are a spanner in his hands.
Your convoluted twisting of 'types', 'kinds', and 'species' to fit
whatever part of your dogma is being shown to be false and
counterintuitive, or even self contridicting would give a sprained
neck to a contortionist.
[1] http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354544138.html?from=storyrhs
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
[snip]
> The 'ball is in your court' Misanthropic.
> You can choose to make the best of what life you have or waste it
> worshipping something that does not exist.
I reject your god, now and forever more.
There is no evidence for your god.
Your god can be experienced in the minds of man by abnormal brain
chemistry and mental illness.
The myth of your god is contradictory, demonstratebly false, and
comical but for his megalomanicial viciousness.
Your god exists in your mind because of the indoctrination of your
youth, and your suspeptibilty to suggestion: If you'd been born in
India you'd be a rabbid Hindu, or if you were born in Ancient Peru
you'd worship the Sun and I suspect have offered yourself up for
sacrifice on some alter.
You are, quite simply, an unthinking output from your society - it is
no wonder you have such contempt for mankind as you do. If you were
not trying to thrust your delusions on our children, you'd have my
pity.
gsw...@gmail.com
> On Apr 2, 9:54 am, gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Not through God. God amde all things perfect.
>
> As Sir David Attenborough is reported to have said:
> "My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance
> hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.[1]
>
the sin (or later on) that was brought into the world by humans.
There are people who knowing God's love are working in many parts of
the world to right the wrongs that are in the world.
Jesus promised that His followers would do miracles as He had done,
but also greater works would they do because He was going to His
Father, God in heaven. Jesus was speaking of His human nature at that
time. (John 14 : 12)
I must have heard/read that verse many times with no real impact on
me, until one night I saw it in a different way. I asked myself what
it was that the followers of Jesus would do that Jesus had not done.
And the idea came to me that we could work to prevent diseases. It was
after that I prayed (in St Andrews Sydney Cathedral Healing Ministry)
that cures and preventitive methods would be found for conditions
(wrongly) named Mental Illnesses and later still became the advocate
of reform in respect of the treatments that had been given up to
1975.
There is a lot of aid going to Africa and other such places; but it is
also necessary for the leaders in those countries, as well as our own
and other affluent counties, to decrease spending on luxuries so there
will be more necessary resources available to meet the desperate needs
that exist in our world.
> > You are still twisting the truth by your own opinions.
> > That is what Satan did in the Garden of Eden.
>
> Ah, Gladys, if the twisting of truth is the role of this (mythical) devil of yours, then you are a spanner in his hands.
>
A mythical devil cannot cause the diabolical attitudes and actions
that are in the world today. It is only a real devil that can do
them.
> Your convoluted twisting of 'types', 'kinds', and 'species' to fit whatever part of your dogma is being shown to be false and
> counterintuitive, or even self contradicting would give a sprained neck to a contortionist.
But even the contortionist might realise that I am not the one doing
the twisting. I am just asking for a considered appraisal of all the
evidence available, but you only want your views to be known
publically. You want indocrination and people are expected to take
what you say as the whole truth.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Apr 2, 8:13 am, "Barry" wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 7:01 pm, misanthropic_curmudgeon wrote:
>> >http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/03/27/eggs/
>>
>> 1 Corinthians 1 : 18
>> For the preaching of the Cross is foolishness.
>>
>> 1 Corinthians 1 : 21
>> ...the world by wisdom knew not God.
>>
>> Through God
>
>Not through God. God amde all things perfect.
God introduced sin at the fall.
>You are still twisting the truth by your own opinions.
>Tha tis what satan did in the Garden of Eden.
That is a lie and slander! Satan told the truth and God lied according
to Genesis.
>>sin came into God's perfect creation bringing death.
>> Through Jesus Christ's righteousess He was able
>> to overcome God.
>
>> For by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves,
>> it is a holy protection racket
>> Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
>>The 'ball is in your court' Misanthropic.
>>You can choose to make the best of what life you have or waste it
>>worshipping something that does not exist.
>And also yours, Barry.
Agreed. No point wasting it worshipping something that doesn't exist.
>Gladys Swager
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
Barry OGrady
>On Apr 2, 1:55 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 9:54 am, gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Not through God. God amde all things perfect.
>>
>> As Sir David Attenborough is reported to have said:
>> "My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance
>> hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.[1]
>>
>But God didn't make the worm that way originally. The worm came with
>the sin (or later on) that was brought into the world by humans.
Gladys, you are being deceptive and twisting the truth.
God made us sinners at the fall, and before you blame humans for
all the problems ask yourself what brought humans into the world.
I think Gladys has Stockholm Syndrome.
>There are people who knowing God's love are working in many parts of
>the world to right the wrongs that are in the world.
Gasp! Wrongs, in God's world? Do you find God's creation unnacceptable?
>Jesus promised that His followers would do miracles as He had done,
>but also greater works would they do because He was going to His
>Father, God in heaven. Jesus was speaking of His human nature at that
>time. (John 14 : 12)
>
>I must have heard/read that verse many times with no real impact on
>me, until one night I saw it in a different way. I asked myself what
>it was that the followers of Jesus would do that Jesus had not done.
>And the idea came to me that we could work to prevent diseases. It was
>after that I prayed (in St Andrews Sydney Cathedral Healing Ministry)
>that cures and preventitive methods would be found for conditions
>(wrongly) named Mental Illnesses and later still became the advocate
>of reform in respect of the treatments that had been given up to
>1975.
Why did you ask God to defy God's will?
>There is a lot of aid going to Africa and other such places; but it is
>also necessary for the leaders in those countries, as well as our own
>and other affluent counties, to decrease spending on luxuries so there
>will be more necessary resources available to meet the desperate needs
>that exist in our world.
The most desperate need is to eliminate all forms of religion.
That would eliminate terrorism and hate and starvation and would leave
governments free to cooperate on ways to defy God.
>> > You are still twisting the truth by your own opinions.
>> > That is what Satan did in the Garden of Eden.
>>
>> Ah, Gladys, if the twisting of truth is the role of this (mythical) devil of yours, then you are a spanner in his hands.
>>
>A mythical devil cannot cause the diabolical attitudes and actions
>that are in the world today. It is only a real devil that can do
>them.
Must be your mythical God causing trouble then.
>> Your convoluted twisting of 'types', 'kinds', and 'species' to fit whatever part of your dogma is being shown to be false and
>> counterintuitive, or even self contradicting would give a sprained neck to a contortionist.
>
>But even the contortionist might realise that I am not the one doing
>the twisting. I am just asking for a considered appraisal of all the
>evidence available, but you only want your views to be known
>publically. You want indocrination and people are expected to take
>what you say as the whole truth.
You twist things to try to make God look good, but it can't be done.
Lu R
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f4b1189-64a4-41b0...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Gladys Swager
Original sin is a LIE. How would YOU like me to blame YOUR ancestors for
killing aborigines in the 18th century Gladys? I bet you'd be quick to deny
any blame huh? Well??
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> On Apr 2, 1:55 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:> On Apr 2, 9:54 am, gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> > > Not through God. God amde all things perfect.
>
> > As Sir David Attenborough is reported to have said:
> > "My response is that when Creationists talk about
> > God creating every individual species as a separate
> > act, they always instance hummingbirds, or
> > orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend
> > to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring
> > through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a
> > river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make
> > him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me
> > that the God you believe in, who you also say is
> > an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us
> > individually, are you saying that God created this
> > worm that can live in no other way than in an
> > innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't
> > seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.[1]
>
> But God didn't make the worm that way originally.
Let's run with your unsupported asertion for a minute, shall we?
- what did the worm live on prior to evolving/developing
a taste for human eyballs (as you imply could have
happened)
- or did the worm just magicially appear at some stage?
> The worm came with the sin (or later on) that was
> brought into the world by humans.
Evidence, please.
> There are people who knowing God's love are working
> in many parts of the world to right the wrongs that are
> in the world.
Yep: battling creationist lies and willful ignorance is just one
example.
Another is battling creationists (like your) attempts to abuse our
children in school by subjecting them to your cult.
> > > You are still twisting the truth by your own opinions.
> > > That is what Satan did in the Garden of Eden.
>
> > Ah, Gladys, if the twisting of truth is the role of
> > this (mythical) devil of yours, then you are a
> >spanner in his hands.
>
> A mythical devil cannot cause the diabolical attitudes and actions
> that are in the world today. It is only a real devil that can do
> them.
Are you aware that externailing and polarising things are signs of
mental and cognative instability?
> > Your convoluted twisting of 'types', 'kinds', and 'species'
> > to fit whatever part of your dogma is being shown to be
> > false and counterintuitive, or even self contradicting
> > would give a sprained neck to a contortionist.
>
> But even the contortionist might realise that I am not the one doing
> the twisting.
GIven you redefine 'species' and 'kind' in what appears to be every
second post on that subject, then you make a mockery of your own
propaganda.
Dont belive me? Define them now.
gsw...@gmail.com
> gswa...@gmail.com> wrote
> >On Apr 2, 1:55 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>
> > As Sir David Attenborough is reported to have said:
> > "My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can
> > live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.[1]
>
in Africa to help irradicate the parasitic worms, the AIDS problem and
other problems in Africa.
God is a Spirit and works through those who are responsive to him.
Much work for the betterment of the human condition has come from
Christians who generally do not receice any acclaim through the
media.
> But God didn't make the worm that way originally. The worm came with the sin (or later on) that was brought into the world by humans.
> There are people who knowing God's love are working in many parts of the world to right the wrongs that are in the world.
>
> Jesus promised that His followers would do miracles as He had done, but also greater works would they do because He was going to His Father, God in heaven. Jesus was speaking of His human nature at that time. (John 14 : 12)
>
> I must have heard/read that verse many times with no real impact on me, until one night I saw it in a different way. I asked myself what it was that the followers of Jesus would do that Jesus had not done.
> And the idea came to me that we could work to prevent diseases. It was after that I prayed (in St Andrews Sydney Cathedral Healing Ministry) that cures and preventitive methods would be found for conditions (wrongly) named Mental Illnesses and later still became the advocate of reform in respect of the treatments that had been given up to 1975.
>
> There is a lot of aid going to Africa and other such places; but it is also necessary for the leaders in those countries, as well as our own and other affluent counties, to decrease spending on luxuries so there will be more necessary resources available to meet the desperate needs that exist in our world.
>
> > > You are still twisting the truth by your own opinions.
> > > That is what Satan did in the Garden of Eden.
>
> > Ah, Gladys, if the twisting of truth is the role of this (mythical) devil of yours, then you are a spanner in his hands.
>
I do not deliberately give untruthful information. But when there are
different points od view on an issue it is easy to state those with
the opposing views are lying.
> A mythical devil cannot cause the diabolical attitudes and actions that are in the world today. It is only a real devil that can do them.
>
> > Your convoluted twisting of 'types', 'kinds', and 'species' to fit whatever part of your dogma is being shown to be false and
> > counterintuitive, or even self contradicting would give a sprained neck to a contortionist.
>
> But even the contortionist might realise that I am not the one doing the twisting. I am just asking for a considered appraisal of all the evidence available, but you only want your views to be known publically. You want indocrination and people are expected to take what you say as the whole truth.
>
> Original sin is a LIE. How would YOU like me to blame YOUR ancestors for killing aborigines in the 18th century Gladys? I bet you'd be quick to deny any blame huh? Well??
My ancestors from the fourth generation in Australia may have had
contact with Aborigines especially those living in Morthern and
Southern parts of the state. I would hope they were not involved in
any harmful actions against Aborigines.
I would hope that my grandfather who was the manager of a general
store in Gunnedah did help them when he was able. I know that when he
died there were quite a number of unpaid debts owing to him. I have no
information about my English and Irish great-grandparents in southern
NSW. So I can not answer your question one way or the other.
But the issues concerning Aborigines has been all one-way - the type
of reporting you seem to like.
I have had a contact with Christians who have worked with Aborigines
in NSW, Queensland and the Northern Territory from the early 1950's to
the 1980's.
Captain Arthur Phillip. before he left England with the first Fleet in
1787 was given orders to help the Aborigines and as far as I have read
I believe that he did do that. However, as the setlement expanded
further inland not all of the settlers acted responsibly.
Aborigines now do have the opportunity to participate in a modern
society.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
><gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0f4b1189-64a4-41b0...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>On Apr 2, 1:55 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 9:54 am, gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Not through God. God amde all things perfect.
>>
>> As Sir David Attenborough is reported to have said:
>> "My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every
>> individual species as a separate act, they always instance
>> hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to
>> think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy
>> sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to
>> make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you
>> believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each
>> one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can
>> live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that
>> doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.[1]
>>
>But God didn't make the worm that way originally. The worm came with
>the sin (or later on) that was brought into the world by humans.
Lu R thinks the worm must have evolved but he is ignoring that God
had to make the worm possible.
>There are people who knowing God's love are working in many parts of
>the world to right the wrongs that are in the world.
Gladys does not believe God has done any wrong.
>Jesus promised that His followers would do miracles as He had done,
>but also greater works would they do because He was going to His
>Father, God in heaven. Jesus was speaking of His human nature at that
>time. (John 14 : 12)
>
>I must have heard/read that verse many times with no real impact on
>me, until one night I saw it in a different way. I asked myself what
>it was that the followers of Jesus would do that Jesus had not done.
>And the idea came to me that we could work to prevent diseases. It was
>after that I prayed (in St Andrews Sydney Cathedral Healing Ministry)
>that cures and preventitive methods would be found for conditions
>(wrongly) named Mental Illnesses and later still became the advocate
>of reform in respect of the treatments that had been given up to
>1975.
>
>There is a lot of aid going to Africa and other such places; but it is
>also necessary for the leaders in those countries, as well as our own
>and other affluent counties, to decrease spending on luxuries so there
>will be more necessary resources available to meet the desperate needs
>that exist in our world.
You are sounding remarkably like Gladys.
Is Lu R really Gladys?
>> > You are still twisting the truth by your own opinions.
>> > That is what Satan did in the Garden of Eden.
>>
>> Ah, Gladys, if the twisting of truth is the role of this (mythical) devil
>> of yours, then you are a spanner in his hands.
>>
>A mythical devil cannot cause the diabolical attitudes and actions
>that are in the world today. It is only a real devil that can do
>them.
>
>> Your convoluted twisting of 'types', 'kinds', and 'species' to fit
>> whatever part of your dogma is being shown to be false and
>> counterintuitive, or even self contradicting would give a sprained neck to
>> a contortionist.
>
>But even the contortionist might realise that I am not the one doing
>the twisting. I am just asking for a considered appraisal of all the
>evidence available, but you only want your views to be known
>publically. You want indocrination and people are expected to take
>what you say as the whole truth.
>
>Gladys Swager
>
>Original sin is a LIE. How would YOU like me to blame YOUR ancestors for
>killing aborigines in the 18th century Gladys? I bet you'd be quick to deny
>any blame huh? Well??
Do you have MPD?
Lu R is Gladys, right?
gsw...@gmail.com
> >There are people who knowing God's love are working in many parts of the world to right the wrongs that are in the world.
>
> Gladys does not believe God has done any wrong.
>
That is so. But there is much inhumanity from humans to humans in the
world.
>
> >Jesus promised that His followers would do miracles as He had > >done, but also greater works would they do because He was
> >going to His Father, God in heaven. Jesus was speaking of His > >human nature at that time. (John 14 : 12)
>
> >I must have heard/read that verse many times with no real
> >impact on me, until one night I saw it in a different way. I
> >asked myself what it was that the followers of Jesus would do > >that Jesus had not done.
> >And the idea came to me that we could work to prevent
> >diseases. It was after that I prayed (in St Andrews Sydney
> >Cathedral Healing Ministry) that cures and preventitive
> >methods would be found for conditions (wrongly) named Mental
> >Illnesses and later still became the advocate of reform in
> >respect of the treatments that had been given up to 1975.
>
> >There is a lot of aid going to Africa and other such places;
> >but it is also necessary for the leaders in those countries,
> >as well as our own and other affluent counties, to decrease
> >spending on luxuries so there will be more necessary resources > > available to meet the desperate needs that exist in our world.
>
> Is Lu R really Gladys?
>
No Barry, Lu R is not Gladys.
>
> >A mythical devil cannot cause the diabolical attitudes and
> >actions that are in the world today. It is only a real devil
> >that can do them.
>
In NSW it was Infants teachers who took the first initiatives to
improve teaching methods in the post-war years. The number and names
of all of us involved in that I do not know.
But I am aware that as the Roman Catholic Church extended its teaching
programmes in 1971 from the Guild College (originally for the training
of nuns) through to the establishment of the Catholic University it
desired to make itself, at the public media level, the initator of
those imppovements.
It is sad that an organisation that calls itself Christian should take
advantages to itself from the initial work of others, as I knew the
situation, the others being Protestant Christians.
However, I have come to realise that Vatican II (1952 - 1965) was a
planning programme with the aim of restoring itself as the overall
leader of Christianity worldwide with John Paul II, a grandfatherly
type of person, being its first global ambassador.
One important aspect of its programmes since then could be to
nulliify the programmes for the 500th anniversary in 2017 of Martin
Luther's rebellion against the RC C for
*** its sale of indugences,
*** its disallowance of the Bible in the national languages to the
laity.
***He also allowed priests to marry after his ex-communication from
the RC Church as the Lutheran Church came into existence.
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> On Apr 14, 2:10 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:34:42 "Lu R" wrote:
> > >gswa...@gmail.com> wrote
> > [snip]
> > >There are people who knowing God's love are working in many parts of the world to right the wrongs that are in the world.
>
> > Gladys does not believe God has done any wrong.
>
> That is so.
So genocide is OK?
dolf
Given the rampant anarchist disregard for the autonomic right in
Thailand at present--Cardinal Pell's statements of prohibitions on
condom use could be seen as genocidal.
I had, on Good Friday 2009.4.10 and prior to Cardinal George Pell's
condom effectiveness media statements regarding stemming the rate of
AIDS infection rate within Catholic Philippines, in comparison to that
of Thailand which, he said, was struggling to cope with an epidemic of
the disease. Mentioned to a friend of mine, that a circular jewelry case
from 206 BCE (pre Han Dynasty of 206 BCE to 220 CE) has a relationship
to Baal-Poer and planetary deity worship prohibition given by the Torah
from the 50th Jubilee as recorded in Deuteronomy Chapter 4: "Now, O
Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to
observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the
LORD God of your fathers is giving you.
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything
from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I
command you.
Your eyes have seen what the LORD did at BAAL-POER; for the LORD your
God has destroyed from among you all the men who followed BAAL-POER.
But you who held fast to the LORD your God are alive today, every one of
you.
For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD
our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon him?
And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous
judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?"
[Deuteronomy 4:1-4, 7-8 (NKJV) (c) Thomas Nelson Inc 1982]
The substantiation for Jesus cosmological and adultery discourse with
the religious teachers of his age {ie. 'the religious
'rulers-kosmokrater of the obscurity-skotos of this age-aion' engaging
in 'spiritual-pneumatikos wickedness-porneia' [Ephesians 6:12]} can be
found in the Torah and explained in metaphysical terms {ie. the #237 -
USE OF FORCE, ITS RELATION TO AUTONOMIC RIGHT UNDER THE STATE, and
CHRISTIAN IDENTITY} as a technology for managing MARRIAGE.
gsw...@gmail.com
> > On Apr 14, 8:16 am, gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:34:42 "Lu R" wrote:
> > > >There are people who knowing God's love are working in many parts of the world to right the wrongs that are in the world.
>
> So genocide is OK?
There was not genocide of Aborigines in Australia in the late 18th to
mid 20th century. There was a mistake made as in Tasmania when there
was a plan to bring all the Aborigines together into one area.
There were individuals and small groups of white men who attacked
Aborigines.
There were Aborigines who attacked white settlers as Pemwulwy who
speared Arthur Phillip and other incidents.
That just names some of the incidents.
A text 'One Blood' by John Harris, himself from a missionary family to
the Aborigines gives 200 years of the contact between the two groups
of people - 'warts and all'.
There has been a political correctness in Austalia from about 1975, as
I recall its start, in which certain persons have emphasised the
problems that occurred, but not the successes.
(Of interest is the fact that on two occasins in the 1960's a Schools
Inspector had complimented me on my Aboriginal projects with my Second
Grade pupils).
An earlier media emphasis on Daisy Bates and her work with Aborigines
was no longer featured as the later media programme became dominant.
Go to your $50 note and on it you will find a picture of David
Unaipon, an Aborigine who grew up with Christian missionaries.
He became an inventor and wrote a book of Aboriginal legends in
English.
By the about 1950 there was a programme in the Hunter River area
(where I had a teaching appointment) that was training Aborigines to
be the Christian leaders of ther own people.
But as you do not accept the Christian faith you would say that
Christians had no right to teach it to Aborigines.
You have chosen to believe other ideas, but what right do you have to
teach those ideas when others with as high, even higher Tertiary
qualifications in some instances, say there is not the scientific
evidence for many of them.
Gladys Swager
beeleteexneet
is that a yes?
Bill.
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
[snip]
> > So genocide is OK?
>
> There was not genocide of Aborigines in Australia
I was reffering you your gods genocide of millions of people on
several occiasions.
You claimed your god never did anything wrong, and yet your bible says
your god committed genocide on several occassions (supposidly
committing millions to a 'hell' he made for them)
I'm asking you to reconcile these two 'facts'.
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
<misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 5:35 pm, gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 1:55 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:> On Apr 2, 9:54 am, gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> > > to fit whatever part of your dogma is being shown to be
> > > false and counterintuitive, or even self contradicting
> > > would give a sprained neck to a contortionist.
>
> > But even the contortionist might realise that I am not
> > the one doing the twisting.
>
> GIven you redefine 'species' and 'kind' in what appears to be every
> second post on that subject, then you make a mockery of your own
> propaganda.
> Dont belive me? Define them now.
Still waiting, Gladys.
gsw...@gmail.com
> On Apr 14, 7:18 pm, gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
> [snip]
> > > So genocide is OK?
> You claimed your god never did anything wrong, and yet your bible says your god committed genocide on several occassions (supposidly committing millions to a 'hell' he made for them)
> I'm asking you to reconcile these two 'facts'.
Most notably during the flood in the time of Noah and his family.
Genesis 6 : 5 - 8
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and
that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
continually. And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the face
of the earth,.... And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have
made from the face of the earth...for it repents me that I have made
them.
But Noah found grace (God's unmerited mercy in that although he was
not perfect he was repenting and worshipped God).
All others were so depraved in their moral attitudes with extreme
violence that they were beyond redemption.
Genesis 6 : 3
And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man.
I am of the opinion that it took Noah and his sons 120 years to build
the Ark and during that time Noah also preached to the people that
they should repent of their evil ways. I haven't the reference for
that and need to check further.
But certainly as he began to build the ark at a distance from the sea
when people queried his actions they would have been told of God's
judgements if they would not change their behaviour.
It is a fact today that through a variety of means, including the
Internet, that people have the opportunity to hear the Christian truth
of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
God allows us to choose whether we will take His way of salvation or
whether we will refuse it.
May I suggest instead of looking for circumstances in the past that
you think support your Atheism, that you should consider very
carefully reasons why you should accept the Christian faith
in its basic concepts.
