Another Dear Jon Letter....
Rang...@concentric.net
It has recently come to my attention that, after multi-Dove Award
winner Bruce Carroll decided not to appear as the opening act for
Bob Larson's traveling dog-and-phony show owing to reservations
about Larson's obviously dubious moral character, Leon Patillo has
agreed to perform for Larson at his gigs in Seattle, Edmonton, and
Anchorage. It should also be noted that the site of Larson's March
11 workshop is apparently being moved from the church of Larson
board member (and convicted condom thief) Dr. Terry Smith.
Cornerstone magazine is the undisputed grand-daddy of Christian
music publications, and is fully aware of Larson's litany of shameful
conduct. Furthermore, Patillo has admitted that he is 'on notice' of
said conduct. Hence, it is incumbent upon Cornerstone to publicly
denounce Patillo for his blatant and deliberately unchristian (1 Cor.
5:11-13) behavior -- either directly, or reporting it as music news.
If Sandi Pati can be run from the biz for her adultery, Patillo could
likewise be encouraged to return to the 'lounge lizard' status he so
richly deserves.
Regards, Ken
To my Calvary Chapel friend Joe Marino (and I'll warn you that
this message is being posted in a.r.c.c-c and rec.music.christian),
I submit that if Patillo had spent more time with Carlos Santana --
and a lot less with Chucky Cheesy (a.k.a., Pastor Chuck Smith of
Calvary Chapel) -- he might actually have some semblance of per-
sonal moral character.
Bob Weigel
<Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Dear Jon (Trott, Cornerstone editor-in-chief):
>
> It has recently come to my attention that, after multi-Dove Award
>winner Bruce Carroll decided not to appear as the opening act for
No way! I hadn't been following things. One of my best friends
plays percussion for him on road gigs. Alfredo Pinto.
>Bob Larson's traveling dog-and-phony show owing to reservations
>about Larson's obviously dubious moral character, Leon Patillo has
Awww c'mon! What's wrong with "Help BOB do what only BOB can do! Send
your support to BOB or 13 MORE stations are going to have to pull the
plug, and that means God's kingdom is going straight to hell and you
know it so send your money to BOB so BOB can take the witches out to
lunch and do the other things that need to be done that only BOB can
do!!" :-) Being named "Bob" makes this a lot easier....
you
>agreed to perform for Larson at his gigs in Seattle, Edmonton, and
Now Leon has led an interesting career for sure. I actually liked all
of his stuff right up to "Love around the world" where every other word
was "Magic"...the "Magic" of love..."Magic man"...what were the others?
It feels like "Magic"...c'mon everybody. who can remember the most of
them? It's almost like the Carpenters with the word "Baby". Of course
the carpenters weren't trying to work a deal with Johnson&Johnson at
the time....while Leon WAS working some deal with Disney....which kind
of makes you wonder if there wasn't a correlation. :-)
Bottom line, I love Leon and believe he made a very real start in
Christ and believe that the music industry is one of the strangest
places to mature in Christ ever conceived. But it was funny....Alfredo
Pinto and I went to his concert and he said he wanted to stand in line
and get his CD autographed...and I went "Ok fine." As we got up there
he goes "watch this bro".... "Uhh, excuse me sir, do you have a pen?" and
Leon gets this confused look on his face "uhh yeah, here" and Alfredo turns
to this beautiful girl behind the counter next to him and says "Excuse me
ma'am, would you sign this for me?" And Leon's over here waving his hand
going "aaahhh" :-) Definitely had to be there. Only Alfredo could pull
that one off. I just KNOW about 20 people are going to say "Oh yeah, I
know Alfredo, I met him in a mall in California!"
>Anchorage. It should also be noted that the site of Larson's March
>11 workshop is apparently being moved from the church of Larson
>board member (and convicted condom thief) Dr. Terry Smith.
That swine. Is that short for "condominium"? I had a Terry Smith in
my church...hope it's not the same guy.
>
> Cornerstone magazine is the undisputed grand-daddy of Christian
>music publications, and is fully aware of Larson's litany of shameful
>conduct. Furthermore, Patillo has admitted that he is 'on notice' of
>said conduct. Hence, it is incumbent upon Cornerstone to publicly
>denounce Patillo for his blatant and deliberately unchristian (1 Cor.
>5:11-13) behavior -- either directly, or reporting it as music news.
So, I'm still lost. Does Leon get a percentage of the condoms that
get lifted during the event, or is it supposed to be wrong to get paid
to communicate something viable during an otherwise wrong event....assuming
that Leon is doing some of his non-disney set.... Just kidding. Actually
I agree that if there is something documentedly wrong that Larson isn't
confronting, we should have no part with him as the word says. I'm not
aware of the latest stuff, so as I say I'm still a little lost. Ignore
my joking about the nature of that lostness.
>If Sandi Pati can be run from the biz for her adultery, Patillo could
>likewise be encouraged to return to the 'lounge lizard' status he so
>richly deserves.
>
>Regards, Ken
>
> To my Calvary Chapel friend Joe Marino (and I'll warn you that
>this message is being posted in a.r.c.c-c and rec.music.christian),
>I submit that if Patillo had spent more time with Carlos Santana --
>and a lot less with Chucky Cheesy (a.k.a., Pastor Chuck Smith of
>Calvary Chapel) -- he might actually have some semblance of per-
>sonal moral character.
Well, you never know. I certainly appreciate the fact that Carlos does
seem to have principles which cause him to act in ways that may not
increase his popularity with the "powerful". I don't know a lot
about Chuck (except that when Girard travels all the way across LA to
do a gig there he would toss him $100 from the offering, which...I've
got to agree is rather hilarious....and thus I don't think Chuck is doing
that much anymore. Sub teaching would probably be a better way to make
a living for one of the 'living legends' of Christian music....), but
I guess the thought that hanging around the pastor of a huge congregation
isn't going to get you a lot of personal growth attention is a valid
point right off the top.
-Bob
Rang...@concentric.net
> In article <387C9666...@concentric.net>,
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Dear Jon (Trott, Cornerstone editor-in-chief):
> >
> > It has recently come to my attention that, after multi-Dove Award
> >winner Bruce Carroll decided not to appear as the opening act for
>
> No way! I hadn't been following things. One of my best friends
> plays percussion for him on road gigs. Alfredo Pinto.
>
> >Bob Larson's traveling dog-and-phony show owing to reservations
> >about Larson's obviously dubious moral character, Leon Patillo has
>
> Awww c'mon! What's wrong with "Help BOB do what only BOB can do! Send
> your support to BOB or 13 MORE stations are going to have to pull the
> plug, and that means God's kingdom is going straight to hell and you
> know it so send your money to BOB so BOB can take the witches out to
> lunch and do the other things that need to be done that only BOB can
> do!!" :-) Being named "Bob" makes this a lot easier....
>
Nope. The Terry Smith I'm talking about is a minister in Dallas,
who made it to Inside Edition for reportedly seducing women who
came to him for "marriage counseling." According to information
I have received by sources familiar with the case, one was seven
months' pregnant with her husband's child, and another had just
been tragically widowed a couple of weeks before the affair had
started.
Bob Larson's circle of power looks like a junior grade Clinton
White House. His most prominent sponsor is, according to the
Arizona Republic, a convicted felon. The guy now sells gold and
rare coins using high-pressure sales tactics and (reportedly) high
mark-ups -- he used Y2K as a vehicle for scaring Christians into
buying gold -- and the aforementioned Republic article reported
that he has left a vast trail of less-than-satisfied customers.
These are the kind of Godly people that your pal Leon Patillo
now knowingly hangs with. That, in my eyes, speaks volumes
about his personal character.
> > Cornerstone magazine is the undisputed grand-daddy of Christian
> >music publications, and is fully aware of Larson's litany of shameful
> >conduct. Furthermore, Patillo has admitted that he is 'on notice' of
> >said conduct. Hence, it is incumbent upon Cornerstone to publicly
> >denounce Patillo for his blatant and deliberately unchristian (1 Cor.
> >5:11-13) behavior -- either directly, or reporting it as music news.
>
> So, I'm still lost. Does Leon get a percentage of the condoms that
> get lifted during the event, or is it supposed to be wrong to get paid
> to communicate something viable during an otherwise wrong event....assuming
> that Leon is doing some of his non-disney set.... Just kidding. Actually
> I agree that if there is something documentedly wrong that Larson isn't
> confronting, we should have no part with him as the word says. I'm not
> aware of the latest stuff, so as I say I'm still a little lost.
No problemo. See http://www.freespeech.org/boblarson for most
of the dirt on Bob Larson that's fit to print. :)
> Ignore my joking about the nature of that lostness.
That's the irony of it. Patillo got taken, as Larson wouldn't pay him
his customary honorarium. It's one thing to be a high-priced whore,
but it seems that ol' Leon is down there in Debra Murphree's league
(in case you forgot, Jimmy Swaggart's famous 'ho).
> >If Sandi Pati can be run from the biz for her adultery, Patillo could
> >likewise be encouraged to return to the 'lounge lizard' status he so
> >richly deserves.
> >
> >Regards, Ken
> >
> > To my Calvary Chapel friend Joe Marino (and I'll warn you that
> >this message is being posted in a.r.c.c-c and rec.music.christian),
> >I submit that if Patillo had spent more time with Carlos Santana --
> >and a lot less with Chucky Cheesy (a.k.a., Pastor Chuck Smith of
> >Calvary Chapel) -- he might actually have some semblance of per-
> >sonal moral character.
>
> Well, you never know. I certainly appreciate the fact that Carlos does
> seem to have principles which cause him to act in ways that may not
> increase his popularity with the "powerful". I don't know a lot
> about Chuck (except that when Girard travels all the way across LA to
> do a gig there he would toss him $100 from the offering, which...I've
> got to agree is rather hilarious....and thus I don't think Chuck is doing
> that much anymore. Sub teaching would probably be a better way to make
> a living for one of the 'living legends' of Christian music....), but
> I guess the thought that hanging around the pastor of a huge congregation
> isn't going to get you a lot of personal growth attention is a valid
> point right off the top.
> -Bob
What we'd like to do is bring enough peer pressure to bear that
Patillo either 'comes correct' and refuses to appear as scheduled,
or speaks to the audience about having misgivings about Larson
and what laughingly passes for his ministry.
Bob Weigel
<Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Bob Weigel wrote:
>>
>> That swine. Is that short for "condominium"? I had a Terry Smith in
>> my church...hope it's not the same guy.
>
> Nope. The Terry Smith I'm talking about is a minister in Dallas,
Sounds like a real winner.
>
> These are the kind of Godly people that your pal Leon Patillo
>now knowingly hangs with. That, in my eyes, speaks volumes
>about his personal character.
>
I can't believe it. Did anyone ELSE think Leon was my "pal"? I don't
know where that nutty association came from. ALl I said was I liked
a couple of his albums way back there. I didn't say I approved
of his current moral direction (in fact I made note that I didn't like
it, and commented that the recording industry is not a very good
place to mature in Christ it seems, since most of the new converts who
are musicians gets frustrated and all... at least most of the ones I've
heard of.) -Bob, who has had quite enough public misrepresentation....
Theodore A. Kaldis
Rang...@concentric.net
> In article <387D5B6F...@concentric.net>,
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel wrote:
> >>
> >> That swine. Is that short for "condominium"? I had a Terry Smith in
> >> my church...hope it's not the same guy.
> >
> > Nope. The Terry Smith I'm talking about is a minister in Dallas,
> Sounds like a real winner.
See http://www.freespeech.org/boblarson/condom.htm for his
claim to fame.
> > These are the kind of Godly people that your pal Leon Patillo
> >now knowingly hangs with. That, in my eyes, speaks volumes
> >about his personal character.
>
> I can't believe it. Did anyone ELSE think Leon was my "pal"?
You stated, and I quote: "Bottom.line, I love Leon and believe he
made a real start in Christ...." Then you followed it with a personal
anecdote, which suggests that you at least travel in the same crowd.
I suppose I just forgot that, to Christians, the word "love" generally
translates as "sloppy agape" -- we heathen don't always speak the
same language.
My apologies for misconstruing what you said.
> I don't
> know where that nutty association came from. ALl I said was I liked
> a couple of his albums way back there.
If you had stated that in those terms, there would have been no
misunderstanding.
> I didn't say I approved of his current moral direction
Nor should you. This is the bottom line. Listening, Leon?
Bob Weigel
>> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> >Bob Weigel wrote:
>> >>
>> >> my church...hope it's not the same guy.
>> >
>> > Nope. The Terry Smith I'm talking about is a minister in Dallas,
>
>
> See http://www.freespeech.org/boblarson/condom.htm for his
>claim to fame.
>
>> >now knowingly hangs with. That, in my eyes, speaks volumes
>> >about his personal character.
>>
>
> You stated, and I quote: "Bottom.line, I love Leon and believe he
>made a real start in Christ...." Then you followed it with a personal
>anecdote, which suggests that you at least travel in the same crowd.
The "anecdote" was basically making light of autographs. It had
no hint that I had any kind of "pal" relationship with Leon.
I am very much pals with Alfredo who played the jok on him.
Rather, as I hinted in OTHER places (like noting his incessent
references to "magic" and his plan to link arms with DISNEY....)
I don't have much confidence that he's walking in a good path.
So basically, you are READING INTO one bit of my writing and ignoring
other parts.
>I suppose I just forgot that, to Christians, the word "love" generally
>translates as "sloppy agape" -- we heathen don't always speak the
>same language.
>
Loving someon, Mr. heathen, means that you hope the best for them
in spite of how they might perform. I love you. You may or may not
prove to be my "pal" however. I very much believe Matthew 18:15
which tells us how to confront a brother in sin, and knowing the things
presented here will certainly give me something to talk with Leon about
if I ever see him again. I'm not into "sloppy agape" at all. I think
the bible calls us to confront sin, and even expose and disfellowship
those who refuse to deal with their own. (That's one of the ways God
works to both purify his church and keep people from believing that
they are going somewhere they are not. Those words "Out of my sight
you workers of iniquity, I never knew you" are going to disappoint a
lot of folks. )
> My apologies for misconstruing what you said.
>
No problem. I kiss the ground you type on after what I've seen in
the other thread of late...:-) -Bob
Rang...@concentric.net
> In article <387DE152...@concentric.net>,
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel wrote:
> >> In article <387D5B6F...@concentric.net>,
> >> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >> >Bob Weigel wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> That swine. Is that short for "condominium"? I had a Terry Smith in
> >> >> my church...hope it's not the same guy.
> >> >
> >> > Nope. The Terry Smith I'm talking about is a minister in Dallas,
> >
> >> Sounds like a real winner.
> >
> > See http://www.freespeech.org/boblarson/condom.htm for his
> >claim to fame.
> >
> >> > These are the kind of Godly people that your pal Leon Patillo
> >> >now knowingly hangs with. That, in my eyes, speaks volumes
> >> >about his personal character.
> >>
> >> I can't believe it. Did anyone ELSE think Leon was my "pal"?
> >
> > You stated, and I quote: "Bottom.line, I love Leon and believe he
> >made a real start in Christ...." Then you followed it with a personal
> >anecdote, which suggests that you at least travel in the same crowd.
>
> The "anecdote" was basically making light of autographs. It had
> no hint that I had any kind of "pal" relationship with Leon.
> I am very much pals with Alfredo who played the jok on him.
> Rather, as I hinted in OTHER places (like noting his incessent
> references to "magic" and his plan to link arms with DISNEY....)
I guess it must just be me, but I really don't see anything wrong
with Disney. Just because they have the good business sense to
create a working environment friendly to homosexuals, knowing
that they are among their most productive and creative staffers?
Besides, Disney is a secular corporation whose only mission is to
make money for their shareholders -- and Scripturally speaking,
can't even BE judged (1 Cor. 5:12).
Why this pathological hatred of gays, while adulterers are often
coddled? I've never understood this one, and I know more than
a few Christians who don't, either.
> I don't have much confidence that he's walking in a good path.
> So basically, you are READING INTO one bit of my writing and ignoring
> other parts.
I'm not ignoring the other parts. Again, most people don't see a
particular problem with dealing with a wholesome American icon
like Disney. When you're dealing with children who have a vivid
imagination which needs to be nurtured, "magic" (remember The
Sorcerer's Apprentice") is a good thing.
But like Santa and Jesus, it's only make-believe.
> >I suppose I just forgot that, to Christians, the word "love" generally
> >translates as "sloppy agape" -- we heathen don't always speak the
> >same language.
> >
> Loving someon, Mr. heathen, means that you hope the best for them
> in spite of how they might perform. I love you.
Again, you are using a non-standard definition of the word. When
a word means what you mean it to mean, and nothing more or less,
communication becomes difficult if not impossible. I consider it to be
impossible to "love" someone I have never met, as it is defined as an
intense affection engendered by personal ties.
> You may or may not prove to be my "pal" however.
True.
> I very much believe Matthew 18:15
> which tells us how to confront a brother in sin, and knowing the things
> presented here will certainly give me something to talk with Leon about
> if I ever see him again. I'm not into "sloppy agape" at all. I think
> the bible calls us to confront sin, and even expose and disfellowship
> those who refuse to deal with their own.
All it takes is a plain reading of the Bible; sadly, this appears to
be beyond Leon Patillo's present capacity. And unfortunately, he
is NOT alone....
Christianity would be a lot less objectionable -- and a lot more
beneficial -- to society if its primary emphasis was on practicing,
as opposed to preaching.
I look at Christianity in pretty much the same way as I look at
homosexuality. I may find them both personally repugnant, but
If people want to be Christians, homosexuals, or for that matter
both, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. In my inter-personal
dealings with them, I will deal with them as individuals. But that
won't stop me from opposing them in the marketplace of ideas.
> (That's one of the ways God
> works to both purify his church and keep people from believing that
> they are going somewhere they are not. Those words "Out of my sight
> you workers of iniquity, I never knew you" are going to disappoint a
> lot of folks. )
>
> > My apologies for misconstruing what you said.
>
> No problem. I kiss the ground you type on after what I've seen in
> the other thread of late...:-) -Bob
Of course, now, I'm deathly curious.... :)
David Murray
>
> <Did Sandy Patti commit adultery?????
According to her . . . but I don't believe her.
David Murray
Bird of Prey
<Did Sandy Patti commit adultery?????
Bob Weigel
<Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Bob Weigel wrote:
>> references to "magic" and his plan to link arms with DISNEY....)
>
> I guess it must just be me, but I really don't see anything wrong
>with Disney. Just because they have the good business sense to
No, I'm sure the question is very applicable for many. Disney himself was
very much an unbeliever. He rejected the claims of Jesus Christ and
built for himself and others a world of phantasy that would help them
be content with doing the same.
In order to reach his success level, Walt incorporated many "truths"
in his work. Nobody who has based their work on pure fantasy has ever been
a huge success because people are very interested in pathways that keep
linking to things that are real, then diverge in some interesting way.
>create a working environment friendly to homosexuals, knowing
>that they are among their most productive and creative staffers?
I guess people often perceive gay people as more creative because
they tend to be less inhibited. Of course, a person who walks in Christ
is ULTIMATELY uninhibited in a good way. Thus, they are not only creative,
they create something that has value in god's eyes in the end.
If I thought it was better to spend tons of money on a movie, I think I
could come up with something tha would equal anything out there with God's
help. He's kind of tough to beat in terms of creativity. So often he
chooses to lead people to do other things, like direct ministry to
people. I think that's why there are so few good movies done by Christians.
>Besides, Disney is a secular corporation whose only mission is to
>make money for their shareholders -- and Scripturally speaking,
>can't even BE judged (1 Cor. 5:12).
Nobody is "judging" them in a way that isn't encouraged by other scriptures
like the ones that ask us what we have to do in common with the world's
purposes, and being "unequally yolked". If we form an agreement which demands
our time and creative direction but imposes things which don't allow us to
operate as Christ leads, that is of concern. As I noted, there was a strong
loss in Leon's work intended for a Christian audience at the approx. time he
began talking to Disney about some deal. That's all I was saying. As I
said, I don't know the current happenings. The other fellow claims to
so talk to him I guess for more details.
> Why this pathological hatred of gays, while adulterers are often
>coddled? I've never understood this one, and I know more than
>a few Christians who don't, either.
Again, why are you asking me? You convoluded my statement into this?
I've OFTEN posted that both are equally evil in God's eyes. I recently
added "And heterosexuals" to the thread "God hates homosexuals" :-)
>
>> I don't have much confidence that he's walking in a good path.
>> So basically, you are READING INTO one bit of my writing and ignoring
>> other parts.
>
> I'm not ignoring the other parts. Again, most people don't see a
>particular problem with dealing with a wholesome American icon
>like Disney. When you're dealing with children who have a vivid
>imagination which needs to be nurtured, "magic" (remember The
>Sorcerer's Apprentice") is a good thing.
> But like Santa and Jesus, it's only make-believe.
>
>> >I suppose I just forgot that, to Christians, the word "love" generally
>> >translates as "sloppy agape" -- we heathen don't always speak the
>> >same language.
>> >
>> Loving someon, Mr. heathen, means that you hope the best for them
>> in spite of how they might perform. I love you.
>
> Again, you are using a non-standard definition of the word. When
>a word means what you mean it to mean, and nothing more or less,
>communication becomes difficult if not impossible. I consider it to be
>impossible to "love" someone I have never met, as it is defined as an
>intense affection engendered by personal ties.
>
(First I should say, sorry. I'm well aware of this and try to watch
my language. Since you seemed concerned about this stuff, ... I wronly
concluded that you were a Christian.)
Well, it's quite possible actually. The love God gives if FIXED. It's
not a "variable love"...hmm..perhaps I should coin that. :-) It has to
do with SET PURPOSES in one's heart. God builds this into our character through
relationship with his spirit of love. "While we were yet sinners" he loved
us. Jesus didn't know all the people he was dying for. But he died for
me as well. He didn't "learn to love me" through getting to know me.
Rather, he "purposed" to love me, no matter how I turned out.
Yet, being LOVED...and enjoying the benefits of that are two very
different things. If we harden our hearts, all God can do is allow famine
and plagues, or in the worst case scenario allow us to be rich and have
everything in hopes that we'll acknowledge him in that. (I say that
because of Jesus' words on the difficulty of being rich and getting in,
and because of his parable of the rich man and lazarus, and because
he disciplines those he loves...and so it's real hard for me to see a rich
man who doesn't know the lord as being...disciplined :-) )
>> those who refuse to deal with their own.
>
> All it takes is a plain reading of the Bible; sadly, this appears to
>be beyond Leon Patillo's present capacity. And unfortunately, he
>is NOT alone....
no kidding. I make a lot of people pissed because I won't let them
knock me around with their abuse of scripture. I try to reason with them and
break things down to fundamental terms so we can just read the grammar
and not add to it our own ideas.... it usually goes over like Pb zep.
> Christianity would be a lot less objectionable -- and a lot more
>beneficial -- to society if its primary emphasis was on practicing,
>as opposed to preaching.
If someone's asking, I'll tell them. I'm more into relationships and
living in community, which is why I ran a house for guys until they
bled me dry.
Jason Steiner
>
> I guess it must just be me, but I really don't see anything wrong
> with Disney. Just because they have the good business sense to
> that they are among their most productive and creative staffers?
> make money for their shareholders -- and Scripturally speaking,
> can't even BE judged (1 Cor. 5:12).
And don't forget that Disney never officially supported "Gay Day",
while they did officially support "Nights of Joy" featuring Christian
musicians promoting evangelical Christianity.
Christians believe that persecution is a validation of their beliefs.
They're so desperate for such validation that they consider it
discrimination when they don't receive preferential treatment and are
prevented from persecuting others.
We could solve this problem very easily by giving them some real
persecution to deal with. They'd finally be happy, and the rest of us
could have a lot of fun. :)
jason
Good Girl Vampyre
HAlloween, the LEAST that should be done to them is a few good old
fashioned doses of their own medicine!
Just like in the good old days of the Inquisition.
Bob Wilson
says...
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> > I guess it must just be me, but I really don't see anything wrong
> > with Disney. Just because they have the good business sense to
> > create a working environment friendly to homosexuals, knowing
> > that they are among their most productive and creative staffers?
> > Besides, Disney is a secular corporation whose only mission is to
> > make money for their shareholders -- and Scripturally speaking,
> > can't even BE judged (1 Cor. 5:12).
>
> And don't forget that Disney never officially supported "Gay Day",
> while they did officially support "Nights of Joy" featuring Christian
> musicians promoting evangelical Christianity.
>
> Christians believe that persecution is a validation of their beliefs.
> They're so desperate for such validation that they consider it
> discrimination when they don't receive preferential treatment and are
> prevented from persecuting others.
>
That's right. In Waco, where there are more churches per capita than any
other city in the U.S., we have a couple of preachers screaming
'persecution' because the school district doesn't require people to
listen to their self-aggrandizing prayers before football games, and also
because the local library allows unfettered internet access. They used
to allow outside organizations to put up displays inside the library.
The Gay$Lesbian alliance had a display. But these Pastors complained
about that so much that now no one, including the Red Cross is allowed a
display. Is christianity what makes these people assholes, or would the
be assholes regardless of their religion or lack thereof? One local
preacher raised a whole lot of hell when a bar opened in a shopping
center across from his church. He didn't care if the owners of the
shopping center would lose the rent from the bar owner. But when the
shopping center owners asked him to tell his parishoners to stop parking
in their lot because their customers didn't have a place to park, he went
to the newspapers whining about the awful "religous persecution" he was
being subjected to.