We are saved by grace, through faith and that not of ourselves,
it is the gift of God. Not of works lest anyone should boast.
Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works,
which God has ordained that we should walk in them.
Ephesians 2 : 10
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> [snip]
>
> Still waiting, Gladys.
This is more information to my last posting, not the answer you are
waiting for from your previous posting.
The World's First Boat
www.cnetwork.co.uk/cr15.htm
It gave me information that I had not known before.
Gladys Swager
theo
wrote:
> This is more information to my last posting, not the answer you are
> waiting for from your previous posting.
>
> The World's First Boatwww.cnetwork.co.uk/cr15.htm
>
> It gave me information that I had not known before.
From that site -
"But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD" (verse 8). He believed
God, and moved by reverence for God, not abject fear, he obeyed
instructions and built the world's first boat. The plans were given to
him by God. If we build a model Ark to the same specification, it will
float- unlike the boat in the Babylonian Flood legend, said to be a
perfect cube, which is totally unseaworthy.
______
A cubic vessel would be stronger and have more internal space for the
same amount of building materials. It wopuld also be more stable. What
it would not be able to do very well is have directional stability
under power. It would only be able to float. OTOH, the bible doesn't
mention Noah's ark having either sails or an outboard.
Theo
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Apr 15, 11:50 am, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > The World's First Boat
> > www.cnetwork.co.uk/cr15.htm
>
> perfect cube, which is totally unseaworthy.
> A cubic vessel would be stronger and have more internal space for the same amount of building materials. It would also be more stable. What it would not be able to do very well is have directional stability under power. It would only be able to float.
>
Ark Dimensions Genesis 6 : 15
length = 300 cubits
breadth = 50 cubits
height = 30 cubits
Three storeys - window sall you finish above - in the top storey
Door for entrance and exit.
Some believe it was close to a hexangular prism with the roof slopping
each way from the lengthways window.
From one Internet site it states that the size would equal a
modern day car ferry.
I am not aware of any cubic boats/ships at anytime during the world's
history from what I have seen in textbooks or today's boats/ships.
****
I wonder why if as you say that cubic vessels are more stable?
Gladys Swager
theo
wrote:
> I am not aware of any cubic boats/ships at anytime during the world's
> history from what I have seen in textbooks or today's boats/ships.
> ****
> I wonder why if as you say that cubic vessels are more stable?
They don't make cubic boats because all boats are meant to be moved
from one coastal destination to another. The Ark however was not meant
to go anywhere, just float, and a cube is much better at doing that.
Surely your God understood that when he handed Noah the plans. Look at
things that are just required to float and be stable. Rafts, pontoons,
cable ferries, square.
Theo
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Apr 15, 2:00 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > I am not aware of any cubic boats/ships at anytime during the world's history from what I have seen in textbooks or today's boats/ships.
> > ****
> > I wonder why if as you say that cubic vessels are more stable?
>
> They don't make cubic boats because all boats are meant to be moved from one coastal destination to another.
The Ark however was not meant to go anywhere, just float, and a cube
is much better at doing that.
It is hard to say how far the Ark travelled - your guesstimate would
be as worthless as mine.
But Genesis 11 : 2 states, 'as they (Noah and his family) journeyed
*** from the east***,
...they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there.
I understand the Land of Shinar was later Babylon south of present-day
Baghdad (Iraq).
If the Ark had landed on present-day Ararat in Turkey they would have
had to travel ***from the north-west*** to the Land of Shinar.
But to travel ***from the east*** they would have travelled possibly
from present-day Iran -the western area -border with Iraq - hilly
rising quickly to mountains.
Isn't it possible that Ararat in Turkey was named at a much later date
from the Biblical record????
I hope my reasoning is correct on the above.
> Surely your God understood that when he handed Noah the plans. Look at things that are just required to float and be stable. Rafts, pontoons, cable ferries, square.
>
But you can't get a cube out of (300 X 50 X 30) cubic cubits,
the specific measurements that God gave to Noah for reasons known to
God at that time.
www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3027/
Gladys Swager
Sean McHugh
Gladys, unpowered craft that just float on top of the water are better
off having a square section. Do you honestly think that if you were to
take a square log raft and increase its length by 2.5 times and its
shrink its breadth by about the same amount, it would be less prone
to rolling? No way!
That has already been well and truly explained to you. You have just
confirmed my recollection that, as usual, it didn't make a dent. Here
is the link to a previous reply, followed by a very small excerpt:
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/a22409aee58acaa0
SQ:
====================================================================
In the Ark, the greatest instability would be in the direction of the
lesser dimension, that being the breadth. This instability would
constitute roll. Therefore increasing the smaller dimension - the weak
link - while reducing the greater dimension - with its somewhat
redundant longitudinal stability - would more evenly share out the
stability and thus would increase it overall. This can actually be
confirmed in the paper to which Gladys refers (URL(1)). [Sean McHugh,
June 10, 2003]
====================================================================
EQ:
The time and effort put into researching and presenting it was totally
wasted on you. In that linked (above) response, I used the actual
figures provided by your ark friendly page (which YOU linked) to
show that the 6:1 ratio would have been less stable than a cube or
square shaped vessel. The writers used slight of hand to obfuscate the
relatively poor roll stability (by far the weakest link).
As for your argument to Theo, that we don't know what the ark was
meant to do, all indications are that it was to just float and ride
out the Flood. In any case, you can't argue that one doesn't know what
it was meant to do and at the same time argue that it was the 'ideal'
(divinely designed) shape. To do so is illogical.
There is no great divine intelligence involved with the Flood story.
It's an implausible fairy tale from beginning to end and suitable
only for very young children. Get over it.
Sean McHugh
Barry OGrady
>On Apr 14, 2:10 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:34:42 "Lu R" wrote:
>> >gswa...@gmail.com> wrote
>> [snip]
>
>> >There are people who knowing God's love are working in many parts of the world
>> > to right the wrongs that are in the world.
>>
>> Gladys does not believe God has done any wrong.
>>
>That is so. But there is much inhumanity from humans to humans in the
>world.
Is that a bad thing?
>> >Jesus promised that His followers would do miracles as He had
>> >done, but also greater works would they do because He was
>> >going to His Father, God in heaven. Jesus was speaking of His
>> >human nature at that time. (John 14 : 12)
>>
>> >I must have heard/read that verse many times with no real
>> >impact on me, until one night I saw it in a different way. I
>> >asked myself what it was that the followers of Jesus would do
>> >that Jesus had not done.
>> >And the idea came to me that we could work to prevent
>> >diseases. It was after that I prayed (in St Andrews Sydney
>> >Cathedral Healing Ministry) that cures and preventitive
>> >methods would be found for conditions (wrongly) named Mental
>> >Illnesses and later still became the advocate of reform in
>> >respect of the treatments that had been given up to 1975.
>>
>> >There is a lot of aid going to Africa and other such places;
>> >but it is also necessary for the leaders in those countries,
>> >as well as our own and other affluent counties, to decrease
>> >spending on luxuries so there will be more necessary resources
>> > available to meet the desperate needs that exist in our world.
>>
>> Is Lu R really Gladys?
>>
>No Barry, Lu R is not Gladys.
In that case Lu R has messed up the quoting so it looks like
he is you.
>Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
What part of
don't you understand?
>Bill.
gsw...@gmail.com
> "swa...@ozemail.com.au" wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 2:15 pm, theo wrote:
> > > On Apr 15, 11:50 am, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > > > The World's First Boat
> > > >www.cnetwork.co.uk/cr15.htm
>
> > > unlike the boat in the Babylonian Flood legend, said to be a
> > > perfect cube, which is totally unseaworthy.
>
> > > A cubic vessel would be stronger and have more internal space for the same amount of building materials. It would also be more stable. What it would not be able to do very well is have directional stability under power. It would only be able to float.
>
> > Ark Dimensions Genesis 6 : 15
> > length = 300 cubits breadth = 50 cubits height = 30 cubits
> > Door for entrance and exit.
>
> > From one Internet site it states that the size would equal a
> > modern day car ferry.
> > I am not aware of any cubic boats/ships at anytime during the world's
> > history from what I have seen in textbooks or today's boats/ships.
> > ****
> > I wonder why if as you say that cubic vessels are more stable?
>
> off having a square section. Do you honestly think that if you were to
> take a square log raft and increase its length by 2.5 times and its
> shrink its breadth by about the same amount, it would be less prone
> to rolling? No way!
> That has already been well and truly explained to you. You have just
> confirmed my recollection that, as usual, it didn't make a dent. Here
> is the link to a previous reply, followed by a very small excerpt:
> ====================================================================
> In the Ark, the greatest instability would be in the direction of the
> lesser dimension, that being the breadth. This instability would
> constitute roll. Therefore increasing the smaller dimension - the weak
> link - while reducing the greater dimension - with its somewhat
> redundant longitudinal stability - would more evenly share out the
> stability and thus would increase it overall. This can actually be
> confirmed in the paper to which Gladys refers (URL(1)). [Sean McHugh,
> June 10, 2003]
> ====================================================================
> wasted on you. In that linked (above) response, I used the actual
> figures provided by your ark friendly page (which YOU linked) to
> show that the 6:1 ratio would have been less stable than a cube or
> square shaped vessel. The writers used slight of hand to obfuscate the
> relatively poor roll stability (by far the weakest link).
> As for your argument to Theo, that we don't know what the ark was
> meant to do, all indications are that it was to just float and ride
> out the Flood. In any case, you can't argue that one doesn't know what
> it was meant to do and at the same time argue that it was the 'ideal'
> (divinely designed) shape. To do so is illogical.
> There is no great divine intelligence involved with the Flood story.
> It's an implausible fairy tale from beginning to end and suitable
> only for very young children. Get over it.
>
www.worldwideflood.com/default.htm
I hope you will find these websites of interest. I found them after a
prolonged searching and checking.
It is evident, Sean, that you have accepted information that you
believe, want to believe, is correct.
Others have accepted information that they believe, want to believe,
is correct.
Both should have the opportunity to present their evidences and
arguments.
I will grant you that there is much in the arguments both ways that I
have difficulty following through. My repeated contention is that both
should be able to give their points of view as there are scientists
with equal degrees, even sometimes at higher levels, on both sides.
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> On Apr 15, 8:05 am, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14, 7:18 pm, gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > So genocide is OK?
> > I was referring you to your god's genocide of millions of people on several occiasions.
> > You claimed your god never did anything wrong, and yet your bible says your god committed genocide on several occassions (supposidly committing millions to a 'hell' he made for them)
> > I'm asking you to reconcile these two 'facts'.
> God allows us to choose whether we will take His way
> of salvation or whether we will refuse it.
So that is a 'yes' then?
> May I suggest instead of looking for circumstances in
> the past that you think support your Atheism, that you
> should consider very carefully reasons why you should
> accept the Christian faith in its basic concepts.
So you suggest people (ok, me) should suspend logic, reason, and
rational though (not to mention inquiry, curiosity, and contemplation)
just to blindly beleive a discredited and self-contradicting myth
based on the oral tradition of a stone-age people?
[snip more of Gladys' chanting (and comforting to her) mantra]
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
wrote:
[snip]
> Ark Dimensions Genesis 6 : 15
> length = 300 cubits
> breadth = 50 cubits
> height = 30 cubits
> Three storeys - window sall you finish above - in the top storey
> Door for entrance and exit.
>
> Some believe it was close to a hexangular prism with the roof slopping
> each way from the lengthways window.
>
> From one Internet site it states that the size would equal a
> modern day car ferry.
And you seriously think two[1] of every species[2] fitted in there for
months on end (with no food or waste disposal systems)?
[1] and seven of some
[2] or it is two of every 'kind', today?
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
[snip]
> It is evident, Sean, that you have accepted information that you
> believe, want to believe, is correct.
> Others have accepted information that they believe, want to believe,
> is correct.
> Both should have the opportunity to present their evidences and
> arguments.
Translation: The creationists dont want to look at contradictory
evidence that discredits their sham/theories, and reserve the righjt
to mindlessly repeat it (to your children, in school)
theo
wrote:
> On Apr 15, 4:54 pm, theo <t...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:> On Apr 15, 2:00 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > > I am not aware of any cubic boats/ships at anytime during the world's history from what I have seen in textbooks or today's boats/ships.
> > > ****
> > > I wonder why if as you say that cubic vessels are more stable?
>
> > They don't make cubic boats because all boats are meant to be moved from one coastal destination to another.
>
> I realised that after I had posted. Kicked myself!
>
> The Ark however was not meant to go anywhere, just float, and a cube
> is much better at doing that.
>
> It is hard to say how far the Ark travelled - your guesstimate would
> be as worthless as mine.
>
> But Genesis 11 : 2 states, 'as they (Noah and his family) journeyed
> *** from the east***,
> ...they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there.
>
> I understand the Land of Shinar was later Babylon south of present-day
> Baghdad (Iraq).
> If the Ark had landed on present-day Ararat in Turkey they would have
> had to travel ***from the north-west*** to the Land of Shinar.
> But to travel ***from the east*** they would have travelled possibly
> from present-day Iran -the western area -border with Iraq - hilly
> rising quickly to mountains.
> Isn't it possible that Ararat in Turkey was named at a much later date
> from the Biblical record????
>
> I hope my reasoning is correct on the above.
Excellent reasoning but there was no power on the Ark so it would have
had to travel by drifting. A 'noat' shape is ony required for vessels
which have some motive power, or way. Actually a cube would also be
more easily moved by wind.
> > Surely your God understood that when he handed Noah the plans. Look at things that are just required to float and be stable. Rafts, pontoons, cable ferries, square.
>
> But you can't get a cube out of (300 X 50 X 30) cubic cubits,
> the specific measurements that God gave to Noah for reasons known to
> God at that time.
>
> www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3027/
You snipped the bit I quoted from the website you pointed me to which
said-
"But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD" (verse 8). He believed
God, and moved by reverence for God, not abject fear, he obeyed
instructions and built the world's first boat. The plans were given
to
him by God. If we build a model Ark to the same specification, it
will
float- unlike the boat in the Babylonian Flood legend, said to be a
perfect cube, which is totally unseaworthy.
Theo
theo
<misanthropiccurmudg...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 6:00 pm, "swa...@ozemail.com.au" <swa...@ozemail.com.au>
> > From one Internet site it states that the size would equal a
> > modern day car ferry.
>
> And you seriously think two[1] of every species[2] fitted in there for
> months on end (with no food or waste disposal systems)?
>
> [1] and seven of some
> [2] or it is two of every 'kind', today?
Gladys has previous stated that they were "kinds". The example she
gave was that there were two 'felines' on board which evolved (oops,
changed by small increments within a kind) into all the cats on the
planet today. Lions, tigers, tabbies, etc. Of course this all hadd to
take place between Noah and Daniel, as we know there were fully
"changed" lions in the den. About 1000 years.
Theo
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
And given that humanity has documentary evidence of each of these
(lions, tigers, tabbies, etc.) going right back to (and previous to)
the (supposed) flood (without mentioning it) it would suggest that the
'evolutionary' changes suggested in Gladys' feeble theory occured at a
blistering pace that far outstrips any scientifically accepted/
recognised evolutionary event since.
As for what carnivorious predators ate while their prey populations
got up to sustaianble levels, the least said the better!
I await her regurgiposting:
- a 'creationontheweb' link (or its 'kind') that does not
address the above points in any meaningful way,
- the myth about lions eating straw in London zoos
during the war,
gsw...@gmail.com
> On Apr 16, 8:06 am, gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > It is evident, Sean, that you have accepted information that you believe, want to believe, is correct.
> > Others have accepted information that they believe, want to believe, is correct.
> > Both should have the opportunity to present their evidences and arguments.
>
And what you mean, Missanthropic, is that although there is no
scientific proof that unicellar orgaisms came into existence by chance
and changed up the ladder of life to all the organisms in the world
today as well as those that have become extinct by means that cannot
be scientifically proved by repeated testing
it is quite legitmate to teach children that there was no God Almighty
Who created organisms (plant and animal) with the ability to change in
certain environmental circumstances within their own kind, ie humans
have always been humans, we did not evolve from some unknown ape-like
ancestor.
Therefore let science teachng be about Operational Science, the
science of everyday activities with information about the scientists
who have contributed by their studies and research, especially those
who from the mid 1700's brought about the Agricultural and Industrial
Revolutions in England.
If it is thought that Charles Darwin should be mentioned that should
be in the context that Natural Selection from unicellular to
multicellular organisms is still an unproved theory.
It should also be taught that there are fully accredited Scientists
who believe that plant and animal organisms were created by God
Almighty as were all parts of the Universe.
Gladys Swager
Sean McHugh
gsw...@gmail.com wrote (87):
Oh Peleeezze! Gladys, it took me a little over three minutes to find,
copy and paste these three stupid Creationist sites from the Net. And
remember, I don't hang around the Creationism religious centres like
you do:
http://www.nwcreation.net/noahsark.html
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/category/Flood.aspx
http://creationwiki.org/Noah's_Ark
So please don't pretend that that compares with researching and doing
a long and involved critique on a page. What you do is dead cheap and
is a form of spamming.
> It is evident, Sean, that you have accepted information that you
> believe, want to believe, is correct.
You just can't resist pretence, can you? You and I are like chalk and
cheese. I don't get spoon fed like you do and neither do the others
who argue with you here. What I presented to you in 2003 (and cited
yesterday) was not borrowed. For example, as part of that 2003 post, I
used the tables and data from the very Creationist site that YOU
linked to show that a 6:1 ratio would NOT provide greater stability
than a vessel with a square base.
> Others have accepted information that they believe, want to believe,
> is correct.
> Both should have the opportunity to present their evidences and
> arguments.
Creationism has the right to academically express its dishonesty,
incompetence and absurdity in the religious classroom.
> I will grant you that there is much in the arguments both ways that I
> have difficulty following through.
Don't pretend (your wont) or assume to 'grant' me something with which
I vehemently deny. There isn't 'much' scientific argument at all about
Creationism, with its six days of creation, its Ark and its Flood.
It's pretty much for the same reason that there is little scientific
argument over the aerodynamics of Santa's sled.
> My repeated contention is that both
> should be able to give their points of view as there are scientists
> with equal degrees, even sometimes at higher levels, on both sides.
And how many times have I pointed out how few accredited scientists
Creation 'Science' has and how much fewer there are doing their
Creation 'Science' in their fields of training? For example, there are
over 16,000 listed professional astronomers. How many astronomers does
Creation Science have, Gladys? How about none, zero, zilch? The
situation is little better in geology. But here you are pretending
that this pathetic minority group, that feigns science (but does
religion), should get equal recognition and equal time in the
classroom.
By the way, I noticed that though you again brought up the
divine-6:1-ratio nonsense for the ark, you don't seem to want to talk
about it now. You'd rather change the subject.
Sean McHugh
gsw...@gmail.com
> On Apr 15, 4:57 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:> > > > I am not aware of any cubic boats/ships at anytime during the world's history from what I have seen in textbooks or today's boats/ships. I wonder why if as you say that cubic vessels are more stable?
>
> > > They don't make cubic boats because all boats are meant to be moved from one coastal destination to another.
>
> > I realised that after I had posted. Kicked myself!
>
> > The Ark however was not meant to go anywhere, just float, and a cube is much better at doing that.
> > It is hard to say how far the Ark travelled - your guesstimate would be as worthless as mine.
>
> > But Genesis 11 : 2 states, 'as they (Noah and his family) journeyed *** from the east***,
> > ...they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there.
> > I understand the Land of Shinar was later Babylon south of present-day Baghdad (Iraq).
> > If the Ark had landed on present-day Ararat in Turkey they would have had to travel ***from the north-west*** to the Land of Shinar.
> > But to travel ***from the east*** they would have travelled possibly from present-day Iran -the western area -border with Iraq - hilly rising quickly to mountains.
> > Isn't it possible that Ararat in Turkey was named at a much later date from the Biblical record????
>
> > I hope my reasoning is correct on the above.
>
> Excellent reasoning but there was no power on the Ark so it would have had to travel by drifting. A 'boat' shape is ony required for vessels which have some motive power, or way. Actually a cube would also be more easily moved by wind.
>
> > > Surely your God understood that when he handed Noah the plans. Look at things that are just required to float and be stable. Rafts, pontoons, cable ferries, square.
> > But you can't get a cube out of (300 X 50 X 30) cubic cubits,
> > the specific measurements that God gave to Noah for reasons known to God at that time.
>
> >www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3027/
>
> You snipped the bit I quoted from the website you pointed me to which said-
> "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD" (verse 8). He believed God, and moved by reverence for God, not abject fear, he obeyed instructions and built the world's first boat. The plans were given to him by God. If we build a model Ark to the same specification, it will float- unlike the boat in the Babylonian Flood legend, said to be a
> perfect cube, which is totally unseaworthy.
>
For argument's sake if the cube of the Gilgamesh epic had the same
volume as that of Noah's Ark then each dimension would have been a
little less than 76.74 cubits
rather than the (300 X 50 X 30) cubic cubits of the Ark = length and
width both greater than the height. It would be lower down in the
water and not subject to the same degree of the any wind turbulence.
The interior volume of greater length and width with a lesser height
would make for better management of the animals, food distribution for
those animals that did not hibernate and other essentials.
I still cannot see that the cubic design would be better than the
hexagonal prism design that is Biblical contrary to the boat-shape
given in children's books and possibly in Sunday School books of
previous decades before the more intense studies on these matters were
begun.
I do need to go back to the Gilgamesh epic, as it is some time since I
read it, as the issue is not only one of size but the total context of
each account. I wil post again later.
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
[snip]
> What I presented to you in 2003 (and cited
> yesterday) was not borrowed. For example, as part of that 2003 post, I
> used the tables and data from the very Creationist site that YOU
> linked to show that a 6:1 ratio would NOT provide greater stability
> than a vessel with a square base.
Ouch.
> > Others have accepted information that they believe, want to believe,
> > is correct.
> > Both should have the opportunity to present their evidences and
> > arguments.
>
> Creationism has the right to academically express its dishonesty,
> incompetence and absurdity in the religious classroom.
And call it 'science'.
> there are
> over 16,000 listed professional astronomers. How many astronomers does
> Creation Science have, Gladys? How about none, zero, zilch? The
> situation is little better in geology. But here you are pretending
> that this pathetic minority group, that feigns science (but does
> religion), should get equal recognition and equal time in the
> classroom.
While denying other religious cults likewise.
dolf
Medical Record Department
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
50 Missenden Road
Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia
Your Ref: 169 45 32
17 April 2009 .jackNote@zen: 3, row: 1, col: 8, nous: 54 [Super: #338 /
#68 - Coinciding with Nature/ Complying With Heaven; I-Ching: H14 -
Great Possessions; Tetra: 38 - Fullness, Ego: #375 / #54 - Culturing
Perspectives/ Cultivation of Intuition; I-Ching: H55 - Abundance; Tetra:
45 - Greatness]
I am providing you with an update to document titled “Deus ex Machinas--
Extrusion of Ideas (sexual exclusion) & Three-Dimensional Cellular
Automata” This fulfils my undertaking given to you to provide the State
medical institutions with a philosophical framework from which to
continue their work in genetic and stem cell research, without costly
and disruptive religious interference as dogmas.