Rang...@concentric.net
> In article <387E6EB5...@concentric.net>,
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel wrote:
> >> references to "magic" and his plan to link arms with DISNEY....)
> >
> > I guess it must just be me, but I really don't see anything wrong
> >with Disney. Just because they have the good business sense to
>
> No, I'm sure the question is very applicable for many. Disney himself was
> very much an unbeliever. He rejected the claims of Jesus Christ and
> built for himself and others a world of phantasy that would help them
> be content with doing the same.
Walt Disney has been dead for years. Today's Disney is a secular
entertainment conglomerate, which hs been forced by the realities of
the marketplace to expand its market. It couldn't just pander to kids
and be successful.
> In order to reach his success level, Walt incorporated many "truths"
> in his work. Nobody who has based their work on pure fantasy has ever been
> a huge success because people are very interested in pathways that keep
> linking to things that are real, then diverge in some interesting way.
"Fantasy" is like science fiction, in the sense that it is a palette for
the storyteller.
> >create a working environment friendly to homosexuals, knowing
> >that they are among their most productive and creative staffers?
>
> I guess people often perceive gay people as more creative because
> they tend to be less inhibited.
As Christianzi anti-gay activists were so fond of pointing out during
the Amendment 2 campaign, gays "got scoreboard." "They're NOT
discriminated against! They make a median income of $55,000!"
It's not a matter of "perception" for Disney. They will do what they
have to do to keep their best people.
> Of course, a person who walks in Christ
> is ULTIMATELY uninhibited in a good way. Thus, they are not only creative,
> they create something that has value in god's eyes in the end.
Then why can't "Christian music" compete in the secular world?
If the music has intrinsic merit, people will buy it. If Leon Patillo's
tripe is representative of your side's best, it is no surprise that you
have to have your own awards, charts, and distribution networks.
(I'll ask Ron from Seattle -- one of the BLFC's secular musicians
and rant-maker extraordinaire -- to wax eloquent on this point, as
he did so often on Larson's show before he was banned.)
> If I thought it was better to spend tons of money on a movie, I think I
> could come up with something tha would equal anything out there with God's
> help.
And I could write better books than Bob Larson's ghostwriters.
> He's kind of tough to beat in terms of creativity. So often he
> chooses to lead people to do other things, like direct ministry to
> people. I think that's why there are so few good movies done by Christians.
I submit that it's just a lack of raw talent. There is no shortage of
Christian musicians out there, but there is a shortage of good ones.
And those who made the crossover (e.g., Gordon Lightfoot, Leon
Patillo) have invariably failed to maintain their previous prominence.
(OC, in Lightfoot's case, his exchanging the bottle for the Bible was
indisputably a good overall move.)
> >Besides, Disney is a secular corporation whose only mission is to
> >make money for their shareholders -- and Scripturally speaking,
> >can't even BE judged (1 Cor. 5:12).
>
> Nobody is "judging" them in a way that isn't encouraged by other scriptures
> like the ones that ask us what we have to do in common with the world's
> purposes, and being "unequally yolked".
Then, why the AFA boycott? Don Wildmon, James Dobson, and
the Southern Baptist Convention do seem to be doing a lot of judging,
and it has nothing to do with the criteria you are suggesting. If they
really wanted nothing to do with Disney, then why don't they just ask
people not to patronize Disney under any circumstances?
> If we form an agreement which demands
> our time and creative direction but imposes things which don't allow us to
> operate as Christ leads, that is of concern. As I noted, there was a strong
> loss in Leon's work intended for a Christian audience at the approx. time he
> began talking to Disney about some deal. That's all I was saying. As I
> said, I don't know the current happenings. The other fellow claims to
> so talk to him I guess for more details.
Leon has just sold out entirely. There ain't that much more to be
said about the matter.
> > Why this pathological hatred of gays, while adulterers are often
> >coddled? I've never understood this one, and I know more than
> >a few Christians who don't, either.
>
> Again, why are you asking me? You convoluded my statement into this?
> I've OFTEN posted that both are equally evil in God's eyes. I recently
> added "And heterosexuals" to the thread "God hates homosexuals" :-)
Bob, if you read carefully, you will note that I didn't say that YOU
believed this personally. It is more an indictment of the Body in toto.
Evangelical Christians tend to focus their persecution on gays.
Bob Weigel
<Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Bob Weigel wrote:
>
>> In article <387E6EB5...@concentric.net>,
>> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> >Bob Weigel wrote:
>> >> references to "magic" and his plan to link arms with DISNEY....)
>> >
>> > I guess it must just be me, but I really don't see anything wrong
>> >with Disney. Just because they have the good business sense to
>>
>> No, I'm sure the question is very applicable for many. Disney himself was
>> very much an unbeliever. He rejected the claims of Jesus Christ and
>> built for himself and others a world of phantasy that would help them
>> be content with doing the same.
>
> Walt Disney has been dead for years. Today's Disney is a secular
>entertainment conglomerate, which hs been forced by the realities of
>the marketplace to expand its market. It couldn't just pander to kids
>and be successful.
>
>
planned parenthood is still heavily saturated with people who hold to
her "Eugenist" philosophies. That is something to be aware of in
disney as well. I'm not saying a person can NOT do something with them,
but I'd watch it, and the signs around Leon's life were not good. We
need to be sure we aren't getting "yolked" in a way that will drag
us away from God's direction as Christians....obviously.
>
>> Of course, a person who walks in Christ
>> is ULTIMATELY uninhibited in a good way. Thus, they are not only creative,
>> they create something that has value in god's eyes in the end.
>
> Then why can't "Christian music" compete in the secular world?
First, the world isnt' full of people who are willing to listen to
the truth, and often they find music that incorporates it offensive
to their selected "deathstyle" :-) Secondly, they are longing to have a
void filled, and they seem to choose, for the larger part, stuff that
actually contains a messge which is contrary to the truth (promoting
unhealthy relationships, drugs, etc.)
Musically, there is Christian stuff out there that matches anything
the world has done. The only difference is the message. The music works
with the message great, and it's technically awesome. But because the
message isn't on the PULSE of the world, it doesn't gain the amount
of recognition other tunes get.
I'm painfully aware of all this. I poured years of my life into
becoming a good synth player, plus I wrote tons of sounds to compliment
the pieces I've done, preproduced things and got some people to listen.
It's the lyrics. Though they are poetically cool, it just isn't what
peole want to hear in the world! It is VERY tough to find someone who
will stick their neck out for you if you don't contour what you are
doing to "the market".
>If the music has intrinsic merit, people will buy it. If Leon Patillo's
>tripe is representative of your side's best, it is no surprise that you
>have to have your own awards, charts, and distribution networks.
As I said, I liked some of Leon's early work because it reflected a
sense of spiritual freedom in his life. Where he went from there I
do not know. But even regarding that stuff, I would say that.....
I personally have never considered his work "best". Obviously, M.W. Smith
who I have considered one of the best, went on to become the #1 pop artist
in the secular realm as well, so I don't even know where we are going here.
SOMETIMES people will find "intrinsic merit" and other times, something
will turn them off and they'll walk away...and it isn't necessarily that
the art didn't have "intrinsic merit". People are very warped these days
as I know you agree. The world is FULL of "potential Terry Smiths" to
put it in language I know you understand. :-)
>(I'll ask Ron from Seattle -- one of the BLFC's secular musicians
>and rant-maker extraordinaire -- to wax eloquent on this point, as
>he did so often on Larson's show before he was banned.)
>
>> If I thought it was better to spend tons of money on a movie, I think I
>> could come up with something tha would equal anything out there with God's
>> help.
>
> And I could write better books than Bob Larson's ghostwriters.
>
>> He's kind of tough to beat in terms of creativity. So often he
>> chooses to lead people to do other things, like direct ministry to
>> people. I think that's why there are so few good movies done by Christians.
>
> I submit that it's just a lack of raw talent. There is no shortage of
>Christian musicians out there, but there is a shortage of good ones.
>And those who made the crossover (e.g., Gordon Lightfoot, Leon
>Patillo) have invariably failed to maintain their previous prominence.
>(OC, in Lightfoot's case, his exchanging the bottle for the Bible was
>indisputably a good overall move.)
>
Well, I don't think it was a shortage of talent with Leon. Everything
has to mesh to be successful in the world's eyes. The variables are many.
Consider that some who crossed over to the Christian realm who had great
success in the world didn't do all that hot either. When the whole
environment changes, it's very tricky to get things going again. B.J.
Thomas for example became very frustrated with what he saw and just couldn't
work with the environment, and I don't blame him. But, it serves as an
example of someone where you might peripherally conclude "he didn't have the
talent to cut it in this market". I've seen Leon as quite gifted in many
ways. He's done some very unique and connective things with his voice, and
seemed fairly proficient on the keys when I saw him. I mean if you THINK
about it, most of the stuff that SELLS in the secular market isn't that
technically complex. ELP probably would have been more successful if they'd
spent more time doing simpler stuff. Yet I love what they did, and I hate a
lot of the more popular songs of the era. So, like I said, lots of variables.
>> >Besides, Disney is a secular corporation whose only mission is to
>> >make money for their shareholders -- and Scripturally speaking,
>> >can't even BE judged (1 Cor. 5:12).
>>
>> Nobody is "judging" them in a way that isn't encouraged by other scriptures
>> like the ones that ask us what we have to do in common with the world's
>> purposes, and being "unequally yolked".
>
> Then, why the AFA boycott? Don Wildmon, James Dobson, and
>the Southern Baptist Convention do seem to be doing a lot of judging,
>and it has nothing to do with the criteria you are suggesting. If they
>really wanted nothing to do with Disney, then why don't they just ask
>people not to patronize Disney under any circumstances?
>
I don't know. I'm just saying there are times when we need to separate
ourselves from certain types of agreements with the world. That's all.
Oh, you must be referring to my use of the word "nobody. I meant "Nobody
in this thread" of course. I'm sure on the planet many are. :-) touche'
>
>> > Why this pathological hatred of gays, while adulterers are often
^^^^^
There's your key word. You asked a qustion with a reference "this", which
could only refer to what I was writing it seemed. If you say it didn't,
then I believe you, and you are 100% more skilled in handling yourself
in this sort of thing than the group I just got done with, and they'd do
well to STUDY what just happened here and learn something.
>> >coddled? I've never understood this one, and I know more than
>> >a few Christians who don't, either.
>>
>> Again, why are you asking me? You convoluded my statement into this?
>> I've OFTEN posted that both are equally evil in God's eyes. I recently
>> added "And heterosexuals" to the thread "God hates homosexuals" :-)
>
> Bob, if you read carefully, you will note that I didn't say that YOU
>believed this personally. It is more an indictment of the Body in toto.
>Evangelical Christians tend to focus their persecution on gays.
>
>
I don't see how a TRUE "evangelical Christian" can do that. Jesus tells
us it's not our job to judge the world, nonetheless persecute them! :-)
-Bob
Susan Lee
(I snipped a lot for brevity)
> Quite aware, but much as Margaret Sanger has been dead for years,
> planned parenthood is still heavily saturated with people who hold to
> her "Eugenist" philosophies.
What a ridiculous assertion. Do you have first hand experience with
this "saturation"? Are you relying on hearsay? Or are you just making
it up?
To say that Planned Parenthood is *saturated* by eugenists is analogous
to saying that the modern church is saturated by Christian Identity
Racists.
Respectfully, Susan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kent Wills
"Bird of Prey" <birdo...@myremarq.com> wrote in message
news:Epvf4.537$ZA3.6...@feed.centuryinter.net...
>
> <Did Sandy Patti commit adultery?????
>
She claims she did, and it's not the sort of thing a Christian
entertainer is likely to admit if it weren't true.
Kent
--
Dubbed Catia Paganote fan #1 by Rob.
Ken Hamer
>
> "Bird of Prey" <birdo...@myremarq.com> wrote in message
> news:Epvf4.537$ZA3.6...@feed.centuryinter.net...
> >
> > <Did Sandy Patti commit adultery?????
> >
>
> She claims she did, and it's not the sort of thing a Christian
> entertainer is likely to admit if it weren't true.
Even for publicity value?
Rang...@concentric.net
> In article <387F3897...@concentric.net>,
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel wrote:
> >> In article <387E6EB5...@concentric.net>,
> >> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >> >Bob Weigel wrote:
> >> >> references to "magic" and his plan to link arms with DISNEY....)
> >> >
> >> > I guess it must just be me, but I really don't see anything wrong
> >> >with Disney. Just because they have the good business sense to
> >>
> >> No, I'm sure the question is very applicable for many. Disney himself was
> >> very much an unbeliever. He rejected the claims of Jesus Christ and
> >> built for himself and others a world of phantasy that would help them
> >> be content with doing the same.
> >
> > Walt Disney has been dead for years. Today's Disney is a secular
> >entertainment conglomerate, which has been forced by the realities of
> >the marketplace to expand its market. It couldn't just pander to kids
> >and be successful.
> >
> Quite aware, but much as Margaret Sanger has been dead for years,
> planned parenthood is still heavily saturated with people who hold to
> her "Eugenist" philosophies.
Really? It is one thing to plan on when you will have a family, and
quite another to select who can or cannot have families. I am not
aware of any credible evidence that eugenics is behind the current
Planned Parenthood movement.
> That is something to be aware of in disney as well.
Evidence? Disney has been totally transformed under the Eisner
regime; the original core business is but a fraction of what today's
Disney has become. Remember that they have added ABC, as
well as a vast array of entertainment entities.
> I'm not saying a person can NOT do something with them,
> but I'd watch it, and the signs around Leon's life were not good.
The signs around Leon's life are not good, and it has nothing to
do with Disney.
> We need to be sure we aren't getting "yolked" in a way that will drag
> us away from God's direction as Christians....obviously.
Thomas Nelson/Word makes Disney seem like a monastery.
> >> Of course, a person who walks in Christ
> >> is ULTIMATELY uninhibited in a good way. Thus, they are not only creative,
> >> they create something that has value in god's eyes in the end.
> >
> > Then why can't "Christian music" compete in the secular world?
>
> First, the world isnt' full of people who are willing to listen to
> the truth, and often they find music that incorporates it offensive
> to their selected "deathstyle" :-) Secondly, they are longing to have a
> void filled, and they seem to choose, for the larger part, stuff that
> actually contains a messge which is contrary to the truth (promoting
> unhealthy relationships, drugs, etc.)
I don't know about that. I used to love what little I heard of Amy
Grant's material, even with the often obvious religious connotations.
A number of secular artists have had Top 40 hits which had a clear
religious message. And if you believe Trott and Hertenstein in their
book Selling Satan, the 'Jesus Music' scene around Nashville in the
'70s bore no resemblance to the Vatican, and Trott recently told me
that things aren't that much better today.
> Musically, there is Christian stuff out there that matches anything
> the world has done. The only difference is the message. The music works
> with the message great, and it's technically awesome. But because the
> message isn't on the PULSE of the world, it doesn't gain the amount
> of recognition other tunes get.
> I'm painfully aware of all this. I poured years of my life into
> becoming a good synth player, plus I wrote tons of sounds to compliment
> the pieces I've done, preproduced things and got some people to listen.
> It's the lyrics. Though they are poetically cool, it just isn't what
> peole want to hear in the world!
Then why is it that the secular artists seem to be developing all the
new styles? Rap, techno, metal ... you name it. First, it comes out.
Then, it becomes popular. Then, Christians take it, and it becomes
"Christian rap," and even "Christian metal."
And then, Pat Boone starts doing it.... :P
> It is VERY tough to find someone who
> will stick their neck out for you if you don't contour what you are
> doing to "the market".
I can see the problem. People don't like to be preached to, and
even more so when the preacher doesn't practice what he preaches.
Christianity has become a joke -- because Christians have given the
world an engraved invitation to regard it as such.
> >If the music has intrinsic merit, people will buy it. If Leon Patillo's
> >tripe is representative of your side's best, it is no surprise that you
> >have to have your own awards, charts, and distribution networks.
>
> As I said, I liked some of Leon's early work because it reflected a
> sense of spiritual freedom in his life. Where he went from there I
> do not know. But even regarding that stuff, I would say that.....
> I personally have never considered his work "best". Obviously, M.W. Smith
> who I have considered one of the best, went on to become the #1 pop artist
> in the secular realm
That's news to me. Amy Grant is the only Christian singer I know
of who made the transition with any degree of success since the Pat
Boone era (but then again, I don't follow such things too closely any
more).
> as well, so I don't even know where we are going here.
> SOMETIMES people will find "intrinsic merit" and other times, something
> will turn them off and they'll walk away...and it isn't necessarily that
> the art didn't have "intrinsic merit". People are very warped these days
> as I know you agree.
I don't think folks are any worse than they were forty years ago.
JFK was purportedly even more sexually active than our current
First Pervert, but those things never got reported back then. We
had Watergate and Iran-Contra in our lifetime, and Teapot Dome
in our grandfathers'. Sigmund Freud was hopped up on cocaine.
The KKK ran the South, just as Capone ran Chicago. Gambling
halls and houses of ill-repute could be found in every city. About
the only change is that certain conduct has come out of the closet.
> The world is FULL of "potential Terry Smiths" to
> put it in language I know you understand. :-)
Especially those "new men in Christ."
For whatever reason, crossing over to the Christian realm seems to
invariably sap the person's creative energy. And B.J. Thomas could
be another example. It never seems to work the other way.
> I've seen Leon as quite gifted in many
> ways. He's done some very unique and connective things with his voice, and
> seemed fairly proficient on the keys when I saw him. I mean if you THINK
> about it, most of the stuff that SELLS in the secular market isn't that
> technically complex. ELP probably would have been more successful if they'd
> spent more time doing simpler stuff. Yet I love what they did, and I hate a
> lot of the more popular songs of the era. So, like I said, lots of variables.
I didn't know that ELP did all that poorly. Ditto ELO, which also
successfully blended classical and rock music. The earlier Beatles'
(and especially the Doors' music) was remarkable for its simplicity.
While I'll grant that there are many variables, it is the overall trend
that is the ultimate tale of the tape.
Bob Weigel
>> planned parenthood is still heavily saturated with people who hold to
>> her "Eugenist" philosophies.
>
>this "saturation"? Are you relying on hearsay? Or are you just making
>it up?
I've spoken with many people. I've been involved in abortion sit
ins and so on, and have been arrested for peaceful demonstration...all
that to say I've done my research, had my run ins, etc....so I'm not
just "making it up". And it's not "ridiculous". If you want to call
something rediculous, DO THE RESEARCH yourself to disprove what I'm saying.
POLL people who are in Planned Parenthood leadership, and ask POINTED
questions that will reveal their philosophies. Questions like:
1) Do you believe children who are unwanted by their parents stand a
very high chance of becoming detriments to society?
2) Do you believe that it would have been better for mothers of
these children to have had an abortion?
There you go. Pretty danged straightforward. Planned parenthood DOES
ADVISE MANY mothers to get abortions. Historically, they are probably
the organization that has played the most significant role in the
promotion of abortion as a VIABLE choice in dealing with unwanted
pregnancy.
My, I am good at diverging the thread....or is it just that SOMEONE
always has to get annoyed at any point I try to make...I dunno.
>To say that Planned Parenthood is *saturated* by eugenists is analogous
>to saying that the modern church is saturated by Christian Identity
>Racists.
? I don't get it. Was Christianity founded on racism? Cuz that was
the whole point here. PP was FOUNDED on Eugenic principles. Read
Sangers stuff for crying out loud and leave me alone until you do.
>
>Respectfully, Susan
I think not. -Bob
Bob Weigel
your latest comments. It gets too lengthy....
In article <387FBE93...@concentric.net>,
<Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Bob Weigel wrote:
>
>> In article <387F3897...@concentric.net>,
>> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> >Bob Weigel wrote:
>> >
>> Quite aware, but much as Margaret Sanger has been dead for years,
>> planned parenthood is still heavily saturated with people who hold to
>> her "Eugenist" philosophies.
>
> Really? It is one thing to plan on when you will have a family, and
>quite another to select who can or cannot have families. I am not
>aware of any credible evidence that eugenics is behind the current
>Planned Parenthood movement.
The thought that I outlined in my two questions in the other article
is one you might consider. There is a philosophy behind counselling
ANYONE to have an abortion. It is a thought that we should take an
action to PREVENT a life from emerging which might be unwanted by
its parents. That is when they counsel to abort if they do in
general, right? Poll a bunch of people who have used the "service.".
I know in my own heart that people who are counselling to kill,
what if left alone would become a person like you or me possibly,
are NOT doing it out of the goodness of their heart. The whole
concept is wicked. Tearing babies apart. Man. what a wicked world.
"Little ones, to him belong. Little ones, where have you gone?
Was it a war that stilled your voice? No it was your mother's choice.
Where was the doctor's healing hand, when children died across the land?
In search of a cure for saving life? No death came through his knife.
It's a dangerous...dangerous...dangerous place.
A mother's womb is a dangerous, place to be these days" (-Julie Miller)
So, go figure. Eugenecism is the only philosophy that such a
person can adopt to justify their advice. "If you don't want it, kill it"
just doesn't have enough depth to give people self esteem, so they try
to build a grand old philosophy to make it seem that they are actually
HELPING society!!! How ELSe can you help society by advising which
babies should live and which should die? It's pretty straightforward
isn't it? I mean, they ARE counseling exactly that...aren't they? And
if so, YOU tell me how they might come out thiking of themselves as anything
but co-murderers.
>
>> That is something to be aware of in disney as well.
>
> Evidence? Disney has been totally transformed under the Eisner
>regime; the original core business is but a fraction of what today's
>Disney has become. Remember that they have added ABC, as
Do I CARE? Disney isn't devoted to the purposes of Christ. My entire
reason for bringing them up had to do with Leon's involvement and I
don't see why I have to do research on the infrastructure of an organization
I don't give a HOOT about just to note that.
>well as a vast array of entertainment entities.
>
>> I'm not saying a person can NOT do something with them,
>> but I'd watch it, and the signs around Leon's life were not good.
>
> The signs around Leon's life are not good, and it has nothing to
>do with Disney.
>
Didn't say it did. I'd say it might have had to do with his CHOICE
to look more to working with famous groups than keeping the Lord's
simple direction in his life though. But now I'll say that "disney
provides worldly avenues that are devoid of God's direction" and it
would be silly to say boldly what you just said, so I won't say it.
That's what I believe, and I don't see anyone bringing forth specific
evidence against what seems a real obvious point to me, so I guess just
go on about it if you like...
>> We need to be sure we aren't getting "yolked" in a way that will drag
>> us away from God's direction as Christians....obviously.
>
> Thomas Nelson/Word makes Disney seem like a monastery.
I agree.
>
>> >> Of course, a person who walks in Christ
>> >> is ULTIMATELY uninhibited in a good way. Thus, they are not only creative,
>> >> they create something that has value in god's eyes in the end.
>> >
>> > Then why can't "Christian music" compete in the secular world?
>>
>> First, the world isnt' full of people who are willing to listen to
>> the truth, and often they find music that incorporates it offensive
>> to their selected "deathstyle" :-) Secondly, they are longing to have a
>> void filled, and they seem to choose, for the larger part, stuff that
>> actually contains a messge which is contrary to the truth (promoting
>> unhealthy relationships, drugs, etc.)
>
> I don't know about that. I used to love what little I heard of Amy
>Grant's material, even with the often obvious religious connotations.
>A number of secular artists have had Top 40 hits which had a clear
>religious message. And if you believe Trott and Hertenstein in their
>book Selling Satan, the 'Jesus Music' scene around Nashville in the
>'70s bore no resemblance to the Vatican, and Trott recently told me
>that things aren't that much better today.
So? Just because a bunch of "ice cold fakes" put on their Jesus badge,
why do you let that distract you? I say that just to encourage you as
you reconsider the whole thing. God really wants to have a relationship
with you. I know that because I've come to know him as he intended for
me. The whole scene is pretty heinous. A few individual artists have
managed to work within the thing and not become part of it I believe,
but very few. I don't sense a lot of love in most of the acts I meet,
just show-n-go. I can't think of a better example of the opposite
than Larry Norman who not only tries to establish a personal kind
of interaction with the audience during the show, he stays and talks to
people afterwards, instead of just signing his name on some merchandise
which he knows isn't going to change anyone's life. There are people
who aren't part of the whole thing, and seem to be looking away from
the business aspects towards relationship.
>
>> Musically, there is Christian stuff out there that matches anything
>> the world has done. The only difference is the message. The music works
>> with the message great, and it's technically awesome. But because the
>> message isn't on the PULSE of the world, it doesn't gain the amount
>> of recognition other tunes get.
>> I'm painfully aware of all this. I poured years of my life into
>> becoming a good synth player, plus I wrote tons of sounds to compliment
>> the pieces I've done, preproduced things and got some people to listen.
>> It's the lyrics. Though they are poetically cool, it just isn't what
>> peole want to hear in the world!
>
> Then why is it that the secular artists seem to be developing all the
>new styles? Rap, techno, metal ... you name it. First, it comes out.
Actually, Larry Norman did rap songs in 1972 :-) I don't know who
officially thought of it first....but the FACT that "reader's digest"
which got a very favorable statement from Rolling Stone didn't
spearhead a rap revolution should tell us something. THE PRINCIPLE
I outlined above SHOULD answer your questions. It doesn't matter if
a Christian happens to do "it" first....because they are Christian,
they get pushed into obscurity and someone else does it in the
secular realm, and THEY get all the recognition for it. I'm NOT saying
that people in the secular realm don't come up with unique expressive
forms first. I'm just saying that when christians do, it either isn't
viewed as "significant" because the very form itself doesn't lend itself
to the world's priorities.....OR it gets swiped by someone who tags
on pallatable lyrics.