On Monday, 6 April 2009 .jackNote@zen: 2, row: 1, col: 6, nous: 78
[Super: #401 / #32 - Natural Guide/ Virtue of Holiness; I-Ching: H44 -
Coming On; Tetra: 43 - Encounters, Ego: #355 / #78 - Recognizing
Fidelity/ Trust in Faith; I-Ching: H59 - Dispersal; Tetra: 47 - Pattern]
whilst effecting closure of an account due to discrimination in the
provision of goods and services, an equivalent preliminary copy of this
document was provided to ANZ Bank situated in George Street, Sydney with
the following statement: “That prior to this Easter, I wish to convey my
concern for the culture of vilification, that is Australian life. And
to deny your Institution and its employees, any satisfaction which they
may otherwise derive from an autonomic or hymeneal claim to religious
belief including Christian identity.”
As you know an earthquake occurred in Abruzzo Italy and a state funeral
was held in Italy for 205 victims of that devastating event on 10 April
2009. .jackNote@zen: 3, row: 1, col: 8, nous: 54 [Super: #338 / #68 -
Coinciding with Nature/ Complying With Heaven; I-Ching: H14 - Great
Possessions; Tetra: 38 - Fullness, Ego: #375 / #54 - Culturing
Perspectives/ Cultivation of Intuition; I-Ching: H55 - Abundance; Tetra:
45 - Greatness]
In the past, I have in addition to having aspersions made of my HIV
status, been falsely accused as grounds for a 4 day involuntarily
psychiatric admission by the Victorian Alfred Hospital of claiming to
cause earthquakes on 21 August 1999. This is untrue as I am only
concerned with how these phenomenal events correspond to my Grapple
Homoiotic Noumenon as intellectual property and hypostatic metashematizo
of homoousion.
I am now pursuing a human rights action against that hospital as claim
of racial, religious and sexual vilification.
Yours sincerely
- dolf
- http://www.grapple.id.au/Chronicles/automata.html
David Moss
> 17 April 2009 .jackNote@zen: 3, row: 1, col: 8, nous: 54 [Super: #338
> / #68 - Coinciding with Nature/ Complying With Heaven; I-Ching: H14 -
> Great Possessions; Tetra: 38 - Fullness, Ego: #375 / #54 - Culturing
> Perspectives/ Cultivation of Intuition; I-Ching: H55 - Abundance;
> Tetra: 45 - Greatness]
For goodness sake Dolf, take your meds!
--
David Moss
Personal opinion only
The Australian Politics Resource
http://politics.sunnybar.dynip.com
dolf
Medico-Legal Section
Medical Record Department
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital
50 Missenden Road
Camperdown, NSW 2050, Australia
Your Ref: 169 45 32
17 April 2009 .jackNote@zen: 3, row: 1, col: 8, nous: 54 [Super: #338 /
#68 - Coinciding with Nature/ Complying With Heaven; I-Ching: H14 -
Great Possessions; Tetra: 38 - Fullness, Ego: #375 / #54 - Culturing
Perspectives/ Cultivation of Intuition; I-Ching: H55 - Abundance; Tetra:
45 - Greatness]
I am providing you with an update to document titled “Deus ex Machinas--
Extrusion of Ideas (sexual exclusion) & Three-Dimensional Cellular
Automata” This fulfills my undertaking given to you to provide the State
medical institutions with a philosophical framework from which to
continue their work in genetic and stem cell research, without costly
and disruptive religious interference as dogmas.
On Monday, 6 April 2009 .jackNote@zen: 2, row: 1, col: 6, nous: 78
[Super: #401 / #32 - Natural Guide/ Virtue of Holiness; I-Ching: H44 -
Coming On; Tetra: 43 - Encounters, Ego: #355 / #78 - Recognizing
Fidelity/ Trust in Faith; I-Ching: H59 - Dispersal; Tetra: 47 - Pattern]
whilst effecting closure of an account due to discrimination in the
provision of goods and services, an equivalent preliminary copy of this
document was provided to ANZ Bank situated in George Street, Sydney with
the following statement: “That prior to this Easter, I wish to convey my
concern for the culture of vilification, that is Australian life. And
to deny your Institution and its employees, any satisfaction which they
may otherwise derive from an autonomic or hymeneal claim to religious
belief including Christian identity.”
As you know an earthquake occurred in Abruzzo Italy and a state funeral
was held in Italy for 205 victims of that devastating event on 10 April
2009. .jackNote@zen: 1, row: 1, col: 7, nous: 29 [Super: #395 / #29 -
Deeming/ Non-Assertion; I-Ching: H36 - Sinking Light; Tetra: 67 -
Darkening, Ego: #309 / #29 - Deeming/ Non-Assertion; I-Ching: H36 -
Sinking Light; Tetra: 67 - Darkening]
In the past, I have in addition to having aspersions made of my HIV
status, been falsely accused as grounds for a 4 day involuntarily
psychiatric admission by the Victorian Alfred Hospital of claiming to
cause earthquakes on 21 August 1999. This is untrue as I am only
concerned with how these phenomenal events correspond to my Grapple
Homoiotic Noumenon as intellectual property and hypostatic metashematizo
of homoousion.
I am now pursuing a human rights action against that hospital as claim
of racial, religious and sexual vilification.
Yours sincerely
Sean McHugh
gsw...@gmail.com wrote (81):
<snip>
> I still cannot see that the cubic design would be better than the
> hexagonal prism design that is Biblical contrary to the boat-shape
> given in children's books and possibly in Sunday School books of
> previous decades before the more intense studies on these matters were
> begun.
Beamier craft are harder to roll. That is why outrigger canoes have
outrigs and why catamarans don't require ballast. The shortest
horizontal axis, for an object, will be the axis of least stability.
With a six to one ration there is almost no chance that the vessel
will tip over longitudinally, but a relatively good chance of it
tipping over sideways. Better to sacrifice the redundant longitudinal
stability to improve the lateral stability. Narrower bases make things
less stable. It's why it's easier to place a coin flat on a table than
it is to stand it on its edge. It's why a coffee cup with a small base
can topple more easily than a wide based mug of the same volume.
Surely this is something even a child intuitively understands.
~ Obviously, the wider the beam, the stronger the righting
~ monument - and the more stable the boat.
http://www.salixonline.co.uk/cck/kayaks.html
~ This stable craft has a wider beam than most, to give the user
~ a sense of safety and stability.
http://www.cabelas.com/prod-1/0064168020613a.shtml
~ The wider beam and shorter length make it an extremely stable
~ platform when battling big fish.
http://www.muskokastore.com/ms/canoes/langford.htm
~ Wider beam for a smoother, more stable ride.
How many testimonies do you need and how much does it take to get it
across?
Sean McHugh
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Apr 15, 4:57 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 4:54 pm, theo wrote:
> > > On Apr 15, 2:00 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > > > I am not aware of any cubic boats/ships at anytime
> > > > during the world's history from what I have seen in
> > > >you say that cubic vessels are more stable?
>
> > > They don't make cubic boats because all boats are meant to
> > > be moved from one coastal destination to another.
>
> > I realised that after I had posted. Kicked myself!
>
> > The Ark however was not meant to go anywhere, just float,
> > and a cube is much better at doing that.
>
That fact I have just recalled, but not the time. Noah's ark was
floating for about twelve months.
> > It is hard to say how far the Ark travelled - your guesstimate would be as worthless as mine.
>
> > But Genesis 11 : 2 states, 'as they (Noah and his family)
> >journeyed *** from the east***, (that is by walking)
> > ...they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt
> >there.
>
> > I understand the Land of Shinar was later Babylon south of
> >present-day Baghdad (Iraq).
> > If the Ark had landed on present-day Ararat in Turkey they
> >would have had to travel ***from the north-west*** to the
> >Land of Shinar.
Correction. I have checked with the map and Mt Ararat is almost due
north of Baghdad. But then the text would read 'travelled from the
north'.
> > But to travel ***from the east*** they would have travelled possibly from present-day Iran -the western area -border with Iraq - hilly rising quickly to mountains.
> > Isn't it possible that Ararat in Turkey was named at a much later date than the Biblical record????
> > I hope my reasoning is correct on the above.
Still puzzling!
>
> Excellent reasoning but there was no power on the Ark so it would have had to travel by drifting. A 'boat' shape is ony required for vessels which have some motive power, or way. Actually a cube would also be more easily moved by wind.
>
But the shorter time period would mean that the cube shape might have
been preferable. But even so its 120 cubits of height (possibly 180
feet) would have made it difficult for its occupants to go from floor
to floor.
The height of Noah's ark at 30 cubits (possibly 45 feet) with the
greater length, and only three storeys made all the housekeeping on
the Ark to be much easier for Noah and his family.
There appears to be an issue of plagiarism between the two accounts,
but if that was so, who stole from whom?
As far as I have read into the Epic of Gilgamesh it seems to me that
is the mythology.
There are three references in the New Testament, to Noah.
Hebrews 11 : 7, 1 Peter 3 : 20, 2 Peter 2 : 5,
> > > Surely your God understood that when he handed Noah the plans. Look at things that are just required to float and be stable. Rafts, pontoons, cable ferries, square.
>
Rafts, plontoons, ferries (as across rivers in former days in NSW,
have travelled on two of them with my car), and of course squares are
flat on the ground/water or very close to it. I do not think your
comparison is legitimate.
>
> >www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3027/
>
> You snipped the bit I quoted from the website you pointed me
> which said-
> "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD" (verse 8). He
> believed God, and moved by reverence for God, not abject fear,
> he obeyed instructions and built the world's first boat. The
> plans were given to him by God. If we build a model Ark to the
> same specification, it will float- unlike the boat in the
> Babylonian Flood legend, said to be a perfect cube, which is
> totally unseaworthy."
>
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Apr 15, 8:05 am, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 7:18 pm, gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > > So genocide is OK?
>> I was referring you to your god's genocide of millions of people on several occiasions.
>> You claimed your god never did anything wrong, and yet your bible says your god committed genocide on several occassions (supposidly committing millions to a 'hell' he made for them)
>> I'm asking you to reconcile these two 'facts'.
>
>Most notably during the flood in the time of Noah and his family.
>Genesis 6 : 5 - 8
>And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and
>that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
>continually. And it repented the Lord that He had made man on the face
>of the earth,....
What did God expect after he downgraded all of creation?
>And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have
>made from the face of the earth...for it repents me that I have made
>them.
>But Noah found grace (God's unmerited mercy in that although he was
>not perfect he was repenting and worshipped God).
>All others were so depraved in their moral attitudes with extreme
>violence that they were beyond redemption.
Did God really expect to correct his errors by making copies of the
things that were causing him problems?
>Genesis 6 : 3
>And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man.
>
>I am of the opinion that it took Noah and his sons 120 years to build
>the Ark and during that time Noah also preached to the people that
>they should repent of their evil ways. I haven't the reference for
>that and need to check further.
>But certainly as he began to build the ark at a distance from the sea
>when people queried his actions they would have been told of God's
>judgements if they would not change their behaviour.
The people would not have believed God would be so stupid.
>It is a fact today that through a variety of means, including the
>Internet, that people have the opportunity to hear the Christian truth
>of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
Its a pity God is such a poor communicator.
>God allows us to choose whether we will take His way of salvation or
>whether we will refuse it.
Does God explain the pros and cons of both option to all in an
unambiguous and non-threatening manner?
>May I suggest instead of looking for circumstances in the past that
>you think support your Atheism, that you should consider very
>carefully reasons why you should accept the Christian faith
>in its basic concepts.
I am not aware of any.
>We are saved by grace, through faith and that not of ourselves,
>it is the gift of God. Not of works lest anyone should boast.
Gladys keeps telling us there is nothing we can do to earn salvation
then tells us we must earn salvation be having faith.
>For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works,
>which God has ordained that we should walk in them.
Find me a Christian who believes that. They all say God is not responsible.
>Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:09:01 -0700 (PDT), gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> >All others were so depraved in their moral attitudes with extreme
> >violence that they were beyond redemption.
>
> Did God really expect to correct his errors by making copies of the
> things that were causing him problems?
Given the saying that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over,
but expecting a different outcome", Gladys appears to be providing
evidence that her god is insane?
> >We are saved by grace, through faith and that not of ourselves,
> >it is the gift of God. Not of works lest anyone should boast.
>
> Gladys keeps telling us there is nothing we can do to earn salvation
> then tells us we must earn salvation be having faith.
Well, her bible does contradict itself on that matter too!
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
wrote:
[snip]
> Noah's ark was floating for about twelve months.
Discuss sanitary and nutritional requirements for these twelve months
w.r.t two of every kind (or is it species today) on board.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Apr 19, 12:04 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:09:01 gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Did God really expect to correct his errors by making copies
> > of the things that were causing him problems?
>
your brain is so involved in twisting the information given you that
you just can't take into your brain what has been given you. In my
experience that is a new type of learning problem.
> Given the saying that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different outcome", Gladys appears to be providing evidence that her god is insane?
>
What is termed insanity is a human condition of the brain that most
people do not name according to its correct medical terms of
neurological disease, neurological damage and bio-chemical imbalances
in the blood supply to the neurological system.
> > >We are saved by grace, through faith and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
>
> > Gladys keeps telling us there is nothing we can do to earn salvation then tells us we must earn salvation be having faith.
>
Barry, when and where have I told you that you 'must earn salvation'?
> Well, her bible does contradict itself on that matter too!
It doesn't. The New Testament teaches 'salvation by faith in Jesus
Christ's finished work of salvation
and after we have accepted that salvation by faith there are good
works to be done that will give a reward in Eternity.
1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
The most important good work is to give the gospel message
(salvation by faith) to others and to provide the means for others to
do so, (ie those who can do it full-time)
as well as aid in material aspects of life.
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
wrote:
[snip]
> > Given the saying that "insanity is doing the same
> > thing over and over, but expecting a different
> > outcome", Gladys appears to be providing evidence
> > that her god is insane?
>
> God is not insane.
> What is termed insanity is a human condition of the
> brain that most people do not name according to its
> correct medical terms of neurological disease,
> neurological damage and bio-chemical imbalances
> in the blood supply to the neurological system.
It is interesting that you now appear to have a modicom of knowledge
of brain function and brain chemistry - yet when it was spointed out
to you that religious delusions and experinces can be created/managed/
replicated/modelled/experineced by minor tweeks and adjustmenst in
brain chemistry you went quite mute on the subject.
Further, it is interetsing to note that you now (ie, when it suits
you) appear to suggest that man and your god are quite different
entities, whereas previously you argue (when it suits) man was mad in
gods image.
Or is it only in your gods image when it suits you, but not when it
does not?
> Barry, when and where have I told you that you 'must earn salvation'?
>
> > Well, her bible does contradict itself on that matter too!
>
> It doesn't. The New Testament teaches 'salvation by faith in Jesus
> Christ's finished work of salvation
> and after we have accepted that salvation by faith there are good
> works to be done that will give a reward in Eternity.
> 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
If youare going to throw 1Corinthians quotes about with gay abandon,
consider 1Corinthians7:14 which quite clearly says that one can be
"saved" by the beleif of ones spouse alone.
You also refuse to engage (beyond the repitition of mantra) about
Rahab, who was supposidly saved by faith in Hebrews11:31, yet James
2:25 has her being saved by her works.
Crikey, if you want to look at all the different ways of being saved,
it seems all you have to do is:
- Say the right things - Matthew 12:37
- Do the right things - John 5:29, Psalm 62:12,
Jeremiah 17:10, Ezekiel 18:27, Matthew 16.27,
Matthew 25:34-36, Romans 2:6, 13,
2 Corinthians 5:10, 2 Corinthians 11:15,
1 Peter 1:17, Revelation 2:23, Revelation 20:12-13
- Believe the right things - Romans 3:28, Romans 5:1, Galatians 2:16,
Ephesians 2:8
- Do and believe the right things - James 2:17
- Do the will of God [1]- Matthew 7:21
- Believe in Jesus - John 3:16, John 3:36, Acts 16:31
- Be born again - John 3:3
- Hear the words of Jesus and believe in whoever
sent him - John 5:24
- Be born of water and the spirit - John 3:5
- Be washed by the Holy Ghost - Titus 3:5
- Be converted and become like a little child -
Matthew 18:3
- Believe and be baptized - Mark - 16:16
- Call upon the name of the Lord - Acts 2:21
- Confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord" and
believe in your heart that God raised him from
the dead - Romans 10:9
- Follow the commandments (at least some of
them) - Matthew 19:17-19, Revelation 22:14
Luke 18:18-22
- Endure to the end[2] - Matthew 10:22, 24:13,
Mark 13:13
- Wait until you die and then get baptized -
1 Corinthians 15:29
- Have lots of babies - 1 Timothy 2:14-15
- Be a virgin male[3] - Revelation 14:3-4
- Be given by the Father and come to the Son.
- Be chosen (predestinated) by God - Matthew 22:14
Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:11, Ephesians 1:4-5
- Be more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees.
Matthew 5:20
- Eat Jesus' body and blood (aka take communion)
John 6:53-54
[1] Given that Gladys has previously defended genocide
as being the will of god, it could be argued that Pol
Pot and Ghengis Kahn have been saved!
[2] This is the one Galdys is betting on, given the way
she batters on with her attempst to indontrinate
children and her refusal to enage with fact, science,
reason, or logic
[3] This is the one ChristianKnight is going for.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Apr 20, 2:11 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > Given the saying that "insanity is doing the same
> > > thing over and over, but expecting a different
> > > outcome", Gladys appears to be providing evidence
> > > that her god is insane?
>
> > God is not insane.
> > What is termed insanity is a human condition of the
> > brain that most people do not name according to its
> > correct medical terms of neurological disease,
> > neurological damage and bio-chemical imbalances
> > in the blood supply to the neurological system.
>
> It is interesting that you now appear to have a modicom of
> experinces can be
> created/managed/replicated/modelled/experienced by minor
> tweeks and adjustmenst in brain chemistry you went quite mute
> on the subject.
>
account of past postings evidently in the hope (perhaps) that if you
can prove an error in one/a number of comments you then can attribute
error in all past statements.
Religious delusions as you call them, hallucinations, sense of
wonderful peace or intense evil, voices in the brain, extra sensory
perceptions of conviction of what one should or should not do, can be
a means of determining actions/reactions that are not available
through other means. I have had many experience of that kind. But they
were not symptoms of Mental Illness, so called. Some came frome
medications to which i was allergic because of a virus in my system
from Rheumatic Fever in my younger years, others were due to a high
ESP level from others' thinking processes.
1 John 4 : 1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try (test) the spirits to see
whether they are of God because many false prophets are gone out into
the world.
> Further, it is interetsing to note that you now (ie, when it
> suits you) appear to suggest that man and your god are quite
> different entities, whereas previously you argue (when it
> suits) man was made in God's image.
>
Originally, yes. (Genesis 1 : 26)
But Genesis 2 : 16 - 17 gives the outcome if the first man and woman
disobeyed God's commands.
> > Barry, when and where have I told you that you 'must earn salvation'?
>
> > > Well, her bible does contradict itself on that matter too!
>
> > It doesn't. The New Testament teaches 'salvation by faith in
> > Jesus Christ's finished work of salvation
> > and after we have accepted that salvation by faith there are
> > good works to be done that will give a reward in Eternity.
> > 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
>
> If you are going to throw 1 Corinthians quotes about with gay > abandon, consider 1 Corinthians 7:14 which quite clearly says
> that one can be "saved" by the belief of one's spouse alone.
and 1 Corinthians 7 : 16 states :For what do you know, O wife, whether
you shall save your husband? or what do you know, O man", whether you
shall save your wife? anfd that would be through giving the gospel one
to the other.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that
whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting
life. John 3 : 16 and other such verses.
>
> You also refuse to engage (beyond the repetition of mantra) about Rahab, who was supposidly saved by faith in Hebrews 11:31, yet James 2:25 has her being saved by her works.
>
Faith has an outcome in works.
Introduction to James (KJV -Zondervan publishers)
'James was much bothered by his observation that Christians were not
living holy and righteous lives. ... So James filled his letter with
numerous exhortations to Christian living, for example persevere
through trials of faith, don't show favouritism for rich people over
poor, control your tongue, don't quarrel, don't be greedy, be patient
when suffering.
Did you compile that list or did you obtain it from another?
I have not seen it before this posting.
However, salvation is through faith, there are outcomes of that
salavation faith that follow.
The Christian life is a personal relationship with God in Jesus
Christ. Jesus explained that personal realationship in metaphorical
says, such as "I am the light of the world", "I am the door (of the
sheepfold) - an interesting one not understood today because the
shepherd actually sat in the entrance gap to the sheepfold so that any
wolf or men who came to take the sheep
had to get past the shepherd who was actually willing to give his life
to save the sheep if need be; I am the bread of life,
and others.
[1] Given that Gladys has previously defended genocide
> as being the will of God,
In respect of the flood in the time of Noah, in which God brought
about the deaths of the depraved persons.
> it could be argued that Pol Pot and Ghengis Kahn have been saved!
>
And Hitler and Mussolini and many others through history.
What their final fate in respect of Eternity is I do not know - nor
does any other person.
***The important matter is "Are you, yourself, saved?"***
>[2] This is the one Gladys is betting on, given the way
> she batters on with her attempts to indoctrinate children.
Children are indoctrinated with evolutionary facts without any
information to assess their reliability;
surely then they should also be indoctrinated with the evidence that
evolution is untestable, therefore not scientific;
and also be told that Charles Darwin did say that all points of view
should be given. Sorry I haven't page number on Origin of Spedies as I
did not write it down at the time I read that part.
> and her refusal to engage with fact, science, reason, or logic
>
The Creation scientists, as highy qualified as the Evolutionary
scientists, have engaged with 'fact, reason and logic'. I believe
their arguments should be heard.
> [3] This is the one Christian Knight is going for.
Haven't a clue what you mean!
Gladys Swager
Sean McHugh
Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote (104):
> Gladys wrote:
<snip>
Impressive list, throp; I'll save it (no pun intended).
<snip>
Best Regards,
Sean McHugh
Barry OGrady
<misanthropi...@breastcancermail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 19, 12:04 am, Barry OGrady <god_free_jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:09:01 -0700 (PDT), gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
>[snip]
>> >All others were so depraved in their moral attitudes with extreme
>> >violence that they were beyond redemption.
>>
>> Did God really expect to correct his errors by making copies of the
>> things that were causing him problems?
>
>Given the saying that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over,
>but expecting a different outcome", Gladys appears to be providing
>evidence that her god is insane?
Few of the actions that are claimed for God make any sense.
Christians try to explain why things under a loving and caring
God are identical to there being no God.
>> >We are saved by grace, through faith and that not of ourselves,
>> >it is the gift of God. Not of works lest anyone should boast.
>>
>> Gladys keeps telling us there is nothing we can do to earn salvation
>> then tells us we must earn salvation be having faith.
>
>Well, her bible does contradict itself on that matter too!
Gladys firmware has been modified to switch off her contradiction
detector.
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
wrote:
[snip]
> > It is interesting that you now appear to have a modicom of
> > knowledge of brain function and brain chemistry - yet when it
> > was pointed out to you that religious delusions and
> > experinces can be
> > created/managed/replicated/modelled/experienced by minor
> > tweeks and adjustmenst in brain chemistry you went quite mute
> > on the subject.