ALSO, you might note that some of the most significant groups in
modern music history had dominant creative characters who actually
came to Christ: Kerry Livegren and the Elefante's of Kansas, Keith
Emerson, of ELP, and.... what about some of those Mike and the Mechanics
tunes? Hmmm. Makes you wonder. Alice Cooper? Dylan? Ok, Freddy
Mercury did not it appears for sure. But so many others wind up
claiming to have made some committment to Christ....and I clearly see
in a lot of their work that they were searching for thuth in various
ways and that is what fueled their creativity. And it seems that if
an artist mixes a bunch of real cruddy songs with a few of those,
that is the best formula for success! :-) I don't know why. Could
it have to do with Ezekiel 33 near the end there?
>Then, it becomes popular. Then, Christians take it, and it becomes
>"Christian rap," and even "Christian metal."
>
> And then, Pat Boone starts doing it.... :P
>
But...nobody does it like Pat....NOBODY! People listen to my stuff and they
go "how do you come up with that" because some of it is so different, it's
tough to compare with others, and I attribute that to the fact that I was
trying to write from the heart the Lord gave me, and not to copy someone else.
It's a wild, awesome creation. When I play music, I want to exploit it! I
want to make every particle come together to make the statement I need
to share. If I do that and I become popular, fine. If I don't, I'll just
do it for those who want to hear. I think there are lots of artists like that.
Unfortunately, the "Christian market" IS a creative void. If you do something
different, you don't get listened to. There is no room for people who di
it different because CHRISTIAN BUSINESSMEN/WOMEN....are typically the
most insecure people on earth. Again, LN proved that years ago, when he got
basically shunned by the "industry" while he did stuff NEVER before heard
in Christian music for 8 years with some notariety before he finally got
hooked up with Word so he could learn what a joy it was! :-)
>> It is VERY tough to find someone who
>> will stick their neck out for you if you don't contour what you are
>> doing to "the market".
>
> I can see the problem. People don't like to be preached to, and
>even more so when the preacher doesn't practice what he preaches.
The problem with me? Are you SURE you can "see"? :-) You barely know
me. If you want to talk to me in e-mail, that's fine but I think
I'll drop it here. I'm out of time, and I have made enough public
spectacle for a while.
>Christianity has become a joke -- because Christians have given the
>world an engraved invitation to regard it as such.
>
RIGHT! That's why my whole work is about. I do whole sets of songs where
I don't mention "Jesus" because I know there are people who don't even
know about who he really is...and have these cheezy images in their
minds. We agree on so much! Don't cast me in with the lot of THEM,
because I've taken a beating for NOT doing just that.
>> >If the music has intrinsic merit, people will buy it. If Leon Patillo's
>> >tripe is representative of your side's best, it is no surprise that you
>> >have to have your own awards, charts, and distribution networks.
>>
>> As I said, I liked some of Leon's early work because it reflected a
>> sense of spiritual freedom in his life. Where he went from there I
>> do not know. But even regarding that stuff, I would say that.....
>> I personally have never considered his work "best". Obviously, M.W. Smith
>> who I have considered one of the best, went on to become the #1 pop artist
>> in the secular realm
>
> That's news to me. Amy Grant is the only Christian singer I know
>of who made the transition with any degree of success since the Pat
>Boone era (but then again, I don't follow such things too closely any
>more).
Ok.
>> as well, so I don't even know where we are going here.
>> SOMETIMES people will find "intrinsic merit" and other times, something
>> will turn them off and they'll walk away...and it isn't necessarily that
>> the art didn't have "intrinsic merit". People are very warped these days
>> as I know you agree.
>
> I don't think folks are any worse than they were forty years ago.
Didn't say they weren't :-). Well, I gotta go. I'm eating up lots of
time I don'thave here. I appreciate your logic as I said, and I believe
anyone who seeks the truth will find it. Dont' worry about all the
fakers. They'll always be there. If you turn to the Lord alone, he
will lead you so that nobody needs to instruct you. When I was about
20 as I say, I decided to just cry out to the Lord and read the word and
ask him to help me understand. A lot of things he did just than on! I
understood that the religious system had lied to me about the nature of
Christ, the purpose/definition of "tithe", the nature/definition of the "church"
and so on. -Bob
Bob Wilson
> In article <387E6EB5...@concentric.net>,
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel wrote:
> >> references to "magic" and his plan to link arms with DISNEY....)
> >
> > I guess it must just be me, but I really don't see anything wrong
> >with Disney. Just because they have the good business sense to
>
>
> No, I'm sure the question is very applicable for many. Disney himself was
> very much an unbeliever. He rejected the claims of Jesus Christ and
> built for himself and others a world of phantasy that would help them
> be content with doing the same.
> In order to reach his success level, Walt incorporated many "truths"
> in his work. Nobody who has based their work on pure fantasy has ever been
> a huge success
Please give an example that I may have heard of. Give several if
possible.
-because people are very interested in pathways that keep
> linking to things that are real, then diverge in some interesting way.
>
> >create a working environment friendly to homosexuals, knowing
> >that they are among their most productive and creative staffers?
>
> I guess people often perceive gay people as more creative because
> they tend to be less inhibited. Of course, a person who walks in Christ
> is ULTIMATELY uninhibited in a good way.
Your reasoning is certainly creative.
Thus, they are not only creative,
> they create something that has value in god's eyes in the end.
> If I thought it was better to spend tons of money on a movie, I think I
> could come up with something tha would equal anything out there with God's
> help. He's kind of tough to beat in terms of creativity. So often he
> chooses to lead people to do other things, like direct ministry to
> people. I think that's why there are so few good movies done by Christians.
>
So, to summarize, Christian movies suck because God doesn't care about
movies?
>
> >Besides, Disney is a secular corporation whose only mission is to
> >make money for their shareholders -- and Scripturally speaking,
> >can't even BE judged (1 Cor. 5:12).
>
> Nobody is "judging" them in a way that isn't encouraged by other scriptures
The Southern Baptists aren't?
> like the ones that ask us what we have to do in common with the world's
> purposes, and being "unequally yolked". If we form an agreement which demands
> our time and creative direction but imposes things which don't allow us to
> operate as Christ leads, that is of concern. As I noted, there was a strong
> loss in Leon's work intended for a Christian audience at the approx. time he
> began talking to Disney about some deal. That's all I was saying. As I
> said, I don't know the current happenings. The other fellow claims to
> so talk to him I guess for more details.
>
>
> > Why this pathological hatred of gays, while adulterers are often
> >coddled? I've never understood this one, and I know more than
> >a few Christians who don't, either.
It's because many christians are adulterers themselves. (of course,
many people of all religions are) Hating themselves is painful, so they
hate gays instead. And also, there's a fundamental difference between
homosexuality and adultery. People ALWAYS seek to hide their adultery,
and if they are not discovered, they don't admit to anyone that they are
adulterers. But many homosexuals are open about what they do. So an
adulterous christian can go on the radio and dis homosexuality, knowing
that his own sin is a secret. Remember Susan Smith, the child murderess?
Her stepfather had been fucking her for more than 6 years at the time of
her crime. He was also the chairman of his local Christian Coalition
chapter, AND of the local Republican committee. Adultery is, alas, a
common human activity. Since Pastors are usually more likely to be
adulterers than homosexuals, they give adultery a pass. Not many of them
kill witches either, even though the Bible commands them too. (Although
Bob Larson would probably like to.) And how many christians do you know
that have plucked out there eyes for 'offending' them? Christians obey
the parts of the Bible that they find convenient to obey, and ignore or
rationalize away the rest.
Bob Wilson
> In article <387F3897...@concentric.net>,
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel wrote:
> >
> >> In article <387E6EB5...@concentric.net>,
> >> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >> >Bob Weigel wrote:
> >> >> references to "magic" and his plan to link arms with DISNEY....)
> >> >
> >> > I guess it must just be me, but I really don't see anything wrong
> >> >with Disney. Just because they have the good business sense to
> >>
> >> No, I'm sure the question is very applicable for many. Disney himself was
> >> very much an unbeliever. He rejected the claims of Jesus Christ and
> >> built for himself and others a world of phantasy that would help them
> >> be content with doing the same.
> >
> > Walt Disney has been dead for years. Today's Disney is a secular
> >entertainment conglomerate, which hs been forced by the realities of
> >the marketplace to expand its market. It couldn't just pander to kids
> >and be successful.
> >
> >
> Quite aware, but much as Margaret Sanger has been dead for years,
> planned parenthood is still heavily saturated with people who hold to
> her "Eugenist" philosophies.
I think you're wrong there. Eugenics implies racism and Planned
Parenthood's services are available to all and are forced on no one. If
more people would avail themselves of birth control, less unwanted
pregnancies and abortions would result. Planned Parenthood no doubt
makes far more abortions unnecessary than they actually perform. But
prominent Pro-Life activists have stated that once they get abortion
outlawed, birth control is next. It's the fact that people are having
and enjoying sex without paying a preacher first that bugs them the most.
Bob Wilson
> In article <85o657$igv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Susan Lee <susa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel said:
> >(I snipped a lot for brevity)
> >> planned parenthood is still heavily saturated with people who hold to
> >> her "Eugenist" philosophies.
> >
> >this "saturation"? Are you relying on hearsay? Or are you just making
> >it up?
>
> I've spoken with many people. I've been involved in abortion sit
> ins and so on, and have been arrested for peaceful demonstration...all
> that to say I've done my research, had my run ins, etc....so I'm not
> just "making it up".
And it's not "ridiculous". If you want to call
> something rediculous, DO THE RESEARCH yourself to disprove what I'm saying.
It is your job to prove your assertions, it is not someone else's job to
disprove them. You could stand to do some research yourself in the area
of logic.
> POLL people who are in Planned Parenthood leadership, and ask POINTED
> questions that will reveal their philosophies. Questions like:
>
> 1) Do you believe children who are unwanted by their parents stand a
> very high chance of becoming detriments to society?
>
> 2) Do you believe that it would have been better for mothers of
> these children to have had an abortion?
Even if all of them answered yes to both questions, that still doesn't
add up to Eugenics. Perhaps you don't really know what Eugenics is. I
suggest you look it up.
Bob Wilson
> >> with Disney. Just because they have the good business sense to
> >> that they are among their most productive and creative staffers?
> >> make money for their shareholders -- and Scripturally speaking,
> >> can't even BE judged (1 Cor. 5:12).
> >
> >while they did officially support "Nights of Joy" featuring Christian
> >musicians promoting evangelical Christianity.
> >
> >Christians believe that persecution is a validation of their beliefs.
> >They're so desperate for such validation that they consider it
> >discrimination when they don't receive preferential treatment and are
> >prevented from persecuting others.
> >
> >persecution to deal with. They'd finally be happy, and the rest of us
> >could have a lot of fun. :)
> >
> >jason
> >
> HAlloween, the LEAST that should be done to them is a few good old
> fashioned doses of their own medicine!
>
> Just like in the good old days of the Inquisition.
>
>
right, I'd rather have a world where NO ONE was persecuted for their
religous beleifs.
Kent Wills
"Ken Hamer" <kenh...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:387FA0...@attglobal.net...
>
> Even for publicity value?
The publicity would be negative and far outweigh any positive. I just
don't see it happening.
Ken Hamer
>
<snip>
>
> Quite aware, but much as Margaret Sanger has been dead for years,
> planned parenthood is still heavily saturated with people who hold to
> her "Eugenist" philosophies.
<snip>
Here's a dictionary definition of "saturated:"
1. To cause to become completely penetrated
Are you suggesting that every person in the US is a member of Planned
Parenthood, and that everyone of them is a "Eugenist?" Or are you just
making this up? Perhaps you can't read. Or perhaps dictionaries are
Satanic.
Ken Hamer
>
> In article <85o657$igv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Susan Lee <susa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel said:
> >(I snipped a lot for brevity)
> >> planned parenthood is still heavily saturated with people who hold to
> >> her "Eugenist" philosophies.
> >
> >this "saturation"? Are you relying on hearsay? Or are you just making
> >it up?
>
> I've spoken with many people. I've been involved in abortion sit
> ins and so on, and have been arrested for peaceful demonstration...all
> that to say I've done my research, had my run ins, etc....so I'm not
> just "making it up". And it's not "ridiculous". If you want to call
> something rediculous, DO THE RESEARCH yourself to disprove what I'm saying.
It's a known fact that everyone who attends your church is a secret
member of the KKK, the Christian Identity Movement, Branch Davidians,
Free Masons, and Tele-Tubbies Fan Club.
I've spoken with many people -- thousands upon thousands, in fact. I've
been involved in all kinds of sit ins and demonstrations, peaceful,
disruptive, and otherwise...all that to say I've done my research, had
my run ins, etc....so I'm not just "making it up". And it's not
"ridiculous". If you want to call my claims rediculous [sic], DO THE
Ken Hamer
> <snip>
> I wouldn't go that far. Although persecution would serve christians
> right, I'd rather have a world where NO ONE was persecuted for their
> religous beleifs.