>
> I do not recall the previous occasion. But I see that you keep an
> account of past postings
No, Gladys, it is called havinga functioning memory.
Try using yours some time.
> Religious delusions as you call them, hallucinations, sense of
> wonderful peace or intense evil, voices in the brain, extra sensory
> perceptions of conviction of what one should or should not do, can be
> a means of determining actions/reactions that are not available
> through other means. I have had many experience of that kind.
That is obvious.
> 1 John 4 : 1
> Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try (test) the spirits to see
> whether they are of God because many false prophets are
> gone out into the world.
The nature of 1John4:1 is beyond you, isn't it?
> > Further, it is interetsing to note that you now (ie, when it
> > suits you) appear to suggest that man and your god are quite
> > different entities, whereas previously you argue (when it
> > suits) man was made in God's image.
>
> Originally, yes. (Genesis 1 : 26)
> But Genesis 2 : 16 - 17 gives the outcome if the first man and woman
> disobeyed God's commands.
So you are now accepting that man (supposidly made in your gods image)
has free will (which breachs quite a few biblical references).
Further, if man (supposidly made in your gods image) has free will
then your god has free-will. Note that your gopd having free will
would mean your god could decide to not 'save' somebody who had
complied with whicever means of saving was required.
Yes you have, Gladys. I have posted on this before - and you have
replied (but not addressed)
> However, salvation is through faith, there are outcomes of that
> salavation faith that follow.
Discuss that w.r.t the other means of being saved, presented above.
> > [1] Given that Gladys has previously defended genocide
> > as being the will of God,
>
> In respect of the flood in the time of Noah, in which God brought
> about the deaths of the depraved persons.
There were a darn sight more genocidal actions committed by (or
attributed to) your god than the (fictitious) flood myth you refer
to. Try and think fo a few.
> ***The important matter is "Are you, yourself, saved?"***
Yes, I was saved from the sort of religious delusions you promote
when i started thinking and questioning.
> >[2] This is the one Gladys is betting on, given the way
> > she batters on with her attempts to indoctrinate children.
>
> Children are indoctrinated with evolutionary facts without any
> information to assess their reliability;
Discuss with regards to libraries, the concepts of
falsification, ......
> they should also be indoctrinated with the evidence that
> evolution is untestable, therefore not scientific;
Given that I have presented evidence of testing evolution (viz
evolution in sandflies, bacteria and other rapidly reproducing
organsism) you are now lying harder than usual.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Apr 20, 4:39 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > It is interesting that you now appear to have a modicom of
> > > knowledge of brain function and brain chemistry - yet when > > > it was pointed out to you that religious delusions and
> > > experinces can be
> > > created/managed/replicated/modelled/experienced by minor
> > > tweeks and adjustmenst in brain chemistry you went quite
> > > mute on the subject.
>
but I can see that you are the type of person who must win all/most
debates and will use anything to further your ends.
I can't recall the topic or the date of the above. Yes, I would very
much like to have a photographic memory, I tend to think more at the
subconscious level and ideas well up from there.
In fact, unknown to me until about twenty years ago I suffered from
Amnesia and learnt by intemnse rote learning - the method of my own
education in large classes, pupils sitting in desks in rows with few
extra texts or other resources as there was little money for producing
those extra resources in the Depression and War years. But learn I
did, in a stable environment, (home school, community and church),
despite missing most of my First Class year; I was one place
(according to the method of assessment) off the Dux position in Sixth
Grade, actually third in the class and gained a position at the only
high School in the Western Sydney area. Did well enough - even an A
level in English - to gain a Teacher's Scholarship in 1946 - a long
time ago.
For your information further, the reason for that congenital Amnesia
was most likely that neither my mother nor I were expected to survive
my birth for six weeks before it. It is most likely that neighbours
knew of the situation and prayers were offered for both of us.
Having Anaemia and Rheumatic Fever, and being in a debilitated
condition because treatments in the late 1940's were very inadequate I
became distressed and at that time and on two other occasions I was
given Electro Convulsve Shock treatments - charges of electricity
through my brain - 'knocked out cold' - known to cause loss of memory
- but no tests were given to determine that I had recovered. I
continued teaching at the Infants' level - the only children I wanted
to teach at that time. This time thirty four years ago unbeknwns to me
then I was about to start an advocacy of reform in respect of the
treatments that I claim now that I should not have had if there had
been better diagnosis, assessment of my circumstances and
counselling.
That came after I had prayed in St Andrews Sydney Anglican Cathedral
Healing Ministry that cures and preventitive methods would be found
for such conditions. From a text by an American Psychiatric professor
I set out generalised areas of investigation for a more naturalistic
means of management, gave it to many persons, and began my own
recovery programme because by that time I had no faith in the medical
profession - a subconscious reaction I verbalised much later.
> > I do not recall the previous occasion. But I see that you
> > keep an account of past postings
>
> No, Gladys, it is called having a functioning memory.
My explanation above will help you to understand my situation
>
> > Religious delusions as you call them, hallucinations, sense
> >of wonderful peace or intense evil, voices in the brain,
> >extra sensory perceptions of conviction of what one should
> >or should not do, can be a means of determining
> >actions/reactions that are not available through other means.
> >I have had many experience of that kind.
>
> That is obvious.
>
You sound cynical to me.
> > 1 John 4 : 1
> > Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try (test) the
> >spirits to see whether they are of God because many false
> >prophets are gone out into the world.
>
> The nature of 1 John 4:1 is beyond you, isn't it?
I do not understand what ***you*** mean.
>
> Further, it is interesting to note that you now (ie, when
> it suits you) appear to suggest that man and your god are
> quite different entities, whereas previously you argue
> (when it suits) man was made in God's image.
>
> Originally, yes. (Genesis 1 : 26)
> But Genesis 2 : 16 - 17 gives the outcome if the first man
> and woman disobeyed God's commands.
>
> >So you are now accepting that man (supposidly made in your
> >gods image) has free will (which breaches quite a few
> >biblical references).
>
> > Further, if man (supposidly made in your gods image) has
> >free will then your god has free-will. Note that your god
> > having free will would mean your god could decide to
> >not 'save' somebody who had complied with whichever means of
> >saving was required.
>
Salvation would always be given on the basis of response to the
conditions given by God in the New Testament.
>
> Crikey, if you want to look at all the different ways of
> being saved, it seems all you have to do is:
> - Say the right things - Matthew 12:37
Yes, salvation is by saying 'yes' to Jesus who said that belief in Him
gave Everlasting Life.
> - Do the right things - John 5:29, Psalm 62:12,
The rewards for good deeds after salvation has been accepted.
1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
<snip answers to those verses given above)
> - Be born of water and the spirit - John 3:5
> - Be washed by the Holy Ghost - Titus 3:5
> - Be converted and become like a little child -
> Matthew 18:3
> - Believe and be baptized - Mark - 16:16
> - Call upon the name of the Lord - Acts 2:21
> - Confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord" and
> believe in your heart that God raised him from
> the dead - Romans 10:9
> - Follow the commandments (at least some of
> them) - Matthew 19:17-19, Revelation 22:14
> Luke 18:18-22
> - Endure to the end[2] - Matthew 10:22, 24:13,
> Mark 13:13
> - Wait until you die and then get baptized -
> 1 Corinthians 15:29
I do not accept that Paul states it that way.
It seems to me he is debating issues.
Just to be baptised without faith would not give salvation.
> - Have lots of babies - 1 Timothy 2:14-15
Doesn't say that at all. She shall be saved in childbearing (as my
mother was, as above) Or though childbearing the woman comes to
realise her need of God.
The number of children born at any time should be dependent on whether
there are the resources to nurture them adequately.
Some women should choose not to procreate when they are aware of the
possibility of passing on an heredity disease tha twould require
expensive medical treatments.
> - Be a virgin male[3] - Revelation 14:3-4
A certain group of men, but their virginity didn't ensure their place
in Eternity - their belief in Jesus Christ did.
> Be given by the Father and come to the Son.
> - Be chosen (predestinated) by God - Matthew 22:14
> Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:11, Ephesians 1:4-5
God, in His omniscience knows everythng from everlasting to
everlasting.
> - Be more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees.
> Matthew 5:20
Jesus had very strong words to say to the scribes and the Pharisees wo
trusted in their religiosity.
> - Eat Jesus' body and blood (aka take communion)
> John 6:53-54
>
v 58 He that eats of the bread that I shall give shall live for ever.
This is in the debate about the Mass (of the RC Church) and
The Lord's Supper/ Holy Communion (of Protestant Churches).
Jesus said that He is the Bread of Life - that as bread is a staple
food (a food that is needed continually) - so a personal relationshop
with Jesus is needed continually. I believe that Jesus was speaking
metaphorically.
> Did you compile that list or did you obtain it from another?
> I have not seen it before this posting.
>
> Yes you have, Gladys. I have posted on this before - and you > have replied (but not addressed)
>
Apologies.
> > However, salvation is through faith, there are outcomes of
> > that salvation-faith that follow.
>
> Discuss that w.r.t the other means of being saved, presented above.
>
w.r.t. = what are the?
> [1] Given that Gladys has previously defended genocide
> as being the will of God,
>
In respect of the flood in the time of Noah, in which God
brought about the deaths of the depraved persons, God would have known
best.
> There were a darn sight more genocidal actions committed by (or
> attributed to) your god than the (fictitious) flood myth you
> refer to. Try and think fo a few.
I used the account of the flood in the time of Noah as an
illustration. Do you require a full Bible search every time?
>
> > ***The important matter is "Are you, yourself, saved?"***
>
> Yes, I was saved from the sort of religious delusions you
> promote when I started thinking and questioning.
All by yourself? No input of ideas from others?
>
> [2] This is the one Gladys is betting on, given the way
> she batters on with her attempts to indoctrinate children.
>
Children are indoctrinated with evolutionary facts without any
information to assess their reliability;
>
> Discuss with regards to libraries, the concepts of
> falsification, ......
>
I would think that a broader approach from all educational sources
would fit the bill better. However, I am seeing a possible reasson for
the post-war implementation of public libraries as a means to
indoctrinate evolution.
Our local library will not put any Creationist books on its open
shelves - as I was told the last time I enquired, quite some time ago.
(I do not drive myself now because of a medical problem in my legs).
I would think that status quo still applies.
> > they should also be indoctrinated with the evidence that
> > evolution is untestable, therefore not scientific;
>
> Given that I have presented evidence of testing evolution (viz
> evolution in sandflies, bacteria and other rapidly reproducing
> organsism) you are now lying harder than usual.
And what did 'the sandflies, bacteria and other rapidly reproducing
organisms' become in their somewhat changed existence?
Did you see change within the organism that is continually happening
in every procreation? Or did you just see human manipulation and
exclaimed, "Hey presto, this would have happened in the wild.
Evolution from one organism to a different organism is proved."
But way back in time there were no humans and science laboratories to
help the changes along.
You will notice that I have changed some of the attrition markings,
but as this is 'a conversation' between just the two of us, you will
be able to pick out your comments.
I have not answered all our points. You are probably a faster typist
than I am - another of my dreadful failings!
And some needed further study.
I am not 'a walking encyclopedia'.
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
wrote:
[snip]
> > > > It is interesting that you now appear to have a modicom of
> > > > knowledge of brain function and brain chemistry - yet when
> > > > it was pointed out to you that religious delusions and
> > > > experinces can be
> > > > created/managed/replicated/modelled/experienced by minor
> > > > tweeks and adjustmenst in brain chemistry you went quite
> > > > mute on the subject.
>
> We can all keep scores in respect of others for a variety of reasons
> but I can see that you are the type of person who must win all/most
> debates and will use anything to further your ends.
Yeah, curse me for using that debbil-inspired logic-stuff, eh?
> I can't recall the topic or the date of the above.
> Yes, I would very much like to have a photographic
> memory,
And has been pointed out to you previously, a functioning memeory and
this 'photographic' memeory you confuse it with are not one-in-the-
same.
> I tend to think more at the subconscious level and ideas well
> up from there. In fact, unknown to me until about twenty years
> ago I suffered from Amnesia and learnt by intemnse rote
> learning
Your shallow depth of understanding of the dogma you seek to foist on
others supports your suggestion you have blindly rote-learnt much of
what you regurgitate in here.
> > > Religious delusions as you call them, hallucinations, sense
> > >of wonderful peace or intense evil, voices in the brain,
> > >extra sensory perceptions of conviction of what one should
> > >or should not do, can be a means of determining
> > >actions/reactions that are not available through other means.
> > >I have had many experience of that kind.
>
> > That is obvious.
>
> You sound cynical to me.
If cynicism is non-fanciful, rational, logical, and (even if I say so
myself) well-read, then so be it. Call me a cynic (with spelling
issues)
> > > 1 John 4 : 1
> > > Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try (test) the
> > >spirits to see whether they are of God because many false
> > >prophets are gone out into the world.
>
> > The nature of 1 John 4:1 is beyond you, isn't it?
>
> I do not understand what ***you*** mean.
1) Spirits/goblins exist? You have previously denied that
2) Is not testing what-is-of-god the same as testing-god
(which breaches Deuteronomy6:16, Matthew4:7, and
Luke 4:12)
3) You are one of the false prophets, with your lies and
misrepresentations.
> > > Further, if man (supposidly made in your gods image) has
> > >free will then your god has free-will. Note that your god
> > > having free will would mean your god could decide to
> > >not 'save' somebody who had complied with whichever means of
> > >saving was required.
>
> Salvation would always be given on the basis of response to the
> conditions given by God in the New Testament.
You continue to ignore any rational engagement with contradicting
scripture, which I have given you.
> > Crikey, if you want to look at all the different ways of
> > being saved, it seems all you have to do is:
> > - Say the right things - Matthew 12:37
>
> Yes, salvation is by saying 'yes' to Jesus who said that belief in Him
> gave Everlasting Life.
Saying it vs doing it: seperate things, Galdys.
> > - Do the right things - John 5:29, Psalm 62:12,
>
> The rewards for good deeds after salvation has been accepted.
> 1 Corinthians 3 : 11 - 15
John 5:29 and Psalm 62:12 and action orientated things, not dependant
uopn prior events like you suggest.
> <snip answers to those verses given above)
>
> > - Be born of water and the spirit - John 3:5
> > - Be washed by the Holy Ghost - Titus 3:5
> > - Be converted and become like a little child -
> > Matthew 18:3
> > - Believe and be baptized - Mark - 16:16
> > - Call upon the name of the Lord - Acts 2:21
> > - Confess with your mouth "Jesus is Lord" and
> > believe in your heart that God raised him from
> > the dead - Romans 10:9
> > - Follow the commandments (at least some of
> > them) - Matthew 19:17-19, Revelation 22:14
> > Luke 18:18-22
> > - Endure to the end[2] - Matthew 10:22, 24:13,
> > Mark 13:13
> > - Wait until you die and then get baptized -
> > 1 Corinthians 15:29
Your ignoring of the above is noted.
> > - Have lots of babies - 1 Timothy 2:14-15
>
> Doesn't say that at all. She shall be saved in childbearing (as my
> mother was, as above) Or though childbearing the woman comes to
> realise her need of God.
And if sinned again, requiring more saving? have another sprog!
> > - Be a virgin male[3] - Revelation 14:3-4
>
> A certain group of men, but their virginity didn't ensure their place
> in Eternity - their belief in Jesus Christ did.
Try reading it again, Galdys
> > Be given by the Father and come to the Son.
> > - Be chosen (predestinated) by God - Matthew 22:14
> > Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:11, Ephesians 1:4-5
>
> God, in His omniscience knows everythng from everlasting to
> everlasting.
You dont engage (or even understand) what predistination means, do
you??
> > - Be more righteous than the scribes and Pharisees.
> > Matthew 5:20
>
> Jesus had very strong words to say to the scribes and the Pharisees wo
> trusted in their religiosity.
Your comment does not address Matthews observation that all one had to
do to be saved was me more righteous than the the scribes and
Pharisees. That you note the bar was set low is actually further
argument that you are wrong.
> > - Eat Jesus' body and blood (aka take communion)
> > John 6:53-54
>
> v 58 He that eats of the bread that I shall give shall live for ever.
> This is in the debate about the Mass (of the RC Church) and
> The Lord's Supper/ Holy Communion (of Protestant Churches).
> Jesus said that He is the Bread of Life - that as bread is a staple
> food (a food that is needed continually) - so a personal relationshop
> with Jesus is needed continually. I believe that Jesus was speaking
> metaphorically.
The metaphorical (when it suits you, not YEC, eh?) bit is not the
point: one can be saved simply by taking communion (which having done
so numerous times, I can answer 'yes' to you previous question about
wheather I am 'saved' or not! :)
> > > However, salvation is through faith, there are outcomes of
> > > that salvation-faith that follow.
>
> > Discuss that w.r.t the other means of being saved, presented above.
>
> w.r.t. = what are the?
with respect to
> > [1] Given that Gladys has previously defended genocide
> > as being the will of God,
>
> In respect of the flood in the time of Noah, in which God
> brought about the deaths of the depraved persons, God would have known
> best.
>
> > There were a darn sight more genocidal actions committed by (or
> > attributed to) your god than the (fictitious) flood myth you
> > refer to. Try and think fo a few.
>
> I used the account of the flood in the time of Noah as an
> illustration. Do you require a full Bible search every time?
No. A simple acknowlegement of your gods repeated slaughter of entire
peoples (beyond the flood-myth) would suffice
> Our local library will not put any Creationist books on its open
> shelves - as I was told the last time I enquired, quite some time ago.
They are under over there --> under the fiction section.
> > > they should also be indoctrinated with the evidence that
> > > evolution is untestable, therefore not scientific;
>
> > Given that I have presented evidence of testing evolution (viz
> > evolution in sandflies, bacteria and other rapidly reproducing
> > organsism) you are now lying harder than usual.
>
> And what did 'the sandflies, bacteria and other rapidly reproducing
> organisms' become in their somewhat changed existence?
Different. Able to synthesie different foods.
Are you trying to trot out the old cats-into-dogs misrepresentation of
evolution?
> Did you see change within the organism that is continually happening
> in every procreation? Or did you just see human manipulation and
> exclaimed, "Hey presto, this would have happened in the wild.
> Evolution from one organism to a different organism is proved."
> But way back in time there were no humans and science laboratories to
> help the changes along.
Engage with the data I presented, and answer the question (and back
down from you errored asertions) yourself.
That is how people learn, you know.
> I have not answered all our points. You are probably a faster typist
> than I am
A fast dyslexic typist? *snort*
My typing skills were 'honed' dishing out command-line instructions to
x86 machines 20 years ago. An ability to type "dir/p" quickly does
not qualify me as a typist.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Apr 21, 6:27 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > We can all keep scores in respect of others for a variety of
> > reasons but I can see that you are the type of person who
> > must win all/most debates and will use anything to further
> >your ends.
>
> Yeah, curse me for using that debbil-inspired logic-stuff, eh?
>
indoctrintions and that you are sure they have been proved
scientifically and from that others are just 'not thinking' at least,
and are just 'idiots' at most. I am finding it a shock to my system
after teaching five to eight years olds - extending to some High
School students and adults for a good portion of my life for in that
teaching debating 'tricks' were not required.
<snip>
>
> > Salvation would always be given on the basis of response to
> >the conditions given by God in the New Testament.
> > everlasting.
>
> means, do you??
>
Yes, I have said that God knows everything from everlasting to
everlasting. He knows the motives of all of us,
our indoctrinations and why we respond the we do.
I do believe that God inspires certain people to work in certain ways
or the extenson of His kingdom. But I can't tell you why that is so.
Predestination is a topic I cannot discuss from God's point of view. I
just have to accept that there are certain works I can do in life,
that vary from the works that
others do in their lives. I am more concerned with getting on and
doing what I can do - rather that theologising (I may have coined a
new word) about it.
> The metaphorical (when it suits you, not YEC, eh?) bit is not
> the point: one can be saved simply by taking communion (which
> having done so numerous times, I can answer 'yes' to you
> previous question about whether I am 'saved' or not!
>
Salvation is through faith, before participating in any remembrance of
the Last Supper Jesus had with His disciples
>
> > In respect of the flood in the time of Noah, in which God
> > brought about the deaths of the depraved persons, God would > >have known best.
>
> > > There were a darn sight more genocidal actions committed
> by (or attributed to) your god than the (fictitious) flood
> myth you refer to. Try and think fo a few.
I wonder, Misanthropic, when you set me questions as you have
presented are you just thinking "Ah that will get her out of my hair.
That will keep her occupied for a long time."
Posting is not a matter of writing a book or even a pamphlet.
I used one illustration - but you seem to want all of them
But what about the times God blessed and helped peoples as they put
their faith in Him? You are constructing your arguments on what appear
to you to be negatives.
> > I used the account of the flood in the time of Noah as an
> > illustration. Do you require a full Bible search every time?
>
> No. A simple acknowlegement of your gods repeated slaughter of > entire peoples (beyond the flood-myth) would suffice
>
And you ignore all the inhumanity of humans to humans even though the
last century up to to-day.
Who or what guided Hitler and Mussolini to act as they did?
Their actions cannot be interpreted to have been because of God's
instructions to them, no matter what they may have stated at that
time.
> > Our local library will not put any Creationist books on its
> > open shelves - as I was told the last time I enquired,
> > quite some time ago.
>
> They are under over there --> under the fiction section.
>
That is where all those influenced by evolutionary ideas would like
them to be. If the Evolutionists were so sure that they had the
scientific proof they should have given it to parents instead of
introducing their ideas to children at times after the publication of
Origin of Species.
If I do not accept your ideas I am lying, am I?
>
> > And what did 'the sandflies, bacteria and other rapidly
> > reproducing organisms' become in their somewhat changed
> >existence?
>
> Different. Able to synthesie different foods.
>
But that was change within a species. That is happening all the time
from one generation to another in every procreation.
There is a need for different words, and those should not be 'macro-
evolution' and 'micro-evolution'.
The latter onr above (change) does happen,
but your experiment above does not prove the former.
> Are you trying to trot out the old cats-into-dogs
> misrepresentation of evolution?
I have not heard of 'cats-into-dogs;
I have heard of 'dinosaurs-into-birds' and 'apes-into-humans'. There
are other explanations for any similarites rather than that one
evolved into the other.
A famous evolutionists made fraudulant drawings in an endeavour 'to
prove' his point - and it was still being taught in at least one High
School in NSW relatively recently.
www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2997/
>
> > Did you see change within the organism that is continually
> > happening in every procreation? Or did you just see human
> > manipulation and exclaimed, "Hey presto, this would have
> >happened in the wild. Evolution from one organism to a
> > different organism is proved."
> > But way back in time there were no humans and science
> >laboratories to help the changes along.
>
Evolution avoids how the first living organisms came to be
'like the plague'. When you can prove they came into existence by
random chance, naturalistic means, then you may have the possiblity of
saying that there was no Almighty God involved.
But even then there would need to be an indepth checking of the
methods involved.
Gladys Swager
theo
wrote:
> Evolution avoids how the first living organisms came to be
> 'like the plague'. When you can prove they came into existence by
> random chance, naturalistic means, then you may have the possiblity of
> saying that there was no Almighty God involved.
> But even then there would need to be an indepth checking of the
> methods involved.
And can you prove there was an almighty God involved?
Theo
gsw...@gmail.com
> On Apr 22, 9:28 am, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > Evolution avoids how the first living organisms came to be
> > 'like the plague'. When you can prove they came into
> > existence by random chance, naturalistic means, then you
> > may have the possiblity of saying that there was no
> > Almighty God involved.
> > But even then there would need to be an indepth checking of
> > the methods involved.
>
> And can you prove there was an almighty God involved?
>
That is playing tit-for-tat.
God Almighty cannot be proved scientifically, that's for sure.
But God Almighty can be evident (I prefer that word to 'proved',
experientially. What has come to my mind is an experience I had about
fifty four years ago. A person I knew at that time, said to me that
God sometimes caused a light to appear around a Bible verse as a means
of giving guidance. I was attending a Bible Study, but had not read
any of the verses on the page of my open Bible so there was no auto-
suggestion involved.
However, as I looked down there was a light around
Jeremiah 42 : 10 "If you will abide in this land, then I will build
you, and not pull you down, and I will plant you, and not pluck you
up, for I repent me of the evil I have done to you."
To participate in these newsgroups is something I would never have
thought, had I known of them, that I would ever do. I dropped out of
two debating courses although I did stay for about a year and a half
in what was called The Penguin Club, originally a programme started
for wives of overseas diplomats living in Canberra, but started in
Goulburn in 1959 for women there by the Infants Mistress, with
attendance only by invitation.
Another time, early in 1970, I experienced intense evil during the
night, but a short time previously I had been given a small book of
meditations with one about the power in the name of Jesus. I prayed
just that name all though the a very disturbing night, drifting in and
out of disturbing sleep during times of exhaustion. In hindsight it is
most likely I was prompted to change certain plans I had made, and
that was an important decision, as I realised much later
In the early morning of Melbourne Cup Day, 1974, I believe God spoke
to me in a dream, "Pass this test and I will use you".
The next year in April, I was given what later came to be called
Stress Leave from the Education Department and used it for proposing
some new ideas in School, Health and Community Education as
opportunities presented themselves to do so while recovering from
medical problems. Officially, I was retired from the Education
Department in 1983.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Psalm 34 : 8 "O taste and see that the Lord (God) is good,
blessed is the (wo)man who trusts in Him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
wrote:
[snip]
> > > We can all keep scores in respect of others for a variety of
> > > reasons but I can see that you are the type of person who
> > > must win all/most debates and will use anything to further
> > >your ends.
>
> > Yeah, curse me for using that debbil-inspired logic-stuff, eh?
>
Well, Gladys, that went right over your head, didn't it?
> > > Salvation would always be given on the basis of response to
> > >the conditions given by God in the New Testament.
> > > God, in His omniscience knows everythng from everlasting to
> > > everlasting.
>
> > You don't engage (or even understand) what predestination
> > means, do you??
>
> Yes, I have said that God knows everything from everlasting
> to everlasting. He knows the motives of all of us,
> our indoctrinations and why we respond the we do.
In which case he knows which ones of us (alledgedly) will accept this
(alledged) salvation.
- Which means we dont have any free choice.
- Which makes a mockery of your claims.
> > The metaphorical (when it suits you, not YEC, eh?) bit is not
> > the point: one can be saved simply by taking communion (which
> > having done so numerous times, I can answer 'yes' to you
> > previous question about whether I am 'saved' or not!
>
> Salvation is through faith, before participating in any remembrance of
> the Last Supper Jesus had with His disciples
As I have pointed out, your bible presents multiple pathways to this
(alledged) salvation. That you present another merely confirms the
contrdictions in your bible.
For you to continue to assert one method of this (alledged) salvation
superceeds all others is quite dishonest of you.
> > There were a darn sight more genocidal actions committed
> > by (or attributed to) your god than the (fictitious) flood
> > myth you refer to. Try and think fo a few.
>
> I wonder, Misanthropic, when you set me questions as you have
> presented are you just thinking "Ah that will get her out of my hair.
> That will keep her occupied for a long time."
No. I hope (in vain, apparently) to make you think about the
contradictions and falsities in your posts.
> But what about the times God blessed and helped peoples
> as they put their faith in Him?
Are yo seriously suggetsing that repeated genocide (by your god) is
made acceptable in totality by a few good deeds (by your god) here and
there?
> > > I used the account of the flood in the time of Noah as an
> > > illustration. Do you require a full Bible search every time?
>
> > No. A simple acknowlegement of your gods repeated
> > slaughter of entire peoples (beyond the flood-myth) would
> > suffice
>
> And you ignore all the inhumanity of humans to humans even though the
> last century up to to-day.
Not at all. And nor do I try and excuse such inhumanity as you are
trying to excuse from your gods genocidal actions.
> Who or what guided Hitler and Mussolini to act as they did?
> Their actions cannot be interpreted to have been because of God's
> instructions to them, no matter what they may have stated at that
> time.
How do you know??
- they commmitted genocide and mass murder
for a better world that would idolise them
- your god commmitted genocide and mass
murder for a better world that would idolise him.
Sounds like two sides of the same coin to me!
> If I do not accept your ideas I am lying, am I?
You lie when you contridict yourself, and post something as fact
knowing it to be wrong. Consider your repeated postings in response
to Augray from last year
> > > And what did 'the sandflies, bacteria and other rapidly
> > > reproducing organisms' become in their somewhat changed
> > >existence?
>
> > Different. Able to synthesie different foods.
>
> But that was change within a species.
Again, right over your head.
You still refuse to accept that 'species' is an artifical construct
used as a label.
Continued and repeated 'change within a species' leads to new species.
> > Are you trying to trot out the old cats-into-dogs
> > misrepresentation of evolution?
>
> I have not heard of 'cats-into-dogs;
You lie.
We discussed in the thread entitled "FYI:The "Big Bang", in laymans
terms" in November 2008.
> Evolution avoids how the first living organisms came to be
Again you post this falsity: evolution is the theory of eveolution.
The beginnis of life is a whole differnet theiry al together. For you
to continue to try and pretend one is of the other is another falshood
you push.
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
[snip]
> But God Almighty can be evident (I prefer that word to 'proved',
Your 'proof' is no more than a delusion akin to those of David Koresh,
and (failed) sensemaking between two disparate incidents.
To argue that these experinces are 'proof' of your god is as (in)valid
as the argument that pantyhose casues rape (because the reported
incidents of rape have increased, and more women wear pantyhose.
Therefore pantyhose causes rape)
You appear unable to distingiush cause from correaltion, Gladys, and
that is part of your problem.
Barry OGrady
>On Apr 20, 9:51 am, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 12:04 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> > On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 20:09:01 gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Did God really expect to correct his errors by making copies
>> > of the things that were causing him problems?
>>
>Barry, you are an example of an extremely slow learner due to the fact
>your brain is so involved in twisting the information given you that
>you just can't take into your brain what has been given you. In my
>experience that is a new type of learning problem.
Are you suggesting that God failed me when he made my brain?
God is incapable of learning.
Malachi 3:6
For I [am] the LORD, I change [learn] not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are
not consumed.
>> Given the saying that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different outcome", Gladys appears to be providing evidence that her god is insane?
>>
>God is not insane.
God has the symptoms of insanity.
>What is termed insanity is a human condition of the brain that most
>people do not name according to its correct medical terms of
>neurological disease, neurological damage and bio-chemical imbalances
>in the blood supply to the neurological system.
If God had a brain he would be insane.
>> > >We are saved by grace, through faith and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
>>
>> > Gladys keeps telling us there is nothing we can do to earn salvation then tells us we must earn salvation be having faith.
>>
>Barry, when and where have I told you that you 'must earn salvation'?
Gladys, when you tell me Jesus will not save us from God unless we
earn it by having faith.
>> Well, her bible does contradict itself on that matter too!
>
>It doesn't. The New Testament teaches 'salvation by faith in Jesus
>Christ's finished work of salvation
Will Jesus save us from God if we don't have faith in him
or
do we need to earn salvation by having faith?
>and after we have accepted that salvation by faith there are good
>works to be done that will give a reward in Eternity.
So there will be different levels in heaven like the cast system
in India?
Will the haves be isolated from the have nots?
>The most important good work is to give the gospel message
>(salvation by faith) to others and to provide the means for others to
>do so, (ie those who can do it full-time)
It would be far better if you would preach that Jesus will save us
all from God no matter what we do. That would make people feel
better and would make Jesus look better.
>as well as aid in material aspects of life.
Its best you don't do that because you risk offending God.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:11:26 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
[snip]
>
God created the world and all living things in it perfect.
Humans sinned so perfection didn't exist. But God gave means by which
the relationship with Him could be restored to the Jewish peoples and
then through faith in Jesus Christ. For some reason you are not
willing or unable to understand that.
Barry, you are an example of an extremely slow learner due to the fact
your brain is so involved in twisting the information given you that
you just can't take into your brain what has been given you. In my
experience that is a new type of learning problem.
>
God does not change, but humans can change and the most important
change is to come to a relationship with God through faith in Jesus
Christ, His only begotten Son.
>
Your brain as well as the rest of you came from your parents.
None of of us were born perfect, but changes can come as we pray for
medical specialists and others in the healing professions to gain
insights that will bring improvements.
It may be that you need to consult a neuro-physician/surgeon
and if you do give that information through these newsgroups as I am
sure that there will be Christians who will pray for you and him/her.
Miracles still happen today, but often in different ways to those in
New Testament times.
We are saved by grace, through faith and that not of ourselves, it is
the gift of God. Not of works lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2 :
8 - 9
>
When do we have to earn a gift from God?
You have programmed your brain so intensely that you will not commit
yourself to Jesus Christ.
>
> >The New Testament teaches 'salvation by faith in Jesus Christ's finished work of salvation
>
> >and after we have accepted that salvation by faith there are good works to be done that will give a reward in Eternity.
>
I will be content that those who have given most of their lives in
Christian service and have been tortured/killed for their faith should
have a greater reward than I will.
But just to be in Heaven will be wonderful.
The most important good work is to give the gospel message
(salvation by faith) to others and to provide the means for others to
do so, (ie those who can do it full-time)
as well as providing for others in need.
>
'God has no hands, but our hands to do His will on this earth' for God
is Spirit. Jesus Christ has given humans the task of correcting the
problems that humans caused by rebelling against Him.
Many Christians have been involved in that and secularists also
involved in it may not realise that they are following the example of
Christians.
I have snipped your comments, Barry.
Gladys Swager
theo
> On Apr 22, 1:08 pm, theo wrote:> On Apr 22, 9:28 am, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > > Evolution avoids how the first living organisms came to be
> > > 'like the plague'. When you can prove they came into
> > > existence by random chance, naturalistic means, then you
> > > may have the possiblity of saying that there was no
> > > Almighty God involved.
> > > But even then there would need to be an indepth checking of
> > > the methods involved.
>
> > And can you prove there was an almighty God involved?
>
> Can you prove there was no God Almighty involved?
> That is playing tit-for-tat.
Not really Gladys, you claim evolution didn't happen and the world is
only a few thousand years old. I believe it did happen and the earth
is billions of years old. How can we come to a agreement on that?
I can see thousnads of scientists who agree with my point of view and
you can see a few dozen who agree with you. Not really a valid
argument though. The thousands of scientists have proof of the age of
the earth which is accepted by all of the scientific community except
your dozen. That's not proof either but it's telling. Your dozen
providde no proof other than "'Tis so", That's very telling. People
trying to safeguard children refuse to allow your version to be taught
in schools. That's very telling also. You claim that there is no
evolution but tabby's can begat a lion in a thousand years. You and
your dozen scientists claim that the speed of light changed after
creation to explain stars that are a billion lightyears away. The
world laughs at you. Don't you understand that you're backing the
wrong horse Gladys. Open your mind, please.
> God Almighty cannot be proved scientifically, that's for sure.
>
> But God Almighty can be evident (I prefer that word to 'proved',
> experientially.
So can Allah, and a thousand other alleged deities. Can they all be
true?
Theo
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Apr 22, 12:46 pm, gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 1:08 pm, theo wrote:
> > >On Apr 22, 9:28 am, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> > > > Evolution avoids how the first living organisms came to be 'like the plague'. When you can prove they came into
> > > > existence by random chance, naturalistic means, then you
> > > > may have the possiblity of saying that there was no
> > > > Almighty God involved. But even then there would need to > > > >be an indepth checking of the methods involved.
>
> only a few thousand years old. I believe it did happen and the earth is billions of years old. How can we come to a agreement on that?
Most children have been indoctrinated that evolution did happen in a
time-frame of millions/billions of years. So obviously there are more
scientists who believe that is so as those children go onto University
training. And from those presumptions they base their studies and
research.
But how do they scientifically measure billions of years back into the
past?
>The thousands of scientists have proof of the age of
> the earth which is accepted by all of the scientific community except your dozen.
How do you know there are only a dozen creationists?
You have taken a stab in the dark, grabbed a small number and used it
in denigration.
I do not know how many Scientists who are Creationists there are
throughout the world, even in Australia, nor how many non-scientists
agree with them in the same way as non-scientists accept evolution.
But this I do know Evolutionists introduced their theory to
impressionable school children, some of them before 1962 when the
General Science (with Evolution) Course was introduced in NSW and at
various times elsewhere.
And I also know that Tertiary level educators are not always right.
>That's not proof either but it's telling. Your dozen
> providde no proof other than "'Tis so", That's very telling.
If you think that, Theo, then you haven't read any of their literature/
articles or their websites because they provide a lot of evidence for
their conclusions.
People trying to safeguard children refuse to allow your version to be
taught in schools. That's very telling also.
It is not my version as I am not a scientists.
But those people (above) were indoctrinated with evolution in their
schooling and many haven't had contact with Creationism.
You claim that there is no evolution but tabbies can begat a lion in a
thousand years.
I have never said that a tabby begot a lion in a thousand years.
I do not know the kinds of felines that were on Noah's Ark - and no
one does. I have only thought of that answer now as I am typing - so I
was unable to give it to you in earlier postings.
You and your <....>scientists claim that the speed of light changed
after creation to explain stars that are a billion light years away.
They are seeking ways that scientifically the speed of light can be
placed in the Creationist model. Evolutionist haven't all their
problems solved.
>
And the Evolutionists state there was a Big Bang from very dense
matter that became all the 'bodies' in the Universe.
And the Evolutionists who do not believe there was a Creator must say
that non-living became living by random chance.
But people do not laugh at that because they have had many unusual
facts given in their schooling or through the media that they have
come to accept -- without thinking 'how could it be?'
> > God Almighty cannot be proved scientifically, that's for sure.
>
> > But God Almighty can be evident (I prefer that word to 'proved', experientially.
>
> So can Allah, and a thousand other alleged deities. Can they all be true?
>
No! They are the concoctions of men's minds as they reject God
Almighty - the Triune God of the Bible - or only accept what their
'elders' have told them.
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
wrote:
[snip]
> there are more scientists who believe that is so as those
> children go onto University training. And from those
> presumptions they base their studies and research.
You have no idea about 'literature review', 'literature gap', or
anything onvolved in postgraduate research, do you Galdys?
> But how do they scientifically measure billions of years back into the
> past?
By opeing their eyes. And mind.
> I do not know how many Scientists who are
> Creationists there are throughout the world,
Interesting. You have claimed you do previously, and even posted a
few lists of names.
> I have never said that a tabby begot a lion in a thousand years.
> I do not know the kinds of felines that were on Noah's Ark - and no
> one does. I have only thought of that answer now as I am typing - so I
> was unable to give it to you in earlier postings.
Ah, back to a variant of the species vs kind obscuring again, eh,
Gladys?
> They are seeking ways that scientifically the speed of
> light can be placed in the Creationist model.
By simply saying it 'changed' - and ignoring the concequnecs of such a
'change'
> And the Evolutionists state there was a Big Bang from very dense
> matter that became all the 'bodies' in the Universe.
> And the Evolutionists who do not believe there was a Creator must say
> that non-living became living by random chance.
You still deleiberatly confuse evolution with abiogenesis with
cosmology with astrophyisics.
Until you understand the differences, Gladys, you'll continue to make
a fool of yourself.
> > So can Allah, and a thousand other alleged deities. Can they all be true?
>
> No! They are the concoctions of men's minds as they reject God
> Almighty - the Triune God of the Bible - or only accept what their
> 'elders' have told them.
Ah, the irony of an indoctriniated, rote-learning, Gladys saying that!
Sean McHugh
"swa...@ozemail.com.au" wrote (92):
>
> On Apr 23, 1:50 pm, wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 12:46 pm, gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Apr 22, 1:08 pm, theo wrote:
> > > >On Apr 22, 9:28 am, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >
> > > > > Evolution avoids how the first living organisms came to be 'like the plague'. When you can prove they came into
> > > > > existence by random chance, naturalistic means, then you
> > > > > may have the possiblity of saying that there was no
> > > > > Almighty God involved. But even then there would need to > > > >be an indepth checking of the methods involved.
> >
> > You claim evolution didn't happen and the world is
> > only a few thousand years old. I believe it did happen and the earth is billions of years old. How can we come to a agreement on that?
> > I can see thousamnds of scientists who agree with my point of view and you can see a few dozen who agree with you.
>
> Most children have been indoctrinated that evolution did happen in a
> time-frame of millions/billions of years. So obviously there are more
> scientists who believe that is so as those children go onto University
> training. And from those presumptions they base their studies and
> research.
> But how do they scientifically measure billions of years back into the
> past?
>
> >The thousands of scientists have proof of the age of
> > the earth which is accepted by all of the scientific community except your dozen.
>
> How do you know there are only a dozen creationists?
> You have taken a stab in the dark, grabbed a small number and used it
> in denigration.
Here we go again . . . how many more times? Astronomy is a very
obvious place to look in determining the age of the universe. There
are about 16,000 registered professional astronomers in the world
today. There are no, or next to no, Creation Science astronomers! Has
that registered yet, Gladys? Geology is a very obvious place to look
in determining the age of the earth, but the Creation Science
situation there is almost the same there as it is for astronomy. There
are very very few scientists doing Creation Science in their areas of
expertise. However if you wish to maintain that Creation Science is a
serious, well represented alternative and should get the same
educational recognition, the onus is on YOU to prove that it has
significant _relevant_ scientific representation.
Your putting up or shutting up is well overdue, Gladys.
<snip>
Sean McHugh
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Apr 23, 5:26 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > there are more scientists who believe that is so as those
> > children go onto University training. And from those
> > presumptions they base their studies and research.
>
> You have no idea about 'literature review', 'literature gap', or anything onvolved in postgraduate research, do you Galdys?
>
know that from my own teacher training and experience. I know I have
made some corrections and extensions to their work in my own teaching
career. That does not mean that I know everything/ all the answers.
My assessment of the Scientists working in Creationism is that they
have integrity and have a right to peer-review the work of
Evolutionary and Long-ages scientists and to investigate the evidence
for Creation by God Almighty and for creation happening in 6 000 to 10
000 years.
And I can understand the hostility of the former group of scientists
to the latter group.
> > But how do they scientifically measure billions of years back into the past?
>
> By opening their eyes. And mind.
That's an 'off the cuff' answer.
I can do both of those, but not see billions of years.
> > I do not know how many Scientists who are
> > Creationists there are throughout the world,
>
> Interesting. You have claimed you did previously, and even posted a few lists of names. I am of the opinion that I have never been asked for the ***total*** number of Creationist scientists in any posting before this.
>
> > I have never said that a tabby begot a lion in a thousand years. I do not know the kinds of felines that were on Noah's Ark - and no one does. I have only thought of that answer now as I am typing - so I was unable to give it to you in earlier postings.
>
> Ah, back to a variant of the species vs kind obscuring again, eh, Gladys?
>
Not at all. The Bible used the word 'kind' (Genesis 1 : 12, 21,24)
about 6 000 years before modern day classification systems.
> > They are seeking ways that, scientifically, the speed of
> > light can be placed in the Creationist model.
>
> By simply saying it 'changed' - and ignoring the consequences of such a 'change'
>
Not at all. They have integrity in their work, even though you do not
credit them with it.
> > And the Evolutionists state there was a Big Bang from very dense matter that became all the 'bodies' in the Universe.
> > And the Evolutionists who do not believe there was a Creator must say that non-living became living by random chance.
>
> You still deliberatly confuse evolution with abiogenesis with
> cosmology with astrophyisics.
>
No confusion at all. You deliberately throw out opposite points of
view.
It is ridiculous to say 'millions of years' and close your mind to how
something that was non-living became living.
Scientists will pressure governments to give millions of dollars for
experiments - my mind is recalling one in progress now, I think
underground in the Swiss Alps, that is endeavouring to show that non-
living can become living. You would know more details than I do. But
how if some form of life did occur how can an extrapolation be made
back millions of years to a time when there were no humans to put all
that technology together? And what about the needy in this world who
could have benefitted from a wiser use of those moneys?
> Until you understand the differences, Gladys, you'll continue to make a fool of yourself.
>
The truth of the matter is you want 'to get me out of your hair' as I
have provided more information from accredited acientists against the
theory of Evolution than any other person in these Newsgroups. So you
use denigration.
> > > So can Allah, and a thousand other alleged deities. Can they all be true?
>
> > No! They are the concoctions of men's minds as they reject God Almighty - the Triune God of the Bible - or only accept what their 'elders' have told them.
>
> Ah, the irony of an indoctriniated, rote-learning, Gladys saying that!
I am not an indoctrinated rote-learning person. Again, that is only
denigration on your part.
At the public media and school level the Evolutionist-long agers chant
their mantras, and they have so indoctrinated the general public about
60 years and younger that evolution from one kind/species to another
kind/species did happen.
But in later years they have changed so that the change is given as
for example 'from unknown ape-like ancestor' in respect of humans from
apes. Unknown cold quite likely be non-existing.
But that is one point not given in the media, as far as I know.
'Unknown' is only theory, but is meant to inspire a future scientist
to work on that matter.
But never let Scientists who are Christians and wish to find evidence
for a younger universe and created organisms to follow those ideas.
All the stops are pulled out to discredit them.
I do not know the answers. But in all fairness I say that Creation
Scientists have a right to do their studies and research, just as much
as the evolutionists.
Are you evolutionists afraid to give them that right because ....of
what?
Gladys Swager
theo
> On Apr 24, 9:31 am, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 5:26 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > > But how do they scientifically measure billions of years back into the past?
>
> > By opening their eyes. And mind.
>
> That's an 'off the cuff' answer.
> I can do both of those, but not see billions of years.
No, you can't see billions of years because there is a thick book at
the end of your arms and you can't see past it.
> > > I do not know how many Scientists who are
> > > Creationists there are throughout the world,
>
> > Interesting. You have claimed you did previously, and even posted a few lists of names. I am of the opinion that I have never been asked for the ***total*** number of Creationist scientists in any posting before this.
> > > I have never said that a tabby begot a lion in a thousand years. I do not know the kinds of felines that were on Noah's Ark - and no one does. I have only thought of that answer now as I am typing - so I was unable to give it to you in earlier postings.
OK, let's do it again. A pair of 'felines' to tabbies and lions in a
thousand years. There should be lots of intermediate fossils to find.
Where are they? Why aren't your scientists out looking for them? I
suspect because they know they don't exist.