Frankly, I'd rather have a world where there were no religious beliefs.
Seems like it'd be a safer, happier, friendlier, better world.
Ken Hamer
>
> > Quite aware, but much as Margaret Sanger has been dead for years,
> > planned parenthood is still heavily saturated with people who hold to
> > her "Eugenist" philosophies.
>
Rang...@concentric.net wrote:
>
> Really? It is one thing to plan on when you will have a family, and
> quite another to select who can or cannot have families. I am not
> aware of any credible evidence that eugenics is behind the current
> Planned Parenthood movement.
>
Huh uh. Huh uh. You said evidence. Huh uh.
Evidence "don't enter into it!"
Rang...@concentric.net
> Ranger, try eliminating the old stuff that doesn't bear meaning on
> your latest comments. It gets too lengthy....
I understand what you're saying, but I also have to take care to
make sure that those people picking up on the thread have a clue
as to what has already been said. USENET flame wars are often
started when a statement is taken out of context. I try to edit for
clarity, and prefer to edit less than more.
Rang...@concentric.net
> In article <387FBE93...@concentric.net>,
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel wrote:
> >> In article <387F3897...@concentric.net>,
> >> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >> >Bob Weigel wrote:
> >> >
> >> Quite aware, but much as Margaret Sanger has been dead for years,
> >> planned parenthood is still heavily saturated with people who hold to
> >> her "Eugenist" philosophies.
> >
> > Really? It is one thing to plan on when you will have a family, and
> >quite another to select who can or cannot have families. I am not
> >aware of any credible evidence that eugenics is behind the current
> >Planned Parenthood movement.
>
> The thought that I outlined in my two questions in the other article
> is one you might consider. There is a philosophy behind counselling
> ANYONE to have an abortion.
Having seen the kind of harassment which goes on at the family-
planning clinics (not everyone there goes to have an abortion), I
can speak from experience. Based upon that experience, I know
that your allegation is patently absurd.
I still recall the thirteen-year-old girl whose mother dragged her
to the clinic, and the Christianazi hatemongerers haranguing her
as she passed through their gauntlet. As she walked through the
door, she wheeled toward the protesters and screamed, "What
do you want me to do? Have the baby? I'm only thirteen!"
The poor kid made a mistake, and having that baby would've
in all likelihood ruined her life. In that instance, I wouldn't be so
bold as to try to impose my provincial religious views upon her,
as I consider it immoral to make another suffer to vindicate my
views.
In another instance, there was the girl who really wanted to
have the baby, but stark economic reality made it impractical.
(Your Jesus is not a good god: he rarely if ever provides, and
cannot be counted on when needed -- the homeless shelters
are littered with people who gave their last few bucks to Bob
Tilton and his ilk, trusting God for a miracle.) My wife and I
offered to help out if she wanted the child, but in the end, we
stressed to her that it was her decision and hers alone.
In a perfect world, every child would be a wanted child,
and every set of parents would have the means to care for
the children they had. But as you have insisted, this is not
a perfect world. It is a wicked world ... and a truly fitting
testament to your wicked god.
Nor is it fair to say that every pregnancy is the result of
a woman's negligence. Unless and until there is a 100%
safe, effective, and practical means of contraception, there
will always be unwanted pregnancies. And just as we use
drugs and even invasive surgery to evade what is arguably
your God's will to improve the quality of life and even save
lives, there is no compelling bar to abortion as a means of
improving a woman's life.
> It is a thought that we should take an
> action to PREVENT a life from emerging which might be unwanted by
> its parents. That is when they counsel to abort if they do in
> general, right? Poll a bunch of people who have used the "service.".
> I know in my own heart that people who are counselling to kill,
> what if left alone would become a person like you or me possibly,
> are NOT doing it out of the goodness of their heart. The whole
> concept is wicked. Tearing babies apart. Man. what a wicked world.
If you don't like surgical abortion, then I presume that you have no
objection to non-surgical alternatives like RU-486 and the so-called
"morning-after pill" (a mega-dose of oral contraceptives, designed to
trigger a premature menstrual period). Less barbarous, more private.
Moreover, it is accomplished before any reasonable argument can
be made that the fetus is sentient. Your position?
> "Little ones, to him belong. Little ones, where have you gone?
> Was it a war that stilled your voice? No it was your mother's choice.
> Where was the doctor's healing hand, when children died across the land?
> In search of a cure for saving life? No death came through his knife.
> It's a dangerous...dangerous...dangerous place.
> A mother's womb is a dangerous, place to be these days" (-Julie Miller)
Of course, it was also a dangerous place in Jericho when the
Israelite hordes surrounded it. Women, children, and even the
animals were executed. Don't try to impress me with the silly
notion that your sick, perverted god has any reverence for life.
> So, go figure. Eugenecism is the only philosophy that such a
> person can adopt to justify their advice.
"Eugenics" is the study (and by implication, the practice) of
hereditary improvement by genetic control. If, for example, a
married couple chooses not to have a child now, so that they
would be in a better position to provide for children later, it is
not in any colorable sense the practice of eugenics. The same
genes get mixed together, albeit in a slightly different way, but
genetic control has nothing whatever to do with it.
Bottom line, the prospective parents generally make the best
decision they can make, based upon the information they have
available at decision-time. It's not eugenics. It's prudence.
> "If you don't want it, kill it"
> just doesn't have enough depth to give people self esteem, so they try
> to build a grand old philosophy to make it seem that they are actually
> HELPING society!!! How ELSe can you help society by advising which
> babies should live and which should die?
You're not so much trying to "help society," but to help those
who might be parents to make those choices that will give their
(eventual?) offspring the best chance of surviving. And that is
what happens in the real world.
> It's pretty straightforward
It is. But if you want to change that equation, you do it one life
at a time. The one thing we don't need is for the heavy hand of
government to dictate that "thou shalt not." As Justice O'Connor
so accurately pointed out, giving the government jurisdiction over
reproductive issues would set a frightening precedent. We could
become like China, where the government is the final arbiter of
who can or cannot reproduce.
> isn't it? I mean, they ARE counseling exactly that...aren't they? And
> if so, YOU tell me how they might come out thiking of themselves as anything
> but co-murderers.
I submit that I just did. Abortion isn't a simple problem, and
there aren't any simple solutions.
Your claim with respect to Planned Parenthood allegedly
being driven by an eugenic philosophy must be rejected for
a lack of credible evidence. As I have no desire to engage
in an endless discussion on this contentious subject, I hope
we can keep further discussion focused on the question of
Planned Parenthood, as opposed to abortion in general.
Good Girl Vampyre
>>
>>Respectfully, Susan
>
>I think not. -Bob
Rude, aren't you? Gee so much for Christian love.
Rang...@concentric.net
> In article <387FBE93...@concentric.net>,
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel wrote:
>
> >> That is something to be aware of in disney as well.
> >
> > Evidence? Disney has been totally transformed under the Eisner
> >regime; the original core business is but a fraction of what today's
> >Disney has become. Remember that they have added ABC, as
>
> Do I CARE? Disney isn't devoted to the purposes of Christ. My entire
> reason for bringing them up had to do with Leon's involvement and I
> don't see why I have to do research on the infrastructure of an organization
> I don't give a HOOT about just to note that.
Is it Disney, or is it Leon? Blaming Disney for Leon's fall based
only on an alleged association is an example of the 'post hoc, ergo
propter hoc' logical fallacy.
> >well as a vast array of entertainment entities.
> >
> >> I'm not saying a person can NOT do something with them,
> >> but I'd watch it, and the signs around Leon's life were not good.
> >
> > The signs around Leon's life are not good, and it has nothing to
> >do with Disney.
> >
> Didn't say it did. I'd say it might have had to do with his CHOICE
> to look more to working with famous groups than keeping the Lord's
> simple direction in his life though. But now I'll say that "disney
> provides worldly avenues that are devoid of God's direction" and it
> would be silly to say boldly what you just said, so I won't say it.
In absence of even a shred of credible evidence that it has something
to do with Disney, it is fair to conclude boldly that there is no link -- it
is more plausible, given Leon's present compatriots, that it is Leon and
Leon alone.
> That's what I believe, and I don't see anyone bringing forth specific
> evidence against what seems a real obvious point to me, so I guess just
> go on about it if you like...
You are at liberty to believe whatever you wish, even if it is wrong.
> So? Just because a bunch of "ice cold fakes" put on their Jesus badge,
> why do you let that distract you?
I don't -- but you wouldn't necessarily know that. For instance, I
don't hold Jesus accountable for Bob Larson. However, I do hold
him responsible for HIS REACTION (or, in this case, the utter lack
thereof) to his antics.
As you will surely recall, the Gospels tell us that Jesus chased the
moneychangers from the Temple at the business end of a horsewhip.
That sets both an example and a precedent. Moreover, we are told
in Jas. 4:17 that anyone "who knows the good he ought to do and
doesn't do it, sins." That sets a standard of ethical conduct, which
is known in the vernacular as creating "sins of omission." Based on
that foundation, and the fact that Bob Larson not only damages the
reputation of Christianity in general by his antics, but has even been
caught displaying his wares on a church altar, your god has a clear
obligation to do something. For to not do the good he ought to do
is a sin ... even for a god.
It has been suggested by others that the parable of the wheat and
the tares applies here, but I regard that explanation as ridiculous on
its face. On the one hand, any god who does not possess the skill
to remove those tares without damaging the wheat isn't omnipotent,
and the god who removes some tares without removing others for
his own purposes necessarily obliterates the concept of objective
morality. If might makes right and the ends justify the means, then
the only "right" is your god's own selfish ends. That makes him no
better than an Adolf Hitler or a Joseph Stalin.
As I see it, any God worthy of the name can achieve his ends by
scrupulously ethical means. Besides, if the purpose of 'leaving the
tares in' is to give a recalcitrant sinner a chance to mend his ways,
the scrupulous and consistent enforcement of the so-called Law is
a marvelous teacher. For when the Bob Larsons of the world can
show the rest of us that you can flout the Law with impunity, it has
the inexorable effect of eroding our respect for the Law. Hence, I
would hold Jesus liable for his inaction.
> I say that just to encourage you as you reconsider the whole thing.
When I receive a quantum of credible evidence sufficient for me to
reopen the matter, it will be reopened without hesitation. Unless and
until then, money talks, and bullsh-- I mean, Jesus-- walks.
> God really wants to have a relationship with you.
If he does, he already knows my price. Doubting Thomas was
important enough to him that he allegedly performed a house call.
Once again, that creates a binding precedent. Unless my soul is
not as valuable as Thomas', your god has the moral obligation to
visit me in person, and in the flesh. Alternative compensation is
acceptable, but it must at a bare minimum include restitution and
punitive damages. But unlke Domino's Pizza, your god can't
deliver.
> I know that because I've come to know him as he intended for me.
If you embraced the OTS (Overweight, Toupeed Shatner), you
would come to know him as he intended for you. He is the multi-
media messiah for the new millenium! Now, go get TOUPEE'D at
http://www.freespeech.org/shatner!
Translated, your evidence is lacking.
<major snip>
> >Then, it becomes popular. Then, Christians take it, and it becomes
> >"Christian rap," and even "Christian metal."
> >
> > And then, Pat Boone starts doing it.... :P
>
> But...nobody does it like Pat....NOBODY!
ROTFLMAO! Proof that there _IS_ a God???
Rang...@concentric.net
> In article <387FBE93...@concentric.net>,
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel wrote:
>
<we've covered my views on Christianity, abortion, and even a
bad Pat Boone joke in previous installments>
> ALSO, you might note that some of the most significant groups in
> modern music history had dominant creative characters who actually
> came to Christ: Kerry Livegren and the Elefante's of Kansas, Keith
> Emerson, of ELP,
At which point, they tend to go right in the tank. Even Dylan went
in the tank when he flirted with Christendom.
And don't forget Barbarella. Hubby dumps her (according to the
tabloids), and she runs off to a nunnery (with one stop to see Val
Kilmer?).... :)
> and.... what about some of those Mike and the Mechanics
> tunes? Hmmm. Makes you wonder. Alice Cooper?
Now, he hangs with corrupt televangelists. Big improvement.
Hmmm.... Makes you wonder.
> Dylan? Ok, Freddy
> Mercury did not it appears for sure. But so many others wind up
> claiming to have made some committment to Christ....and I clearly see
> in a lot of their work that they were searching for thuth in various
> ways and that is what fueled their creativity.
I see more of it in those who didn't. The Beatles are Exhibit A.
"And no religion too...."
> And it seems that if
> an artist mixes a bunch of real cruddy songs with a few of those,
> that is the best formula for success! :-)
Exhibit B: Elvis. I would not presume to dispute you there. :)
> I don't know why. Could
> it have to do with Ezekiel 33 near the end there?