> No confusion at all. You deliberately throw out opposite points of
> view.
> It is ridiculous to say 'millions of years' and close your mind to how
> something that was non-living became living.
No Gladys. they are different things. You don't need to understand how
electrons of copper react or how electrons came into being to
understand electricity.
How did your God come into being? Who created Him? What did he do 6013
years ago before he decided on "creation"? Where did the matter of the
universe come from? How can we see stars like 3C58 which exploded
10,000 years ago if it was created 6013 years ago?
> The truth of the matter is you want 'to get me out of your hair' as I
> have provided more information from accredited acientists against the
> theory of Evolution than any other person in these Newsgroups. So you
> use denigration.
You have not presented any evidence from any accredited scientists
Gladys.
> > > > So can Allah, and a thousand other alleged deities. Can they all be true?
>
> > > No! They are the concoctions of men's minds as they reject God Almighty - the Triune God of the Bible - or only accept what their 'elders' have told them.
Where is the Triune God of the old testament Gladys? It seems to me
there was only one God up to Mary's conception.
> At the public media and school level the Evolutionist-long agers chant
> their mantras, and they have so indoctrinated the general public about
> 60 years and younger that evolution from one kind/species to another
> kind/species did happen.
Rubbish!
> 'Unknown' is only theory, but is meant to inspire a future scientist
> to work on that matter.
> But never let Scientists who are Christians and wish to find evidence
> for a younger universe and created organisms to follow those ideas.
> All the stops are pulled out to discredit them.
Anyone who comes up with a new, or different theory, in science is
challenging the scientific community to change their minds about the
acepted current theory. Real scientists do not whine about that, they
_welcome_ it. It is a scientists job to challenge current accepted
theories and thoroughly investigate new avenues.
> I do not know the answers. But in all fairness I say that Creation
> Scientists have a right to do their studies and research, just as much
> as the evolutionists.
Sure, and Rastifarians have a right to smoke pot.
Theo
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
wrote:
[snip]
> > > there are more scientists who believe that is so as those
> > > children go onto University training. And from those
> > > presumptions they base their studies and research.
>
> > You have no idea about 'literature review', 'literature
> > gap', or anything onvolved in postgraduate research,
> > do you Galdys?
>
> But I do know that Tertiary professionals are not always
> correct.
That (also went) right over your head, too, eh?
You (also) have no idea about challenging theories, hypothesis
construction, or anything like that? How about you consider what theo
says on the subject (for once).
That you seem to confuse your vocational training with academic
research and study says more about your limited horizons than academic
research and study.
> My assessment of the Scientists working in Creationism
> is that they have integrity
That says quite a lot about your own integrity levels, given the
deceptions and frauds they have peretrated (and the data they simply
refuse to acknowledge).
> > > But how do they scientifically measure billions of years back into the past?
>
> > By opening their eyes. And mind.
>
> That's an 'off the cuff' answer.
> I can do both of those, but not see billions of years.
By looking at the stars, doing some simple arithimatic, one can see
events that actually happened eons ago (because the light has taken so
long to reach us).
As I said, by opening your eyes. And mind.
> > > I have never said that a tabby begot a lion in a thousand
> > > years. I do not know the kinds of felines that were on
> > > Noah's Ark - and no one does.
>
> > Ah, back to a variant of the species vs kind obscuring
> > again, eh, Gladys?
>
> Not at all. The Bible used the word 'kind' (Genesis 1 : 12, 21,24)
> about 6 000 years before modern day classification systems.
And you refuse to address the distinctions, definitions or
translations in any meaningful way.
> > > They are seeking ways that, scientifically, the speed of
> > > light can be placed in the Creationist model.
>
> > By simply saying it 'changed' - and ignoring the consequences of such a 'change'
>
> Not at all. They have integrity in their work, even though you do not
> credit them with it.
Then why do they ignore the concequnces of suggesting the speed of
light significantly changed? It is like your continued ignoring of
the effects of whole conteinent travelling thounsand of kilmoters ina
few years (which is a concequence of your global flood myth that we
have discussed previously)
> > You still deliberatly confuse evolution with abiogenesis with
> > cosmology with astrophyisics.
>
> No confusion at all. You deliberately throw out opposite points of
> view.
> It is ridiculous to say 'millions of years' and close your mind to how
> something that was non-living became living.
Do you even know what:
- evolution
- abiogenesis
- cosmology
- astrophyisics.
are?
> Scientists will pressure governments to give millions of dollars for
> experiments - my mind is recalling one in progress now, I think
> underground in the Swiss Alps, that is endeavouring to show that non-
> living can become living.
Your complete ignorance is astounding.
Your willingless to blather about what you know so little about is
disturbing.
Your obsessive desire to translate that into indoctrinating children
is quite terrifying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
> I have provided more information from accredited acientists against the
> theory of Evolution than any other person in these Newsgroups. So you
> use denigration.
Both claims of yours are fantasy:
- regurgi-posting links is not 'providing information'
- a chemist talking about biology is hardly 'accredited'
science (whatever it is you mean by that term)
- you provide the information that I point out to you is
idiocy. Having your idicoy pointed out to you (eg
the Hadron Collider, above) seems to upset you.
> > > > So can Allah, and a thousand other alleged deities. Can they all be true?
>
> > > No! They are the concoctions of men's minds
> > > as they reject God Almighty - the Triune God
> > > of the Bible - or only accept what their 'elders'
> > > have told them.
>
> > Ah, the irony of an indoctriniated, rote-learning, Gladys saying that!
>
> I am not an indoctrinated rote-learning person.
Your early regigious 'education' as you have presented it has all the
hallmarks of indocrination - you just dont like the word.
Your own words explain how you rote-learnt, and your lack of analysis
shows that this is still your forte.
> But never let Scientists who are Christians and wish to find evidence
> for a younger universe and created organisms to follow those ideas.
> All the stops are pulled out to discredit them.
Like you, Gladys, they discredit themselves.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Apr 24, 12:33 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > But I do know that Tertiary professionals are not always
> > correct.
>
> construction, or anything like that? How about you consider what theo says on the subject (for once).
>
you don't like it. They have the Tertiary degrees and doctorates from
accredited universities.
> That you seem to confuse your vocational training with academic
> research and study says more about your limited horizons than academic research and study.
I didn't have to have a University degree in education to inititiate
changes in reading, mathematics, physical education, a more
naturalistic means of managing conditions incorrectly named Mental
Illnesses, be the first one to bring a language retarded five year to
speak on cue and to propose extensions to the Community Youth Support
Scheme. All those initiatives were taken up by others. I am well aware
of the fact that persons in key positions can use and expand on the
ideas of others as they have access to public funding.
You use denigration. I did not come into these newsgroups to post that
***I*** had worked out the answer to evolutionary ideas. I came to
give the work of the Scientists who are working on that issue.
>
> > My assessment of the Scientists working in Creationism
> > is that they have integrity
>
> That says quite a lot about your own integrity levels, given the deceptions and frauds they have perpetrated (and the data they simply refuse to acknowledge).
It has nothing to do with my integrity.
> As in all research work there will be ideas that are worked on, even accepted for some time, but later discarded.
What about Embryonic recapitualation as proof for Evolution
and still being taught in one High School a few years ago.
www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2997/
The Creationists admit there are arguments that should not be used.
www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996
As yet I haven't come across a similar website by the Evolutionists,
but the Internet is so massive it is not possible to view it all.
Answer given to my question of how millions of years are determined>
> By looking at the stars, doing some simple arithimatic, one can see events that actually happened eons ago (because the light has taken so long to reach us).
>
And what if it is true that God is so powerful He could have put it
all in place 6 to 10 thousand years ago?
If you don't know when the beginning did actually occur it can be that
your reasoning is wrong by assessments in present time.
>
It is a fact that Evolution spawns the religion of Atheism, and its
adherents want to explain it all without God as Richard Dawkins
does.
>
www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/305/
>
It is like your continued ignoring of
> the effects of whole continents travelling thousands of kilometres in a few years (which is a consquence of your global flood myth that we have discussed previously)
>
I have answered that but you refuse accept it.
The distance is known, say from the European-Aftican coastline to the
Americas coastline, but the time is not known and both measurements
must be known to work out the third. mathematician tha tyou are, you
should know that!- it could have been a thousand years and the people
of the eastern Mediterranean area wouldn't have been aware of the
slowly moving land mass under them. Genesis 1 ; 9 states that the
water was in one place and therefor the earth was in one place. An
Encyclopedia on my bookshelves gives the illustration of Pangaea as
the one world is called scientifically.
Plate Tectonics is only a study of about the last 200 years.
www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3037/
And what about the story of Atlantis - is that also a 'myth' to you? I
have read some article on that and there could have been a connection
with Biblical history.
> > > You still deliberatly confuse evolution with abiogenesis with cosmology with astrophyisics.
I am not confusing evolution with abiogenesis. I am stating that if
Evolutionists are so sure that the universe is millions of years old
then surely there has been some evidence that non-living became
living. If you can't prove that there isn't the scientific evidence
that life began as a unicellular organism and began a movement up the
ladder of life then can
macro-evolution be accepted?
>
www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3051
> > No confusion at all. You deliberately throw out opposite points of view.
> > It is ridiculous to say 'millions of years' and close your mind to how something that was non-living became living.
>
> Do you even know what:
> - evolution - abiogenesis - cosmology - astrophyisics are?
In some of their aspects.
>
> > Scientists will pressure governments to give millions of dollars for experiments - my mind is recalling one in progress now, I think underground in the Swiss Alps, that is endeavouring to show that non- living can become living.
>
> Your complete ignorance is astounding.
> Your willingless to blather about what you know so little about is disturbing.
> Your obsessive desire to translate that into indoctrinating children is quite terrifying.
>
I have told some students that when they are older they could
investigate the work of scientists who believe that evolution of the
goo-to-you-via-the zoo variety did not happen. I am fully aware of
changes within species in every procreation - have very conclusive
evidence of that in my own family.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
>
Thank you. I had some parts of the name in my mind, but couldn't
recollect it all.
> > I have provided more information from accredited acientists against the theory of Evolution than any other person in these Newsgroups. So you use denigration.
>
> Both claims of yours are fantasy:
> - regurgi-posting links is not 'providing information'
> - a chemist talking about biology is hardly 'accredited'
> science (whatever it is you mean by that term)
> - you provide the information that I point out to you is
> idiocy. Having your idiocy pointed out to you (eg
> the Hadron Collider, above) seems to upset you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Surely it is a misuse of funds when there is so much human need in the
world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How can a comment about H.C. a sign of idiocy of me?
> > Ah, the irony of an indoctriniated, rote-learning, Gladys
> > saying that!
>
> > I am not an indoctrinated rote-learning person.
>
> Your early religious 'education' as you have presented it has all the hallmarks of indocrination - you just don't like the word.
> Your own words explain how you rote-learnt, and your lack of analysis shows that this is still your forte.
>
Have you ever thought that you also rote-learnt your understandings of
Evolution. Not one of the High School texts, that I have used with
students, provided any means for critical thinking. It was just plain
acceptance of the given facts = rote learning.
> > But never let Scientists who are Christians and wish to find evidence for a younger universe and created organisms to follow those ideas. All the stops are pulled out to discredit them.
>
> Like you, Gladys, they discredit themselves.
And that is just your assessment and those you have accepted the
Evolutionary Hypothesis.
Some say that God created by evolution. But the record of the miracles
that Jesus Christ did and His rising from the dead a little less than
2000 years ago provides a better record of God's power and evidence
that God could have created by the power of His word originally - a
possibility that you abhor.
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
wrote:
[snip]
> > That you seem to confuse your vocational training with academic
> > research and study says more about your limited horizons than academic research and study.
>
> I didn't have to have a University degree
Why do you hold an undergraduate degree in such high esteem?
> You use denigration.
I simplky point out your idiocy like:
- your saying the large haldron collider was
designed to replicate life
- your confusion between evolution, abiogenesis,
cosmology, astrophyisics, and the like.
- your inabilty to understand basic percentages.
- etc
If you view that as denigration, then stop presenting your ignorance
for all to see and mock
> > > My assessment of the Scientists working in Creationism
> > > is that they have integrity
>
> > That says quite a lot about your own integrity levels, given
> > the deceptions and frauds they have perpetrated (and the
> > data they simply refuse to acknowledge).
>
> It has nothing to do with my integrity.
It does so! You say that demonstrated liars and falsifiers have
integrity, and then such a jusdgement does not impinge on
yours?!?!?!?!
Add this to the list of idioticies above you present for all to see
and mock!
[snip linkspam, which usually means Gladys is being backed into a
corner and will very soon stop answering start minlessly
regurgiposting unrelated scripture about being saved]
>> By looking at the stars, doing some simple arithimatic,
>> one can see events that actually happened eons ago
>> (because the light has taken so long to reach us).
>
> And what if it is true that God is so powerful He could have put it
> all in place 6 to 10 thousand years ago?
Now you are saying your god willfully deceives us?
Your suggestion that your god is a deceiver breeches Numbers 23:19,
1Samuel 15:29, 2 Samuel 7:28, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 6:18.
[snip more reguriposting]
> It is like your continued ignoring of
> the effects of whole continents travelling thousands
> of kilometres in a few years (which is a consquence
> of your global flood myth that we have discussed previously)
>
> I have answered that but you refuse accept it.
> The distance is known, say from the European-Aftican coastline to the
> Americas coastline, but the time is not known and both measurements
> must be known to work out the third. mathematician tha tyou are, you
> should know that!-
No you have not answered it, Gladys: you address it in the same way
you have below, but like all good creationists you refuse to engage
with the concequences of the 'theory' you put forward. So again I'll
show you
The time you refere to is not known, but a value be approximated based
on the alldedged date if this alledged flood, and the prescence of
subsequent populations. It comes down 'pick-a-number', say 1000
years.
Now you have conteinent travvelling 10,000k, in 1000 years, or 10km a
year, about 100feet a day.
Now for the concequences of this myth of yours:
- geologoical evidence for 100feet/day continiential
drift? None.
- energy required fo move conteinenst 100feet/day?
Enough to boil the ocean and kill everything on earth.
Now I fully expect you to whine about my choice of 1000 years. Double
it so it takes twice as long, which means 50feet/day. Still no
geological evidence. Still boiling oceans and killing everything.
> > > > You still deliberatly confuse evolution with abiogenesis
> > > > with cosmology with astrophyisics.
>
> I am not confusing evolution with abiogenesis.
Yes you are. Evolution makes no (read that again 'no') assertion on
the creationnof life. Despite your claims that evolutionist need to
address the issue.
Oh, look, here you go again,
> if Evolutionists are so sure that the universe is millions
> of years old then surely there has been some evidence
> that non-living became living.
> > Do you even know what:
> > - evolution - abiogenesis - cosmology - astrophyisics are?
>
> In some of their aspects.
Admit it. You dont know what you are talking about.
> > > Scientists will pressure governments to give millions of dollars for experiments - my mind is recalling one in progress now, I think underground in the Swiss Alps, that is endeavouring to show that non- living can become living.
>
> > Your complete ignorance is astounding.
> > Your willingless to blather about what you know so little about is disturbing.
> > Your obsessive desire to translate that into indoctrinating children is quite terrifying.
>
> I have told some students that when they are older they could
> investigate the work of scientists who believe that evolution of the
> goo-to-you-via-the zoo variety did not happen. I am fully aware of
> changes within species in every procreation - have very conclusive
> evidence of that in my own family.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
>
> Thank you. I had some parts of the name in my mind, but couldn't
> recollect it all.
And nothing in there at all about "endeavouring to show that non-
living can become living" as you claimed.
> How can a comment about H.C. a sign of idiocy of me?
As above, Galdys, as above.
> > > I am not an indoctrinated rote-learning person.
>
> > Your early religious 'education' as you have presented
> > it has all the hallmarks of indocrination - you just don't
> > like the word.
> > Your own words explain how you rote-learnt, and your
> > lack of analysis shows that this is still your forte.
>
> Have you ever thought that you also rote-learnt your understandings of
> Evolution. Not one of the High School texts, that I have used with
> students, provided any means for critical thinking. It was just plain
> acceptance of the given facts = rote learning.
You (chose to) forget that 'evolution' is not taught in school:
science is.
theo
wrote:
> On Apr 24, 1:15 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:>
>> On Apr 24, 12:33 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> Answer given to my question of how millions of years are determined>> By looking at the stars, doing some simple arithimatic, one can see events that actually happened eons ago (because the light has taken so long to reach us).
>
> And what if it is true that God is so powerful He could have put it
> all in place 6 to 10 thousand years ago?
> If you don't know when the beginning did actually occur it can be that
> your reasoning is wrong by assessments in present time.
What? God created a supernova 6013 years ago so that it looks like it
happened 10,000 years ago? Why? Is your God that devious? Why would he
bother placing any stars more than 6013 light years away? Just to fool
us?
> It is a fact that Evolution spawns the religion of Atheism, and its
> adherents want to explain it all without God as Richard Dawkins
> does.
Gladys, please don't denigrate atheism by calling it a religion.
> I have answered that but you refuse accept it.
> The distance is known, say from the European-Aftican coastline to the
> Americas coastline, but the time is not known and both measurements
> must be known to work out the third. mathematician tha tyou are, you
> should know that!- it could have been a thousand years and the people
> of the eastern Mediterranean area wouldn't have been aware of the
> slowly moving land mass under them. Genesis 1 ; 9 states that the
> water was in one place and therefor the earth was in one place. An
> Encyclopedia on my bookshelves gives the illustration of Pangaea as
> the one world is called scientifically.
> Plate Tectonics is only a study of about the last 200 years.
You obviously have no idea of what sort of energy is expended in a
continent moving even 100 metres a year, do you?
> And what about the story of Atlantis - is that also a 'myth' to you? I
> have read some article on that and there could have been a connection
> with Biblical history.
Good lord save us.
> > > Scientists will pressure governments to give millions of dollars for experiments - my mind is recalling one in progress now, I think underground in the Swiss Alps, that is endeavouring to show that non- living can become living.
> I have told some students that when they are older they could
> investigate the work of scientists who believe that evolution of the
> goo-to-you-via-the zoo variety did not happen. I am fully aware of
> changes within species in every procreation - have very conclusive
> evidence of that in my own family.
What species exist in your family? :-)
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
>
> Thank you. I had some parts of the name in my mind, but couldn't
> recollect it all.
What had the Hadron collider have to do with creation of life Gladys?
> > Both claims of yours are fantasy:
> > - regurgi-posting links is not 'providing information'
> > - a chemist talking about biology is hardly 'accredited'
> > science (whatever it is you mean by that term)
> > - you provide the information that I point out to you is
> > idiocy. Having your idiocy pointed out to you (eg
> > the Hadron Collider, above) seems to upset you.
> Surely it is a misuse of funds when there is so much human need in the
> world.
Having churches and ministers who get a free living from the faithful,
all tax-free, is definately a terrible misuse of funds.
> Have you ever thought that you also rote-learnt your understandings of
> Evolution. Not one of the High School texts, that I have used with
> students, provided any means for critical thinking. It was just plain
> acceptance of the given facts = rote learning.
It was never presented to me that way in school Gladys, but then, I
wasn't in your class.
> Some say that God created by evolution. But the record of the miracles
> that Jesus Christ did and His rising from the dead a little less than
> 2000 years ago provides a better record of God's power and evidence
> that God could have created by the power of His word originally - a
> possibility that you abhor.
Some say there are no Gods. Certainly not a God so Powerful that he
can't convince his alleged creations that he even exists.
Theo
Barry OGrady
>On Apr 23, 8:48 am, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:11:26 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>God created the world and all living things in it perfect.
What does it mean to be perfect? Could a perfect being commit
an imperfect act?
>Humans sinned so perfection didn't exist.
Are there different levels of perfection, or could God, who is perfect,
sin at any time and thus lose his AAA rating?
>But God gave means by which
>the relationship with Him could be restored to the Jewish peoples and
>then through faith in Jesus Christ.
For some reason God is not willing or is unable to correct his design
and thus restore everything back to perfection.
>For some reason you are not willing or unable to understand that.
God has not yet seen fit to grant me the required type of brain damage.
>Barry, you are an example of an extremely slow learner due to the fact
>your brain is so involved in twisting the information given you that
>you just can't take into your brain what has been given you. In my
>experience that is a new type of learning problem.
Its not just me though, is it? You seem to have the same problem
with Duke. Is it possible that you are wrong?
>God does not change, but humans can change and the most important
>change is to come to a relationship with God through faith in Jesus
>Christ, His only begotten Son.
I am aware that God is incapable of learning.
>Your brain as well as the rest of you came from your parents.
Did God have any say in how our brains work?
>None of of us were born perfect,
It seems it wouldn't help if we were.
>but changes can come as we pray for
>medical specialists and others in the healing professions to gain
>insights that will bring improvements.
Improvements come about as we defy God. God used his awesome
power to downgrade everything and has done nothing to change
that since.
>It may be that you need to consult a neuro-physician/surgeon
>and if you do give that information through these newsgroups as I am
>sure that there will be Christians who will pray for you and him/her.
How does this praying thing work? God is supposed to know everything
so he doesn't need you tell him. Do prayers make God feel guilty, or
does he do the occasional good just to shut you up?
>Miracles still happen today, but often in different ways to those in
>New Testament times.
Its a miracle that there are still Christians.
>We are saved by grace, through faith and that not of ourselves, it is
>the gift of God. Not of works lest anyone should boast. Ephesians 2 :
>8 - 9
>>
>When do we have to earn a gift from God?
In order to be saved from God by God we must have faith in God's
sidekick Jesus.
>You have programmed your brain so intensely that you will not commit
>yourself to Jesus Christ.
If Jesus wants me to commit to him he will need to contact me and give
a damn good reason why I should.
>> >The New Testament teaches 'salvation by faith in Jesus Christ's finished work of salvation
>>
>> >and after we have accepted that salvation by faith there are good works to be done that will give a reward in Eternity.
Rather like the cast system in India. Will different levels be able
to communicate? Will there be jealousy from the have-nots towards
the haves?
>I will be content that those who have given most of their lives in
>Christian service and have been tortured/killed for their faith should
>have a greater reward than I will.
What about Fred Phelps http://www.godhatesfags.com ?
>But just to be in Heaven will be wonderful.
Maybe not. The very same God which is now making your
life difficult will be there too, and there will be no escape!
Sure, you could kill yourself in heaven, but where are you going
to go, Detroit?
>The most important good work is to give the gospel message
>(salvation by faith) to others and to provide the means for others to
>do so, (ie those who can do it full-time)
>as well as providing for others in need.
You could go to some war torn country where the people are in
desperate need of food and clean water and give them bibles.
>'God has no hands, but our hands to do His will on this earth' for God
>is Spirit.
God didn't need our help to downgrade all of creation yet you say
God needs our help for us to recover from God's evil.
>Jesus Christ has given humans the task of correcting the
>problems that humans caused by rebelling against Him.
Jesus is very stupid but at least he tries to defend us from
God.
>Many Christians have been involved in that and secularists also
>involved in it may not realise that they are following the example of
>Christians.
Christians don't realise they are being very offensive to God.
>I have snipped your comments, Barry.
I never noticed.
gsw...@gmail.com
> On Apr 24, 5:45 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > That you seem to confuse your vocational training with academic research and study says more about your limited horizons than academic research and study.
>
> > I didn't have to have a University degree
>
> Why do you hold an undergraduate degree in such high esteem?
>
until 1988 in NSW and by that time I was retired from the NSW
Edcuation Department and had begun a tutoring programme
for Primary age pupils.
> I simply point out your idiocy like:
> - your saying the large haldron collider was
> designed to replicate life
I was of the opinion that was the reason for that extremely expensive
scientific experiment - I recalled it as I was typing a
reply - but all you are concerned with is scoring points whenever you
can.
> - your confusion between evolution, abiogenesis,
No confusion - evolution is the changes up the ladder of life.
Abiogenesis is 'the theory or belief that living things can be
produced from non-living matter' definition from the Macquarie
Dictionary. I would have given my own definition in simpler terms than
that.
> cosmology, astrophyisics, and the like.
Granted - but I am querying whether those studies to give millions of
years to life on this planet are legitimate, on the basis of today's
speed of light. Do your studies indicate how light came to be
originally?
> - your inabilty to understand basic percentages.
You do keep scores. One error in calculation and you say I do not
understand basic percentages. I have done a lot of teaching of
percentages - conversions to fractions and decimals and their
applications.
> If you view that as denigration, then stop presenting your ignorance for all to see and mock.
The way you present some of your replies is denigration.
>
> > > > My assessment of the Scientists working in Creationism
> > > > is that they have integrity
>
> > > That says quite a lot about your own integrity levels, given the deceptions and frauds they have perpetrated (and the
data they simply refuse to acknowledge).
>
You ignore the deception and fraud of some Evolutionists.
When fossil evidence was not forthcoming for all parts of the
tree of life the idea of punctuated equilibrium was given,
but from whence came the genes to make the required big
jumps? Has that problem been solved yet?
> It does so! You say that demonstrated liars and falsifiers have integrity, and then such a judgement does not impinge on
> yours?!?!?!?!
Creationists are ..... and .... to you. From their studies and
research they disagree with you on some issues. But you can't live
with disagreement; you want conformity to the conclusions you and
certain other evolutionary scientists have formed.
>
> Add this to the list of idiocies above you present for all to see and mock!
>
If the 'all' that you are referring to have been thoroughly
indoctrinated with evolutionary ideas, yes, as you, they will mock.
But the Creation Scientists have amongst their members
as high qualifications as the highest Evolutionary Scientists, but you
do not want any opposition.
>
What I post I have done because of my convictions.
You can criticise from your convictions.
As I became involved in these newsgroups I was of the opinion it was
sharing information; however I quickly came to understand that to post
information contrary to that held by certain other posters was a
'surefire' way to abuse.
> >> By looking at the stars, doing some simple arithimatic,
> >> one can see events that actually happened eons ago
> >> (because the light has taken so long to reach us).
>
> > And what if it is true that God is so powerful He could have put it all in place 6 to 10 thousand years ago?
>
> Now you are saying your God wilfully deceives us?
> Your suggestion that your God is a deceiver breeches Numbers 23:19, 1Samuel 15:29, 2 Samuel 7:28, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 6:18.
>
I am not saying that God deceives us.
I am saying that you should take into account that God could create
instantaneously as given in the first chapter of Genesis. Science in
the present may not always be able to determine what happened in the
past.
> >It is like your continued ignoring of
> > the effects of whole continents travelling thousands
> > of kilometres in a few years (which is a consquence
> > of your global flood myth that we have discussed previously)
>
I have never said 'a few years'. You are misrepresenting me.
> > I have answered that but you refuse to accept it.
> > The distance is known, say from the European-Aftican coastline to the Americas coastline, but the time is not known and both measurements must be known to work out the third. Mathematician that you are, you should know that!-
>
> No you have not answered it, Gladys: you address it in the same way you have below, but like all good creationists you refuse to engage with the consequences of the 'theory' you put forward. So again I'll show you.
>
> The time you refer to is not known, but a value be approximated based on the alledged date of this alledged flood, and the presence of subsequent populations. It comes down 'pick-a-number', say 1000 years.
>
> Now you have continents travelling 10,000k, in 1000 years, or 10km a year, about 100feet a day.
>
> Now for the consequences of this myth of yours:
> - geologoical evidence for 100feet/day continiential
> drift? None.
> - energy required fo move conteinenst 100feet/day?
> Enough to boil the ocean and kill everything on earth.
>
> Now I fully expect you to whine about my choice of 1000 years. Double it so it takes twice as long, which means 50feet/day. Still no geological evidence. Still boiling oceans and killing everything.
>
And double it again to 4000 years and it will be 25 ft/day.
It was not a Creationist who first found the evidence for Continental
Drift. That was realised that it could be soon after Columbus 'sailed
the ocean blue' and the coastlines on either side of the Atlantic
Ocean were mapped, and also fossil layers matched from one side to the
other.
> > > > You still deliberatly confuse evolution with abiogenesis
> > > > > with cosmology with astrophyisics.
>
> > I am not confusing evolution with abiogenesis.
>
> Yes you are. Evolution makes no (read that again 'no') assertion on the creation of life. Despite your claims that evolutionist need to address the issue.
Perhaps they do not want to address the issue because they know the
attributes of living organisms that are taught to the seven
year olds is that life comes from life. Has always been throughout
recorded history. So what could have caused the suppose done-off even
in evolutionary time calculations?
>
> > if Evolutionists are so sure that the universe is millions
> > of years old then surely there has been some evidence
> > that non-living became living.
And why doesn't it still happen today?
>
> > I have told some students that when they are older they could
> > investigate the work of scientists who believe that evolution of the goo-to-you-via-the zoo variety did not happen. I am fully aware of changes within species in every procreation - have very conclusive evidence of that in my own family.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
>
> > Thank you. I had some parts of the name in my mind, but couldn't recollect it all.
>
> And nothing in there at all about "endeavouring to show that non-living can become living" as you claimed.
>
I had it in my mind that I had read that was the object of that
experiment. I haven't re-read the Wikipedi article as yet.
'evolution' is not taught in school: science is.
Evolution presented as science is in the textbooks children use.
But where is the scientific proof that apes became humans some time in
the dark, dim past eons of history? Cladistics is now used instead of
trees and ladders of life. And it can be stated 'from unknown ape
ancestors'.
I would venture to say that scientists are no closer now to proving
the Greek philosopher Anaxamander's idea of evolution than when
Charles Darwin proposed his theory of Natural Selection as the way it
was accomplished.
>
Gladys Swager
gsw...@gmail.com
> On Apr 24, 8:33 am, wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 9:31 am, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
> >> On Apr 23, 5:26 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >>> Theo wrote
> > > > But how do they scientifically measure billions of years back into the past?
>
That's sarcasm. The Bible says nothing about the changes that have
come by micro-change within species through the two and a half
millenium after Noah's Flood. And why should it - it is not that kind
of writings?
But, tell me, Theo, what have the evolutionists found as they have dug
up the earth? Surely they have a line of fossils from the original
'tabby-cats to modern-day tigers?
The fact is that fossilisation does not come easily.
It happens if the animal or plant as it dies is very quickly convered
by soil, sand or debris which completely blocks off the air. Those
conditions would have been most likely after the Flood in the time of
Noah' (Genesis 6 - 7)
- but there could been an ark with the 6 - 1 ratio that you and others
say could not be seaworthy. I have done some calculations for a reply
to one posting by Ken Smith, I must check them out.
> > > I do not know how many Scientists who are
> > > > Creationists there are throughout the world,
>
> > > Interesting. You have claimed you did previously, and even posted a few lists of names.
I am of the opinion that I have never been asked for the ***total***
number of Creationist scientists in any posting before this.
How did your God come into being?
The Biblical record states that God is eternal - everlasting.
Psalm 93 : 2 The Lord ...You are from everlasting
Who created Him?
No one created God.
What did he do 6013 years ago before he decided on "creation"?
I do not know.
Where did the matter of the universe come from?
God is omnopotent. He created all the matter
How can we see stars like 3C58 which exploded 10,000 years ago if it
was created 6013 years ago?
>
How do you know that those stars explode 10 000 years ago?
How do you know where the stars were in the sky immediately after the
Creation?
> > The truth of the matter is you want 'to get me out of your hair' as I have provided more information from accredited scientists against the theory of Evolution than any other person in these Newsgroups. So you use denigration.
>
> You have not presented any evidence from any accredited scientists
Then that means you have deliberately ignored their websites that I
have given.
> > > > > So can Allah, and a thousand other alleged deities. Can they all be true?
>
> > > > No! They are the concoctions of men's minds as they reject God Almighty - the Triune God of the Bible - or only accept what their 'elders' have told them.
>
> Where is the Triune God of the Old Testament Gladys?
He is omnipresent in all places at all times.
It seems to me there was only one God up to Mary's conception.
>
From the first verses of Genesis, God is plural - the Triune God -
acting differently in some ways but in agreement.
God did not intervene in Mary's conception. She was a sinner. She
rejoiced in 'God my Saviour' Luke 1 : 47
Only a sinner needs a Saviour.
What about you? Have you accepted Jesus as your Saviour?
> > At the public media and school level
the Evolutionist-long agers chant their mantras, and they have so
indoctrinated the general public about 60 years and younger that
evolution from one kind/species to another
> > kind/species did happen.
>
> Rubbish!
>
Not rubbish at all. It is a fact.
> > 'Unknown' is only theory, but is meant to inspire a future scientist to work on that matter.
> > But never let Scientists who are Christians and wish to find evidence for a younger universe and created organisms to follow those ideas. All the stops are pulled out to discredit them.
>
> Anyone who comes up with a new, or different theory, in science is challenging the scientific community to change their minds about the accepted current theory. Real scientists do not whine about that, they welcome_ it. It is a scientist's job to challenge current accepted theories and thoroughly investigate new avenues.
>
And the Tertiary level scientific community is mostly, if not all,
evolutionists from the indoctrinations in their schooling?
> > I do not know the answers. But in all fairness I say that Creation Scientists have a right to do their studies and research, just as much as the evolutionists.
>
> Sure, and Rastifarians have a right to smoke pot.
>
Not if 'the laws of the land' say that is illegal.
Gladys Swager
Pandeism Fish
any among the theistic faiths, and on a more logical basis....
Miracles are recounted both in the texts and in anecdotal reports by
observant members of all faiths. Protestants and Catholics, Mormons
and Jews, Muslims and Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, Asutrans -- there is
no group that can claim to have an exclusive experience of miracles in
response to prayer!! This can not be true if there is only one God
conforming to only one particular faith, so the evenly distributed
incidence of miracles disproves all holy texts which propose a single
correct faith. Pandeism, which demonstrates through logic and reason
that the Creator of the Universe (the Deus) in fact became the
Universe, explains miracles as unconscious manifestations of the power
of the Deus which underlies the Universe. Thus miracles happen, and
prayers appear to be answered, not because a "God" is intervening on
behalf of the person seeking assistance, but because that person has
unwittingly tapped the power of the Deus. This is done under the mere
illusion that it is the conscious work of a higher power. The ability
to tap into the power of the Deus manifests differently in different
people.
Just as Michael Jordan was blessed with an amazing talent for
basketball, Jimmy Hendrix could make a guitar sing in ways that had
never been seen before, and Stephen Hawking has a seemingly superhuman
grasp of physics, some people have an exceptional natural talent for
unconsciously engaging the power of the Deus. These tend to be the
people who have historically manifested as miracle workers (although
there can also be no doubt that many who have had such talent kept it
to themselves, and many more who appeared to work miracles were but
clever charlatans). Nonetheless, if miracles exist at all, this can
prove the truth of Pandeism, and if they exist in all faiths, this can
prove no faith but Pandeism!!
gsw...@gmail.com
> Pandeism is a better explanation for the existence of miracles than any among the theistic faiths, and on a more logical basis....
Jesus Christ promised His (followers) (John 14 : 12)
Truly, I say to you, He who believes on Me, the works that I do shall
he do also: and greater works than these shall he do because I go to
the Father.
When the works of Jesus are considered it is generally His miracles
that come to mind. But there was also His teaching that was guiding
people to a better way of life, better relationships with others.
Matthew 5 : 44 - 45(a)
Jesus said:
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies,
bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,
and pray for them that despitefully curse you, and persecute you:
that you may be the children of your Father Who is in heaven."
However, in respect of miracle cures - when they occur it is wonderful
for those involved. But others may not be helped.
"Greater things shall you do" - Jesus told His disciples.
What would those greater things be? Surely that causes, cures and
preventitive methods would be found.
Christians have been involved in that especially in the advancement of
scientific studies.
However, secularist/atheists tend to emphasise any negative aspects
within the Christian witness, admittedly, many of those aspects need
not have been, although there is a sense in which greater
understandings can come through personal experiences.
The Christan faith has a greater percentage of adherents than any
other faith in the world. I can't help but wonder whether that has
been a reason for the assault that has been made on it especially
during the last fifty + years of
the post World War II years. Has that been deliberately orchestrated?
And if so by whom?
<snip>
>Pandeism, which demonstrates through logic and reason
> that the Creator of the Universe (the Deus) in fact became the
> Universe,
How could the Creator of the Universe ***become*** the Universe.
That is nonsensical. It is the same as saying, "The builder of a house
becomes the house."
>explains miracles as unconscious manifestations of the power of the Deus which underlies the Universe. Thus miracles happen, and prayers appear to be answered, not because a "God" is intervening on behalf of the person seeking assistance, but because that person has unwittingly tapped the power of the Deus.
God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he who fears Him
and works righteousness, is accepted by Him.
Acts 10 : 34(b) - 35
Neither is salvation in any other, for there is none other name,
(Jesus Christ), under heaven given among men, whereby we can be
saved. Acts 4 : 12
>This is done under the mere illusion that it is the conscious work of a higher power.
You have no proof that is so.
>The ability to tap into the power of the Deus manifests differently in different people.
... some people have an exceptional natural talent for unconsciously
engaging the power of the Deus. These tend to be the people who have
historically manifested as miracle workers (although there can also be
no doubt that many who have had such talent kept it to themselves,
How do you know it was 'an exceptional natural talent' ie an inborn
talent/ability?
>Nonetheless, if miracles exist at all, this can
> prove the truth of Pandeism, and if they exist in all faiths, this can prove no faith but Pandeism!!
That is of itself 'a giant leap of faith' in your explanation.
I am not trained in debating skills and logic, but your conclusion is
not logical to me.
A study of how Satan works needs to be brought into this discussion.
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
[snip]
> > - your confusion between evolution, abiogenesis,
>
> No confusion - evolution is the changes up the ladder of life.
> Abiogenesis is 'the theory or belief that living things can be
> produced from non-living matter' definition from the Macquarie
> Dictionary. I would have given my own definition in simpler terms than
> that.
Then why continiually bang on about how 'evolutionist cant explain the
beginning of life' when you now appear to accept that it is outside
the theory of evolution?
> > cosmology, astrophyisics, and the like.
>
> Granted - but I am querying whether those studies to give millions of
> years to life on this planet are legitimate, on the basis of today's
> speed of light. Do [these] studies indicate how light came to be
> originally?
Yes, Gladys. Yes.
If you even knew what light was, you'd realise the stupendious
stupidity of what it is you just said.
> > - your inabilty to understand basic percentages.
>
> You do keep scores. One error in calculation
It was not 'an error in calculation' as yuou try to dismiss it as: it
was you banging on about estimates being a few milions years out and
being quite baffled at how an estimate could be out by a few million,
when the context was billions.
It was not a claculation issue, it was a comprehension issue that went
right over your head, Galdys.
> You ignore the deception and fraud of some Evolutionists.
Which was found and correct by who, Gladys? - other 'evolutionsits'
[snip Gladys's continued defence of Creationists ignoring data that
does not fit her mythology, and the concequences of that]
And you call that honest?
> > >> By looking at the stars, doing some simple arithimatic,
> > >> one can see events that actually happened eons ago
> > >> (because the light has taken so long to reach us).
>
> > > And what if it is true that God is so powerful He could have put it all in place 6 to 10 thousand years ago?
>
> > Now you are saying your God wilfully deceives us?
> > Your suggestion that your God is a deceiver
> > breeches Numbers 23:19, 1Samuel 15:29,
> > 2 Samuel 7:28, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 6:18.
>
> I am not saying that God deceives us.
Then why design a universe (and the science to support it) which is
seen to be billions of years old?
> > No you have not answered it, Gladys: you
> > address it in the same way you have below,
> > but like all good creationists you refuse to
> > engage with the consequences of the
> > 'theory' you put forward. So again I'll show you.
>
> > The time you refer to is not known, but a value
> > be approximated based on the alledged date
> > of this alledged flood, and the presence of
> > subsequent populations. It comes down
> > 'pick-a-number', say 1000 years.
>
> > Now you have continents travelling 10,000k,
> > in 1000 years, or 10km a year, about 100feet a day.
>
> > Now for the consequences of this myth of yours:
> > - geologoical evidence for 100feet/day continiential
> > drift? None.
> > - energy required fo move conteinenst 100feet/day?
> > Enough to boil the ocean and kill everything on earth.
>
> > Now I fully expect you to whine about my
> > choice of 1000 years. Double it so it takes twice
> > as long, which means 50feet/day. Still no
> > geological evidence. Still boiling oceans and killing everything.
>
> And double it again to 4000 years and it will be 25 ft/day.
Your 4000 years fails to consider populatioms living in these areas,
and the effect such socntential racing would have on thier environment
and history. And the enegery required would still boil the oceans and
cook them all in a massive steam bath.
See what I mean about Creationists ignoring the concequnces?
> It was not a Creationist who first found the evidence for Continental
> Drift. That was realised that it could be soon after Columbus 'sailed
> the ocean blue' and the coastlines on either side of the Atlantic
> Ocean were mapped, and also fossil layers matched from one side to the
> other.
Over millions of years: not the thousand or so your mythology
advocates.
> > Yes you are. Evolution makes no (read that again 'no')
> > assertion on the creation of life. Despite your claims that
> > evolutionist need to address the issue.
>
> Perhaps they do not want to address the issue because they know the
> attributes of living organisms that are taught to the seven
> year olds is that life comes from life. Has always been throughout
> recorded history. So what could have caused the suppose done-off even
> in evolutionary time calculations?
See what I mean about your confusing evolution with aboigenesis? There
you go again.
What you are saying is akin to saying neclear physicist theories
should enclude theories on art-history.
Pandeism Fish
I have no quarrel with the values that Jesus enunciated, save for his
own errant faith in an active Creator -- a subject on which any person
exposed to the unexplained power of the Deus would be easily
mislead....
>
> >Pandeism, which demonstrates through logic and reason
> > that the Creator of the Universe (the Deus) in fact became the
> > Universe,
>
> How could the Creator of the Universe ***become*** the Universe.
> That is nonsensical. It is the same as saying, "The builder of a house
> becomes the house."
>
Do you imagine that, among humans, that the builder and the house are
made of different stuff? On the surface perhaps, but that is just a
matter of arrangement, for below that, it is molecules, atoms,
subatomic particles, quarks, subquarks, and beneath it all, the God
particle itself, the fundamental unit, the elemental instances of the
Deus that curl upon themselves and uphold everything.... it is a
fundamental law of the Universe that energy can neither be created nor
destroyed, it can only be rearranged; and so the energy of the Creator
was rearranged, by the design of the Creator, into forces and
particles that appear to us to be a Universe!! And so we can discern
the limits of the Creator's power in this regard by simply observing
the scope of the Universe....
> >explains miracles as unconscious manifestations of the power of the Deus which underlies the Universe. Thus miracles happen, and prayers appear to be answered, not because a "God" is intervening on behalf of the person seeking assistance, but because that person has unwittingly tapped the power of the Deus.
>
> God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he who fears Him
> and works righteousness, is accepted by Him.
> Acts 10 : 34(b) - 35
> Neither is salvation in any other, for there is none other name,
> (Jesus Christ), under heaven given among men, whereby we can be
> saved. Acts 4 : 12
>
> >This is done under the mere illusion that it is the conscious work of a higher power.
>
> You have no proof that is so.
>
It is the most logical explanation, for it is wholly possible without
the introduction of extraneous elements, such as a mad God who desires
worship from vastly inferior beings....
> >The ability to tap into the power of the Deus manifests differently in different people.
>
> ... some people have an exceptional natural talent for unconsciously
> engaging the power of the Deus. These tend to be the people who have
> historically manifested as miracle workers (although there can also be
> no doubt that many who have had such talent kept it to themselves,
>
> How do you know it was 'an exceptional natural talent' ie an inborn
> talent/ability?
>
Because some people -- in all cultures and at all times -- obviously
have had it and most do not.... I'm sure, like any innate talent it is
something that a possessor can hone, but is at the same time something
that for one who is utterly lacking can never be developed....
consider simply that the vast majority of prayers go unanswered, in
any sense that requires a supernatural explanation....
> >Nonetheless, if miracles exist at all, this can
> > prove the truth of Pandeism, and if they exist in all faiths, this can prove no faith but Pandeism!!
>
> That is of itself 'a giant leap of faith' in your explanation.
> I am not trained in debating skills and logic, but your conclusion is
> not logical to me.
>
> A study of how Satan works needs to be brought into this discussion.
>
The very concept of Satan is so illogical, and so laughable, as to
destroy any credibility in a faith that supposes such a thing to
exist.... thus, if miracles exist in all faith then all religions must
have equal access to "God" despite their unanimity in doctrinal
insistence that each is the only true path to God.... thus, none but
Pandeism can be the true path to God. It's that simple!!
> Gladys Swager
gsw...@gmail.com
> On Apr 25, 9:26 am, gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > - your confusion between evolution, abiogenesis,
>
> > No confusion - evolution is the changes up the ladder of life. Abiogenesis is 'the theory or belief that living things can be produced from non-living matter' definition from the Macquarie Dictionary. I would have given my own definition in simpler terms than that.
>
Life had to start somehow, somewhere, even for the evolutionary
(process of change) to begin. Surely the reason that it gets you so up-
tight is that it is very extemely dificult to prove because even a
unicellular organism is very complex.
It is what has been called irreducible complexity.
> > ... I am querying whether those studies to give millions of
> > years to life on this planet are legitimate, on the basis of today's speed of light. Do [these] studies indicate how light came to be originally?
>
> If you even knew what light was, you'd realise the stupendious
> stupidity of what it is you just said.
>
Well you tell me!
>
> > You ignore the deception and fraud of some Evolutionists.
>
> Which was found and corrected by who, Gladys? - other 'evolutionsits'
>
Creationists cannot correct any evolutionists errors because
evolutionists say they are not errors.
> > > > And what if it is true that God is so powerful He could have put it all in place 6 to 10 thousand years ago?
>
> > > Now you are saying your God wilfully deceives us?
> > > Your suggestion that your God is a deceiver
> > > breeches Numbers 23:19, 1Samuel 15:29,
> > > 2 Samuel 7:28, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 6:18.
>
> > I am not saying that God deceives us.
>
> Then why design a universe (and the science to support it) which is seen to be billions of years old?