Ezekiel 33:1-6? I beat Christians over the head with that one all
the time.
> >Then, it becomes popular. Then, Christians take it, and it becomes
> >"Christian rap," and even "Christian metal."
> >
> > And then, Pat Boone starts doing it.... :P
>
> But...nobody does it like Pat....NOBODY! People listen to my stuff and they
> go "how do you come up with that" because some of it is so different, it's
> tough to compare with others, and I attribute that to the fact that I was
> trying to write from the heart the Lord gave me, and not to copy someone else.
> It's a wild, awesome creation. When I play music, I want to exploit it! I
> want to make every particle come together to make the statement I need
> to share. If I do that and I become popular, fine. If I don't, I'll just
> do it for those who want to hear. I think there are lots of artists like that.
> Unfortunately, the "Christian market" IS a creative void.
My point exactly.
> If you do something
> different, you don't get listened to. There is no room for people who di
> it different because CHRISTIAN BUSINESSMEN/WOMEN....are typically the
> most insecure people on earth.
A by-product of becoming a "new man in Christ?"
> Again, LN proved that years ago, when he got
> basically shunned by the "industry" while he did stuff NEVER before heard
> in Christian music for 8 years with some notariety before he finally got
> hooked up with Word so he could learn what a joy it was! :-)
But getting hooked up with an outfit like Word? You might as
well do business with Penthouse! At least, Larry Flynt of Hustler
is a man with some semblance of principle.
> >> It is VERY tough to find someone who
> >> will stick their neck out for you if you don't contour what you are
> >> doing to "the market".
> >
> > I can see the problem. People don't like to be preached to, and
> >even more so when the preacher doesn't practice what he preaches.
>
> The problem with me?
No, the problem with the Christian music scene in general. Since
you have also conceded that there is one, it is not worth going any
further with.
> Are you SURE you can "see"? :-) You barely know
> me. If you want to talk to me in e-mail, that's fine but I think
> I'll drop it here. I'm out of time, and I have made enough public
> spectacle for a while.
Don't take everything so personally. We are looking at a much
larger problem.
> >Christianity has become a joke -- because Christians have given the
> >world an engraved invitation to regard it as such.
>
> RIGHT! That's why my whole work is about. I do whole sets of songs where
> I don't mention "Jesus" because I know there are people who don't even
> know about who he really is...and have these cheezy images in their
> minds. We agree on so much! Don't cast me in with the lot of THEM,
> because I've taken a beating for NOT doing just that.
I'm not. There are Christians in a.f.b-l who see the same problem,
and are working to remedy it. And to the extent that they work to
better society -- both inside and outside of the Christian realm -- we
are colleagues.
> Didn't say they weren't :-). Well, I gotta go. I'm eating up lots of
> time I don'thave here. I appreciate your logic as I said, and I believe
> anyone who seeks the truth will find it. Dont' worry about all the
> fakers. They'll always be there.
I don't. I turn to Jesus .... and see him lying in an unmarked common
grave -- or otherwise fellating televangelists (which is in my estimation
even worse). If he wants me as a fan, he'll have to come correct.
> If you turn to the Lord alone, he
> will lead you so that nobody needs to instruct you. When I was about
> 20 as I say, I decided to just cry out to the Lord and read the word and
> ask him to help me understand.
As a former Christian, I can only laugh. Money talks, Jesus walks.
When the two conflict, bet on Money and lay the odds.
I understand ... perfectly.
Rang...@concentric.net
> In article <85o657$igv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Susan Lee <susa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel said:
> >(I snipped a lot for brevity)
> >> Quite aware, but much as Margaret Sanger has been dead for years,
> >> planned parenthood is still heavily saturated with people who hold to
> >> her "Eugenist" philosophies.
> >
> >What a ridiculous assertion. Do you have first hand experience with
> >this "saturation"? Are you relying on hearsay? Or are you just making
> >it up?
>
> I've spoken with many people. I've been involved in abortion sit
> ins and so on, and have been arrested for peaceful demonstration...all
> that to say I've done my research, had my run ins, etc....so I'm not
> just "making it up".
And neither am I. I've been near the lines when that "peaceful"
form of demonstration did not appear to be as such.
> And it's not "ridiculous".
Based on the evidence you have offered so far, I would have to
conclude that it wasn't just "ridiculous" but patently so.
> If you want to call
> something rediculous, DO THE RESEARCH yourself to disprove what I'm saying.
> POLL people who are in Planned Parenthood leadership, and ask POINTED
> questions that will reveal their philosophies. Questions like:
>
> 1) Do you believe children who are unwanted by their parents stand a
> very high chance of becoming detriments to society?
Statistically, this is true. Having one parent (as opposed to two)
is a significant predictor of the likelihood that that child will end up
in prison. The cause is in some respects obvious, and the numbers
themselves don't seem to be lying.
> 2) Do you believe that it would have been better for mothers of
> these children to have had an abortion?
As that is one question that could only be answered in hindsight, it
is presumptively unfair. What about the mother of Adolf Hitler? Idi
Amin? Bob Larson? One could make a cogent argument for all of
them. But I wouldn't want to make that choice prospectively.
Those who could become parents ought to be able to determine
whether they are to accept that often-daunting task, and since we
have the technology to enable them to make that decision, there is
no reason why we shouldn't avail ourselves of it. Unless and until
a perfectly safe, effective, and practical means of contraception is
invented, abortion should remain as an option -- unless we become
a theocracy.
> There you go. Pretty danged straightforward. Planned parenthood DOES
> ADVISE MANY mothers to get abortions. Historically, they are probably
> the organization that has played the most significant role in the
> promotion of abortion as a VIABLE choice in dealing with unwanted
> pregnancy.
It is a viable choice. Since you do seem to have SoCal roots, one
Gloria Allred comes to mind. Would she have ever made it to law
school, had she become a single mother? Probably not. She has a
better life -- at least, by her estimation -- because of her choice of
an abortion. How can we be so presumptuous as to take that right
of self-determination away from her?
If God had not wanted her to have that choice, she wouldn't have
become pregnant in the first place. Nature commits more abortions
than Planned Parenthood doctors.
> My, I am good at diverging the thread....or is it just that SOMEONE
> always has to get annoyed at any point I try to make...I dunno.
USENET observes the Law of the Jungle: "Have a take and do
not suck, or your will get run." If you make points that suck, you
invite such engagements, and your smack about Planned Parent-
hood hasn't been your best take.
> >To say that Planned Parenthood is *saturated* by eugenists is analogous
> >to saying that the modern church is saturated by Christian Identity
> >Racists.
>
> ? I don't get it. Was Christianity founded on racism?
Depends on how you look at it. There is the Elect, and everyone
else. That is a sort of de facto racism. And Christianity was a solid
foundation for American slavery, as the Bible even gives directions
on how one is to care for their slaves.
> Cuz that was
> the whole point here. PP was FOUNDED on Eugenic principles.
And the ACLU was founded by a Methodist minister. It must be
a Godly organization, right?
> Read Sangers stuff for crying out loud and leave me alone until you do.
We recognize that Margaret Sanger is long-since dead, and that
there is no essential link between a dead founder of an organization
and what it has evolved into. If eugenics' hopefully-benign stepchild
genetic engineering could be harnessed to eliminate diseases like
Down's Syndrome and sickle-cell anemia, I am all for it. But on
the other hand, if it can be used to create a master race -- much as
we have with cattle -- the ramifications speak for themselves.
> >Respectfully, Susan
>
> I think not. -Bob
A statement which should never be made in USENET, as the
array of devastating rejoinders is staggering. :)
E.g., "I wholeheartedly concede that point, Bob."
Jason Steiner
> >>
> >>Respectfully, Susan
> >
> >I think not. -Bob
>
In defense of Christians, Bob's well-known for not taking his meds,
even among other Christians.
jason
Bob Weigel
Bob Wilson <litt...@airmail.net> wrote:
>In article <85muk5$3sg$1...@news.csw.net>, moe...@mail.cswnet.com says...
>> >
This is such a narrow minded bigotrous statement. "Christians", unfortunately,
generally covers a whole variety of people. Some who claim to be "christians"
simply don't like to talk about the aspects of their life that are shaming
the Jesus Christ of the bible who they CLAIM to follow. I don't regard such
people to be "christians" at all. Like Keith said, "Does going to McD's
make you a hamburger?"...stupid analogy I know, but the fact is, JUST
because you call your self a Christian doesn't make you one.
I claim to be a Christian. I do NOT believe that "persecution is a
validation for my beliefs". I found a validation through a relationship
with Jesus Christ BEFORE I started getting persecuted, so this is just
flat wrong. If you go about making statements like that your credibility
will diminish until nobody worth convincing of anything are listening.
>> >They're so desperate for such validation that they consider it
>> >discrimination when they don't receive preferential treatment and are
>> >prevented from persecuting others.
>> >
? "They"? There's that language again...bigot bigot bigot....
>> >We could solve this problem very easily by giving them some real
>> >persecution to deal with. They'd finally be happy, and the rest of us
>> >could have a lot of fun. :)
Oh the world was just TONS of fun before all the Christians. :-) If you
call massive wars, corrupt government, and little bigots like you
running around finding things to bellyache about fun.
>> >
>> >jason
>> >
>> I'm all for that! COnsidering what those little bastards do to Wicca and
>> HAlloween, the LEAST that should be done to them is a few good old
>> fashioned doses of their own medicine!
>>
>> Just like in the good old days of the Inquisition.
>>
>>
>I wouldn't go that far. Although persecution would serve christians
>right, I'd rather have a world where NO ONE was persecuted for their
>religous beleifs.
Wow, that's swell of you. Now I'm trying to remember....what was the last
time I persecuted a Wiccan, or "did something" to halloween? It's like
any other day to me. SOMEONE seems just a WEEEE bit over the edge here.
I CONFESS, I kicked in a couple pumpkins when I was a kid trick or treating
because my stupid friend was doing it and laughing so hard I buckled!!!
I'm sorry! Please don't kill me and all the other Christians like me!
I'll buy 'em a new pumpkin! I'm sorry! I'm sorrry!
-Bob
Bob Weigel
Ken Hamer <kenh...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Bob Wilson wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
>> I wouldn't go that far. Although persecution would serve christians
>> right, I'd rather have a world where NO ONE was persecuted for their
>> religous beleifs.
>
>
>
>Seems like it'd be a safer, happier, friendlier, better world.
Seems it would be just like what things are trending toward. Haven't
you noticed that, as the schools have taught more and more that there
are strong "scientific" evidences for an evolutionary "creation", and
as fewer and fewer kids acknowledge that there is a God in the way
they live.... that more and more of them believe that
1) Since there are no spiritual things going on....just physical laws, and
the state of all things an increment in time ago (....and maybe "randomness"
which I personally believe is just an (non)explanation for events we
dont' have the ability to explain, but whatever....) we have no choice
in what we do. Our FIRST "choice" was a result of physical laws, the
state of things around us and in us at that moment, and maybe randomness,
ALL of which I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. My second "choice"....a result of
perhaps my first choice and the same stuff.
2) Since I'm not truly having any choice, I'm not responsible for anything
I do.
Seems to me like you'd have more shootings and sneaky murders, by
people who believe they are ULIMATELY just...living to die so they'd might
as well get all they can. What feels good? If the flesh is all you believe
you have, then that pretty much becomes the bottom line. Historically,
that has been the way MOST people have lived and it has NOT led to a
happy world.
I have no time to guess why your songs haven't made it, but I
think there might be clues in the fact that you make a very poor
assessment of history in your statement above. I believe, as I
said, that people like to see some kind of rational direction in
our music. If it's too much that way, they maynot like it either....
but if you just make statements like the one above, it starts to
sound like "Imagine there's no heaven...." When I first heard that song
my reaction was (before even understanding the words) "what a lame piece".
I was so disappointed to hear that kind of work coming from a "beetle"!
And the lame music worked so well with the lame philosophy therein.
Here, I rewrote it for him....
[verse 2]
"Imagine no drunk drunk drivers, that keeps them off the road.
No nucle,ar arsenol. So that it won't explode
Imagine all you want to; still it's just a dream,....eeeeeam.
Oh you may say I'm sarcastic. But down inside I cry.
For this world of dilluded people, who dare to imagine a lie."
Thought someone might enjoy that about now. -Bob
Bob Weigel
Bob Wilson <litt...@airmail.net> wrote:
>In article <85ondn$n...@garcia.efn.org>, b...@efn.org says...
>> something rediculous, DO THE RESEARCH yourself to disprove what I'm saying.
>
>disprove them. You could stand to do some research yourself in the area
>of logic.
>
>
>
I've already done the work of research, as I said. Do you want me to quote the
particulars? Sorry. I'd rather just leave it to people who are really
interested to research it themselves. In my experience, you go to all the
work of laying it out here and STILL nobody agrees because of there agendas.