>
By the speed of light as measured today there is a calulation of
millions of years. But what if God caused it to come into existence
throughout the Universe instantaneously? I am just making a
suggestion. This aspect is my least read aspect of the Creation
Scientists' arguments.
www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3051
>
> > It was not a Creationist who first found the evidence for Continental
> > Drift. That was realised that it could be soon after Columbus 'sailed the ocean blue' and the coastlines on either side of the Atlantic Ocean were mapped, and also fossil layers matched from one side to the other.
>
> Over millions of years: not the thousand or so your mythology
> advocates.
>
www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3037/
> What you are saying is akin to saying nuclear physicist theories should include theories on art-history.
Nonsense, but some nuclear physicists might desire to study aspects of
the history of art in their leisure times.
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
[snip]
> > Then why continually bang on about how
> > 'evolutionists can't explain the beginning
> > of life' when you now appear to accept
> > that it is outside the theory of evolution?
>
> Life had to start somehow, somewhere, even
> for the evolutionary (process of change) to
> begin.
Indeed: that is what the study of aboigensis is all about, Galdys.
> Surely the reason that it gets you so up-
> tight is that it is very extemely dificult to
> prove because even a unicellular organism
> is very complex.
Not at all: I have posted quite a bit on this (to which you have
regurgi-poste links but not engaged with).
> > > You ignore the deception and fraud of some Evolutionists.
>
> > Which was found and corrected by who, Gladys? - other 'evolutionsits'
>
> Creationists cannot correct any evolutionists errors because [snip]
They have not found any.
They also have not done any science, either, but that does not seem to
phase you.
> > > > > And what if it is true that God is so powerful He could have put it all in place 6 to 10 thousand years ago?
>
> > > > Now you are saying your God wilfully deceives us?
> > > > Your suggestion that your God is a deceiver
> > > > breeches Numbers 23:19, 1Samuel 15:29,
> > > > 2 Samuel 7:28, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 6:18.
>
> > > I am not saying that God deceives us.
>
> > Then why design a universe (and the science to support it) which is seen to be billions of years old?
>
> By the speed of light as measured today there is a calulation of
> millions of years. But what if God caused it to come into existence
> throughout the Universe instantaneously? I am just making a
> suggestion. This aspect is my least read aspect of the Creation
> Scientists' arguments.
You fail to acknowledge the inherent deception by your god in your
hypothesis.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Apr 27, 3:50 pm, gswa...@gmail.com wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > Then why continually bang on about how
> > > 'evolutionists can't explain the beginning
> > > of life' when you now appear to accept
> > > that it is outside the theory of evolution?
>
outside the theory of evolution. How life began way back in the eons
of time is proving extremely difficult to prove because even
unicelluar organisms are complex and have an irreducible complexity in
them.
> > Life had to start somehow, somewhere, even
> > for the evolutionary (process of change) to
> > begin.
>
> Indeed: that is what the study of abiogensis is all about, Gladys.
Can science that is dependent on repeatable, testable experiments ever
prove it? It would seem to me that there can only be experimentation,
and if suddenly some non-living material did become living there wourl
not be absolute proof that was how it happened originally. But for the
sake of possible fame scientists will go on with their experiments
(even though they say that no living Being was there long ago, when
there is more important work to be done in the present.
>
> > Surely the reason that it gets you so up-
> > tight is that it is very extemely dificult to
> > prove because even a unicellular organism
> > is very complex.
>
> Not at all: I have posted quite a bit on this (to which you > have regurgi-poste links but not engaged with).
>
I am not a scientist to be able to engage you, and you certainly do
not want any evidence from Scientists who do accept there was
'Somebody' there at the start of time to set it all in motion. And you
are well aware Who the Sombody is to Whom I am referring.
You are another who does not want 'the foot of God in the doorway'. Is
it that Secularists/Atheists are afraid that they may find the 'foot
of God just waiting to be allowed in'?
> > > > You ignore the deception and fraud of some Evolutionists.
>
> > > Which was found and corrected by who, Gladys? - other 'evolutionsits'
>
> > Creationists cannot correct any evolutionists errors because [snip]
>
> They have not found any.
>
> They also have not done any science, either, but that does not seem to phase you.
There are 'Creationists who have made advances in Science'.
Best for you to google that term and see what comes up on the Google
server, but there aren't there other servers on the Internet, so there
is opportunity for much searching.
>
> > > > > > And what if it is true that God is so powerful He could have put it all in place 6 to 10 thousand years ago?
>
> > > > > Now you are saying your God wilfully deceives us?
> > > > > Your suggestion that your God is a deceiver
> > > > > breeches Numbers 23:19, 1Samuel 15:29,
> > > > > 2 Samuel 7:28, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 6:18.
>
> > > > I am not saying that God deceives us.
>
> > > Then why design a universe (and the science to support it) which is seen to be billions of years old?
>
> > By the speed of light as measured today there is a calculation of millions of years. But what if God caused it to come into existence throughout the Universe instantaneously? I am just making a suggestion. This aspect is my least read aspect of the Creation Scientists' arguments.
>
www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3051/
> You fail to acknowledge the inherent deception by your god in your hypothesis.
God has never deceived me, but I do not have contact with all the
Christians in the world to find out their views on that issue.
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
wrote:
[snip]
> > You fail to acknowledge the inherent deception by your god in your hypothesis.
>
> God has never deceived me
1) That is because your god is a figment of your own imagination.
2) Your god has certainly deceived others, what with your argument
that he created a 6000 year old universe and made it look billions of
years old (not to mention your gods deception in your bible).
What makes you think you are so special that your god whould not
decieve you? Maybe he has, but you lack the brainpower to see it?
Barry OGrady
>On Apr 26, 5:11�pm, Pandeism Fish wrote:
>> Pandeism is a better explanation for the existence of miracles
>> than any among the theistic faiths, and on a more logical basis....
>
>Jesus Christ promised His (followers) (John 14 : 12)
>Truly, I say to you, He who believes on Me, the works that I do shall
>he do also: and greater works than these shall he do because I go to
>the Father.
>
>When the works of Jesus are considered it is generally His miracles
>that come to mind. But there was also His teaching that was guiding
>people to a better way of life, better relationships with others.
You are flirting with blasphemy here, Gladys.
You are suggesting that we must help ourselves because God won't.
>Matthew 5 : 44 - 45(a)
>Jesus said:
>"But I say unto you, Love your enemies,
>bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,
>and pray for them that despitefully curse you, and persecute you:
>that you may be the children of your Father Who is in heaven."
If you do that it will be seen as a weakness to be exploited.
>However, in respect of miracle cures - when they occur it is wonderful
>for those involved. But others may not be helped.
>"Greater things shall you do" - Jesus told His disciples.
>What would those greater things be? Surely that causes, cures and
>preventitive methods would be found.
Sure. God wants us to take back the things he took from us at
the fall.
>Christians have been involved in that especially in the advancement of
>scientific studies.
>However, secularist/atheists tend to emphasise any negative aspects
>within the Christian witness, admittedly, many of those aspects need
>not have been, although there is a sense in which greater
>understandings can come through personal experiences.
>
>The Christan faith has a greater percentage of adherents than any
>other faith in the world.
More so than Islam?
>I can't help but wonder whether that has
>been a reason for the assault that has been made on it especially
>during the last fifty + years of
>the post World War II years. Has that been deliberately orchestrated?
>And if so by whom?
Christians have forced themselves into places they are not wanted.
><snip>
>
>>Pandeism, which demonstrates through logic and reason
>> that the Creator of the Universe (the Deus) in fact became the
>> Universe,
>
>How could the Creator of the Universe ***become*** the Universe.
>That is nonsensical. It is the same as saying, "The builder of a house
>becomes the house."
That's nearly as silly as saying that the universe was magiced into
existence by a being that always existed.
>>explains miracles as unconscious manifestations of the power of the
>>Deus which underlies the Universe. Thus miracles happen, and prayers
>>appear to be answered, not because a "God" is intervening on behalf
>>of the person seeking assistance, but because that person has
>>unwittingly tapped the power of the Deus.
>
>God is no respecter of persons,
So true. God does not respect anyone.
>but in every nation, he who fears Him
>and works righteousness, is accepted by Him.
> Acts 10 : 34(b) - 35
Why would we want to be accepted by Jesus? Jesus stated he wants
to break up families and cause strife with a sword.
>Neither is salvation in any other, for there is none other name,
>(Jesus Christ), under heaven given among men, whereby we can be
>saved. Acts 4 : 12
How did that rule come into being? When God downgraded all of
creation did he do so via Jesus?
>>This is done under the mere illusion that it is the conscious work of a higher power.
>
>You have no proof that is so.
>
>>The ability to tap into the power of the Deus manifests differently in different people.
>... some people have an exceptional natural talent for unconsciously
>engaging the power of the Deus. These tend to be the people who have
>historically manifested as miracle workers (although there can also be
>no doubt that many who have had such talent kept it to themselves,
How do you know it was 'an exceptional natural talent' ie an inborn
talent/ability?
>>Nonetheless, if miracles exist at all, this can
>> prove the truth of Pandeism, and if they exist in all faiths, this can prove no faith but Pandeism!!
>
>That is of itself 'a giant leap of faith' in your explanation.
>I am not trained in debating skills and logic, but your conclusion is
>not logical to me.
Christianity is not logical.
>A study of how Satan works needs to be brought into this discussion.
You seem to have a pretty good idea of how God's mind works.
Perhaps you can tell us how God uses Satan to torment us.
gsw...@gmail.com
> On Apr 30, 3:10 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > You fail to acknowledge the inherent deception by your god in your hypothesis.
>
> > God has never deceived me
>
> 1) That is because your god is a figment of your own imagination.
> 2) Your god has certainly deceived others, what with your argument that he created a 6000 year old universe and made it look billions of years old (not to mention your gods deception in your bible).
>
there is no God as given in the Bible?
I did not make the argument that God made the Universe
to *** look*** as if it were billions of years old.
Tsunamis and earthquakes, even man-caused disasters can make radical
changes to the earth's surface.
So if it is only by appearance that we can asses the age of the world
and the universe we can be out by many degrees in our calculations.
> What makes you think you are so special that your God would not
> deceive you? Maybe he has, but you lack the brainpower to see it?
I do not consider myself to be any more special that the millions in
the world today tha tbelieve that the God of the Bible in Jesus Christ
was the creator.
'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him: and without Him was not anything made
that was made. John 1 : 1 - 3
If I had still been teaching in 1988 when four year training of
teachers was implemented in NSW I would have auomatically been granted
a Degree in Education (Primary grades) due to years of service, and
that could quite easily be a Masters Degree taking into account the
initiatives I had made in my career and since.
You certanly know how to denigrate, and use it as part of your
debating stategy.
I wonder if you have been everywhere in the Universe, have learnt
everything that is to be learnt, to be able to say that you positively
know that there is no God Who created originally,
and that creation could ahve been 6000 to 10000 years ago.
Secularists and atheists must have millions/billions of years for all
the changes to happen from unicellular to multicelluar organisms.
Have you ever thought why some unicellular organisms "chose' not to
begin the ascent up the tree/ladder of life?
www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On Apr 30, 1:39�pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 3:10 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> > > You fail to acknowledge the inherent deception by your god in your hypothesis.
>>
>> > God has never deceived me
>>
>> 1) That is because your god is a figment of your own imagination.
>> 2) Your god has certainly deceived others, what with your argument that he created a 6000 year old universe and made it look billions of years old (not to mention your gods deception in your bible).
>>
>What were your scientific experiments that proved to you that:
>there is no God as given in the Bible?
When trying to determine the existence of something that can't be detected
directly a scientist may decide the effect it would have on something they can
detect.
We can determine the effect a good and almighty God would have on all that
we see. From that we have determined there is no good and almighty God
hence no Christian God.
>I did not make the argument that God made the Universe
> to *** look*** as if it were billions of years old.
>Tsunamis and earthquakes, even man-caused disasters can make radical
>changes to the earth's surface.
>So if it is only by appearance that we can asses the age of the world
>and the universe we can be out by many degrees in our calculations.
God committed unspeakable evil when he downgraded everything at the
fall, so it would come as no surprise if God did deceive us.
>> What makes you think you are so special that your God would not
>> deceive you? Maybe he has, but you lack the brainpower to see it?
>
>I do not consider myself to be any more special that the millions in
>the world today tha tbelieve that the God of the Bible in Jesus Christ
>was the creator.
>
>'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
>and the Word was God.
And Christianity is still just words.
>The same was in the beginning with God.
>All things were made by him: and without Him was not anything made
>that was made. John 1 : 1 - 3
That includes evil, disease, sin, and Satan.
>If I had still been teaching in 1988 when four year training of
>teachers was implemented in NSW I would have auomatically been granted
>a Degree in Education (Primary grades) due to years of service, and
>that could quite easily be a Masters Degree taking into account the
>initiatives I had made in my career and since.
>
>You certanly know how to denigrate, and use it as part of your
>debating stategy.
>
>I wonder if you have been everywhere in the Universe, have learnt
>everything that is to be learnt, to be able to say that you positively
>know that there is no God Who created originally,
>and that creation could ahve been 6000 to 10000 years ago.
Have you been everywhere in the Universe, have learnt everything
that is to be learnt, to be able to say that you positively know that
there is no other possibility?
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
> >What were your scientific experiments that proved
> > to you that: there is no God as given in the Bible?
>
> When trying to determine the existence of something
> that can't be detected directly a scientist may decide
> the effect it would have on something they can detect.
Indeed, mankind has hypothesised
- the electron, but we cant see it. But we can see its
effect (and youa re looking at one right now), and
nothing else explains it.
- magnetic flux, but we cant see it. But we can see its
effect on som eiron filings, and nothing else explains it
- Gladys' god, but we cant see it. And we cant see any
effects attributed toyour god that dont have more
plausable and rational explantions.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On May 7, 1:32 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> > >What were your scientific experiments that proved
> > > to you that: there is no God as given in the Bible?
>
> > When trying to determine the existence of something
> > that can't be detected directly a scientist may decide
> > the effect it would have on something they can detect.
>
> Indeed, mankind has hypothesised
> effect (and you are looking at one right now), and
> nothing else explains it.
That is arrogance. You do not want to believe in the God Who created
originally. How do you explain that how the electron came into being
originally?
> - magnetic flux, but we cant see it. But we can see its
> effect on some iron filings, and nothing else explains it
Nothing else in your science, but do all things have to be expained
scientifically?
> - Gladys' God, but we can't see it. And we can't see any
> effects attributed to your god that don't have more
> plausable and rational explantions.
God was in Jesus Christ. That is in the historical record.
And God is in the world today in the Lives of believers in Him.
Gladys Swager
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
wrote:
> On May 7, 2:57 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 1:32 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> > > >What were your scientific experiments that proved
> > > > to you that: there is no God as given in the Bible?
>
> > > When trying to determine the existence of something
> > > that can't be detected directly a scientist may decide
> > > the effect it would have on something they can detect.
>
> > Indeed, mankind has hypothesised
> > - the electron, but we can't see it. But we can see its
> > effect (and you are looking at one right now), and
> > nothing else explains it.
>
> That is arrogance.
What it is, is correct.
> do all things have to be
> expained scientifically?
Those which subject themselves to the scientific method do (such as
your claims for the existeince of your god, and his alledged impact.
You claim cause-and-effect - this is right up sciences' alley!!)
> > - Gladys' God, but we can't see it. And we can't see any
> > effects attributed to your god that don't have more
> > plausable and rational explantions.
>
> God was in Jesus Christ. That is in the historical record.
Rubbish!!!!!
> And God is in the world today in the Lives of believers in Him.
That is the abnormal brain ceehistry that I shown you exists, and can
be replicated with various drugs (avaiable both now and to Moses)
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On May 7, 8:31 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > On May 7, 2:57 pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
> > > On May 7, 1:32 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> > > > >What were your scientific experiments that proved
> > > > > to you that: there is no God as given in the Bible?
>
> > > > When trying to determine the existence of something
> > > > that can't be detected directly a scientist may decide
> > > > the effect it would have on something they can detect.
>
> > > Indeed, mankind has hypothesised
> > > - the electron, but we can't see it. But we can see its
> > > effect (and you are looking at one right now), and
> > > nothing else explains it.
>
> > That is arrogance.
>
> What it is, is correct.
>
> > do all things have to be
> > expained scientifically?
>
> You claim cause-and-effect - this is right up sciences' alley!!)
>
> > > - Gladys' God, but we can't see it. And we can't see any
> > > effects attributed to your god that don't have more
> > > plausable and rational explantions.
>
> > God was in Jesus Christ. That is in the historical record.
>
> Rubbish!!!!!
>
>
> That is the abnormal brain chemistry that I have shown you exists, and can be replicated with various drugs (available both now and to Moses)
>
That is the first that I have heard that Moses used drugs.
Will you give me Old Testament book, chapter and verse?
I have experienced medical drugs that have had an adverse effect on me
due to a virus in my system from Rheumatic Fever, as I have been told.
Not very pleasant experiences, I can assure you, as I followed the
doctor's prescriptions.
I have an experience of the peace of God that passes all understanding
(Phillipians 4 : 7) a it keeps my heart and mind in Christ Jesus.
You're measuring what you want to measure to prove your theory,
but your knowledge of God seems to me to be so deficient that I would
say that you are measuring the wrong things and their effects.
And what is more you probably blatantly poison the minds of young
people, even contrary to their parents' desires for them.
Gladys Swager
Barry OGrady
>On May 7, 2:57�pm, Misanthropic Curmudgeon wrote:
>> On May 7, 1:32 pm, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>
>> > >What were your scientific experiments that proved
>> > > to you that: there is no God as given in the Bible?
>>
>> > When trying to determine the existence of something
>> > that can't be detected directly a scientist may decide
>> > the effect it would have on something they can detect.
>>
>> Indeed, mankind has hypothesised
>> �- �the electron, but we can't see it. �But we can see its
>> � � effect (and you are looking at one right now), and
>> � � nothing else explains it.
>
>That is arrogance. You do not want to believe in the God Who created
>originally. How do you explain that how the electron came into being
>originally?
How do you explain how the God came into being originally?
>> �- magnetic flux, but we cant see it. But we can see its
>> � � effect on some iron filings, and nothing else explains it
>
>Nothing else in your science, but do all things have to be expained
>scientifically?
Yes.
>> �- Gladys' God, but we can't see it. �And we can't see any
>> � � effects attributed to your god that don't have more
>> � �plausable and rational explantions.
>
>God was in Jesus Christ.
That's disgusting!
>That is in the historical record.
Rubbish.
>And God is in the world today in the Lives of believers in Him.
The concept, but no God.
Misanthropic Curmudgeon
wrote:
No it isn't. The subject of hullicinary drug use as part of ancient
religious ceremonies such as those Moses participated in has been
discussed here previously - in threads you participated in.
> I have an experience of the peace of God that passes all understanding
> (Phillipians 4 : 7) a it keeps my heart and mind in Christ Jesus.
Yes: the eurphoric nature pf religious delusion is well documented -
and able to be replicated in every measurable and observable way by
various drugs: legal and illegal
> you probably blatantly poison the minds of young
> people, even contrary to their parents' desires for them.
This coming from the woman who wants access to everyones children as
part of the state edeucation system - compelled to attend, compelled
to listen under threat of violence (as you regret the removal of
corporate punishemnt). Compelled to be rote-learned into your cult -
as you were. You really are a nasty peice of work, Gladys, and I am
gald you wont have access to any children in this country.
gsw...@gmail.com
> On May 8, 4:15 pm, swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> > On May 8, 10:34 am, Misanthropic Curmudgeon.com> wrote:
> > > That is the abnormal brain chemistry that I have shown you exists, and can be replicated with various drugs (available both now and to Moses)
>
> > That is the first that I have heard that Moses used drugs.
>
> No it isn't. The subject of hallicinatory drug use as part of ancient religious ceremonies such as those Moses participated in has been discussed here previously - in threads you participated in.
>
A small number of people have word-perfect recall of recall of past
events. I am not one of them. But my brain has worked resonably well
over the years depite congential Amnesia. I have had to use intense
rote learning, which you discredit, but it has been a benefit to me.
> > I have an experience of the peace of God that passes all understanding
> > (Phillipians 4 : 7) a it keeps my heart and mind in Christ Jesus.
>
> Yes: the eurphoric nature pf religious delusion is well documented - and able to be replicated in every measurable and observable way by various drugs: legal and illegal
>
The legal drugs given me were the ones that caused intense adverse
reactions. I guess the doctors felt they had to do something as
evicence of treatment. And most likely didn't know I would be one who
would have such reactions,
> > you probably blatantly poison the minds of young
> > people, even contrary to their parents' desires for them.
>
> This coming from the woman who wants access to everyone's children as part of the state education system - compelled to attend,
And shouldn't children be compelled to attend school?
compelled to listen under threat of violence (as you regret the
removal of corporate punishemnt).
I was one of the first post postwar trained teachers (Sydney Teachers'
College) in 1946 - 47 who were told not to use physical punishment on
children by the lecturer in Educational Psychology. We were the most
inexperienced teachers to be given the tak of implemeting that
ptogramme. It was in 1970's that I saw the first media (Sydney Morning
Herald) article on the issue, -. the person even misreported a verse
from Proverbs (Spare the rod and spoil the child) which does not even
appear in the Book of The Proverbs.
But I do recall one child who was very difficult to manage in my First
Grade Class in the 1950's. I tried every possible way to encourage him
to act in better ways.
I read an article which had in it Proverbs 19 : 18
'Chasten your son while there is hope, and let your soul spare not for
his crying.'
I followed that verse when other boys complined about his behaviour,
but he lied to me and then the other boys brought me the evidence to
support the accusation they had made. I turned
him over on my knee and smacked his thighs. He behaved well for the
rest of that year.
However, if any reports had been sent to the NSW Education Department,
it might be said that I was punished by appointments to two Infants'
Departments with A level reports in which there had been manipulation
to cover over the problems - although that wasn't so hard to do at
those times because a strange man (the schools' Inspector) was seen by
the children to be a police officer and modified their behaviour
accordingly while he was in the school. I came to understand the
threat of 'Police!' by parents was one means being used to control
unruly behaviour.
So, Misanthropic, just don't be so self righteous.
I can assure you that I have seen behaviour by seven to eight year old
that 'made my hair stand on the end' as reprimands had just been
ignored by them.
Also, I can assure you from my own schooling in the thirties and
forties that on-the-whole behaviours in the children were better than
they came to be in the post-war years under the 'punishment-causes-
children-to-become-violent philosophy. Now there are Teacher's Aides,
Secretaries, Specialist teachers that give relief to class teachers,
Sick leave relief teachers and much smaller classes.
I can assure you that through the Depresion, War Years and immediately
after the war there was not the available moneys to provide the
extras. Fifty seven years ago I was coming to the end of two terms
teaching half-day in an open weather shed while
waiting for supplies of timber to build a three room portable set of
classrooms at Singleton in the Hunter River area in NSW.
Compelled to be rote-learned into your cult -
Ecolution is not rote-learnt!?!?!?!?
Give me references to accredited scientific textbooks for Primary/
Secondary classes where there is even a mention that not all Tertiary-
accredited scientists ,(one, I know of, has triple earned doctorates)
do not accept your evolutionary theories.
> as you were. You really are a nasty piece of work, Gladys, and I am glad you wont have access to any children in this country.
>
I won't ever be in your country. I assume it supports rote-learning of
evolutionary ideas
Gladys Swager