When I look at the statements in the other thread, where they are accusing
ME, a Christian, of "persecuting Wiccans" and stuff.....I just can't see
trying to reason with that many narrow minded bigots about. It always
just turns into a long flame war. Sorry.
I am QUITE free to MAKE assertions and QUALIFY THEM. I DO NOT HAVE THE
TIME OR MONEY TO DO EXHAUSTIVE RESEARCH which WOULD ultimately be demanded
BEFORE the people here would believe me (and then most of them wouldn't
anyway, just as a reward for all that effort). I CANNOT do the poll I
suggested with ALL of the PP people. I'm just saying I'm convinced due
to the OTHER logical assertions I made (regarding motive breakdown
for people advocating abortions) and those I've talked to that this
is pretty much a thing that goes with the organization. THAT DOESN'T
mean I go up to individuals and assume things, LIKE the people in the
other article I posted to obviously ASSUME about CHRISTIANS from their
bigot ridden language. They spoke conclusions about ALL Christians in
their grammar. I try to be more careful with mine. My problem usually
is saying things like "All the people" referring to a large number of
people rather than "all"...and you can tell that from my context if you
want to but when I slip up, someone always fails to and hammers me. :-)
-Bob
>
>
>
>> POLL people who are in Planned Parenthood leadership, and ask POINTED
>> questions that will reveal their philosophies. Questions like:
>>
>> 1) Do you believe children who are unwanted by their parents stand a
>> very high chance of becoming detriments to society?
>>
>> 2) Do you believe that it would have been better for mothers of
>> these children to have had an abortion?
>
Bob Weigel
>>
>> In article <85o657$igv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> Susan Lee <susa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >Bob Weigel said:
>> >(I snipped a lot for brevity)
>> >> Quite aware, but much as Margaret Sanger has been dead for years,
>> >> planned parenthood is still heavily saturated with people who hold to
>> >> her "Eugenist" philosophies.
>> >
>> >What a ridiculous assertion. Do you have first hand experience with
>> >this "saturation"? Are you relying on hearsay? Or are you just making
>> >it up?
>>
>> I've spoken with many people. I've been involved in abortion sit
>> ins and so on, and have been arrested for peaceful demonstration...all
>> that to say I've done my research, had my run ins, etc....so I'm not
>> something rediculous, DO THE RESEARCH yourself to disprove what I'm saying.
>
>
Ahem...."saturation" is not the same as "everyone". I'm sure there are
people involved in PP who are not understanding the Eugenic roots, and
maybe even don't get involved in counselling people to kill babies....
and I'm even quite certain that there are people in "cults" who
aren't really adhered to it. They've been "socialized" into the group,
and no doubt will depart from it someday.
>It's a known fact that everyone who attends your church is a secret
Ahh, now we're back to botrous language....Bigot. Bigot. Bogot...
>member of the KKK, the Christian Identity Movement, Branch Davidians,
>Free Masons, and Tele-Tubbies Fan Club.
>
>I've spoken with many people -- thousands upon thousands, in fact. I've
>been involved in all kinds of sit ins and demonstrations, peaceful,
>disruptive, and otherwise...all that to say I've done my research, had
>my run ins, etc....so I'm not just "making it up". And it's not
>"ridiculous". If you want to call my claims rediculous [sic], DO THE
>RESEARCH yourself to disprove what I'm saying.
I guess since you don't know anything about "my church", it would be
absurd for me to give any credence to your claims. On the other hand, PP
is a very common organization. If people want a functional knowledge of
what their local chapter is about, take those questions I suggested and
go down and ask them. I can giveyou the reference from Sangers' writings
that prove she's a Eugenist. I can lay out the logical implications
recommending abortions lays on one's life....but I can't help you stop
being a mocker.
-Bob
Bob Weigel
Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
>Good Girl Vampyre <moe...@mail.cswnet.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>Respectfully, Susan
>> >
>> >I think not. -Bob
>>
>> Rude, aren't you? Gee so much for Christian love.
>
clipper, clipped.... WAS NOT "respectful". It kind of goes over
like the guy who wrote
*&^% you,
Your brother in Christ,
a while back. :-)
>In defense of Christians, Bob's well-known for not taking his meds,
>even among other Christians.
>
Are you defending Christians...ALL of whom "persecute wiccans"? How
strange. I've never taken "meds" as I keep saying....so I don't
know what this "his meds" grammar is about. Guess just another
dilluded person. Oh shucks, and I so wanted to ramble with Jason
about....nothing....for 200K or so.... -Bob
>jason
>
Bob Weigel
>> just "making it up".
>
>form of demonstration did not appear to be as such.
Well you weren't at ours then. The police actually couldn't stand the fact
that nobody was talking back to them or anything, so they started saying
"Come on, the game's over" as if to trivialize our cause into a "game".
Nobody paid them to do that. Their conscience couldn't take it. They
had to start saying that to feel justified in their actions. (Which
included violently ramming the back of my head against the top of the car
frame as I was trying to answer their insinuation in a calm peaceful way.)
>> POLL people who are in Planned Parenthood leadership, and ask POINTED
>> questions that will reveal their philosophies. Questions like:
>>
>> 1) Do you believe children who are unwanted by their parents stand a
>> very high chance of becoming detriments to society?
>
> Statistically, this is true. Having one parent (as opposed to two)
>is a significant predictor of the likelihood that that child will end up
>in prison. The cause is in some respects obvious, and the numbers
>themselves don't seem to be lying.
Absolutely. I agree. (Not that an equal percentage of people with nice
rich parents don't wind up being "sophistocated savages" :-) )
>
>> 2) Do you believe that it would have been better for mothers of
>> these children to have had an abortion?
>
> As that is one question that could only be answered in hindsight, it
>is presumptively unfair. What about the mother of Adolf Hitler? Idi
Exactly. That's what I'm saying. So just ask the question. If
they answer "well, since there's no way to know, you shouldn't kill
anyone." then they will LOOSE their job at PP very quickly, I assure
you. :-) All people who work under the organization as counsellors
MUST consider abortion a VIABLE OPTION. Do they ALSO employ a
fortune teller? NO. So, like I say..to me it's rather simple.
To you it may be more complex. Your choice.
Also, I believe it would have been wrong to kill Adolph as a
child. It would have been right to kill him when he started expressing
murderous intent....but instead they made him a more exalted LEADER ...
didn't they? I like history. It makes so many good points.
The fact that you say "abortion is a viable choice" yet you
admit GOOD choices REQUIRE HINDSIGHT. That is the ultimate contradiction
my man. What you are saying, is is that "it's an acceptable 'evil'
to murder a few kids that would have turned out to be good IN
EXCHANGE for ELIMINATING MANY who would go on to be out and out crooks"
I LOVE LOGIC! Don't you? See why you can't see that most PP people
are Eugenists? You are one yourself. That is the definition right there.
Keep fighting Bob Larson. Maybe the Lord will use you to help him
get away from these bad influences and dillusions of self-importance
he's allowed to be expressed through his sype for years. I pray some
where along the way you'll see what I'm saying here. That really
is one of the more beautifully laid out pieces of Logic I've ever
had the priveledge of writing, and I will put a copy of this on my web
page I believe. (with your name removed so you don't get mail as a
result. I just believe a LOT of people share your thoughts, and
this is a great way to help them see the fallacy.) -Bob
Bob Weigel
<Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Bob Weigel wrote:
>
>>
>> The thought that I outlined in my two questions in the other article
>> is one you might consider. There is a philosophy behind counselling
>> ANYONE to have an abortion.
>
> Having seen the kind of harassment which goes on at the family-
>planning clinics (not everyone there goes to have an abortion), I
>can speak from experience. Based upon that experience, I know
I can't. I've never harrassed people at them or hung around them.
I've only protested at abortion clinics.
>that your allegation is patently absurd.
>
Talk is cheap. I've already proved from your own words that YOU
are a "Eugenist" who believes there ARE viable times to kill a baby
that we "guess" might not have a "good future". I mean, what other
basis would we use to decide to take action to kill a baby? I
think the whole thread is patently absurd. 115 lines deleted. Good day.
-Bob
Bob Weigel
<Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Bob Weigel wrote:
>>
>> Do I CARE? Disney isn't devoted to the purposes of Christ. My entire
>> reason for bringing them up had to do with Leon's involvement and I
>> don't see why I have to do research on the infrastructure of an organization
>> I don't give a HOOT about just to note that.
>
> Is it Disney, or is it Leon? Blaming Disney for Leon's fall based
Like I said, I believe EVERYONE is to blame when they don't follow Christ
and that's what leads to bad things. Yeah, I believe God created us all for
relationship with him, and we mostly turn away to our own directions. So
for me to sit here and talk about whose fault something is....it's silly.
Like I said, Leon is responsible for his own actions. Disney is founded
on a belief that fantasy serves a healthy purpose. I think that's still
where most of the people are who work there. I don't believe fantasy
has a healthy purpose on its own. I believe that all we do or think is
void without a relationship with God. So I don't personally say "I
like Disney" and I don't say "I think Leon is making good choices all
the time". etc. etc. Those are my views and to try to discuss WHY
I hold to those views with a Eugenist who has a problem with me claiming
that there are lots of Eugenists in PP when they can't even see that they
are one.....seems like a long hard road. :-)
>
>
> You are at liberty to believe whatever you wish, even if it is wrong.
quite right.
>
>
>> So? Just because a bunch of "ice cold fakes" put on their Jesus badge,
>> why do you let that distract you?
>
> I don't -- but you wouldn't necessarily know that. For instance, I
>don't hold Jesus accountable for Bob Larson. However, I do hold
Good. There's hope then. :-)
>him responsible for HIS REACTION (or, in this case, the utter lack
>thereof) to his antics.
Oops...maybe not. Are you saying that Jesus is WRONG for letting people
parade around and gather gullible self-dilluded people at these things
in hopes that a few of them might realize how empty it is and repent?
NOOOO! A GOOD GOD would just STRIKE THEM ALL DOWN!!! :-)
Look. I'm a Christian. I recognized that there was nothing good
happening with Larson ohhh..about the early 80's as I recall. Now
he's had no effect on my life since. Why would I care if God "does
something" that would be termed as a "reaction" to Bob's antics? If
God thinks it's best to allow him to go about like this, fine. He
must have a purpose in it. OFTEN that purpose has to do with
PATIENTLY "stirring the pot" until a bunch of people FINALLY go
"help getus out of this stew!!!!" I hopeyou can understand how
short sighted your analysis is here. Only God can give us the
full picture, and ....why not cry out to him now? Looks like
you need to just stop assuming you know so much about things.
God sees a much bigger picture...and even I (just another
silly nobody) see possibilities you don't see. Even when I
don't see all the possibilities, and I don't understand why
God MIGHT be doing what he's doing/not doing....I came to a place
in my heart where I knew he was God and he is the one who knows
it all...not me.
>moneychangers from the Temple at the business end of a horsewhip.
"A time for planting...aa time for reaping".
>That sets both an example and a precedent. Moreover, we are told
A "precedent"? In what way? In a way that says "everyone who doesn't
do God's will should be horsewhipped"? Or in a way that says "God
might advocate this in some instances". I believe the latter.
>in Jas. 4:17 that anyone "who knows the good he ought to do and
>doesn't do it, sins." That sets a standard of ethical conduct, which
Right.
>is known in the vernacular as creating "sins of omission." Based on
>that foundation, and the fact that Bob Larson not only damages the
>reputation of Christianity in general by his antics, but has even been
Actually, he draws people to the church by setting a crappy example
that will draw them FROM him TO the TRUE SHEPHERD!!! :-) That's the
way I see it, but that's because I'm listening to the true shepherd
instead of Larson.
>caught displaying his wares on a church altar, your god has a clear
>obligation to do something. For to not do the good he ought to do
>is a sin ... even for a god.
Well, I've thoroughly dispelled that. God's ways are higher than yours.
I've constructed a VERY feasable scenario above and it's your job to look at
that scenario and say "could this really be what's happening"? If it
could be, then you are without excuse for accusing God in this way.
-Bob
PWEI
> Seems it would be just like what things are trending toward. Haven't
> you noticed that, as the schools have taught more and more that there
> are strong "scientific" evidences for an evolutionary "creation", and
> as fewer and fewer kids acknowledge that there is a God in the way
> they live.... that more and more of them believe that
>
> 1) Since there are no spiritual things going on....just physical laws, and
> the state of all things an increment in time ago (....and maybe
"randomness"
> which I personally believe is just an (non)explanation for events we
> dont' have the ability to explain, but whatever....) we have no choice
> in what we do. Our FIRST "choice" was a result of physical laws, the
> state of things around us and in us at that moment, and maybe randomness,
> ALL of which I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. My second "choice"....a result of
> perhaps my first choice and the same stuff.
Bob, Bob, Bob-
Even the most daft, drooling addlepate realizes that creation is horseshit
once s/he has learned about evolution. Most religiously afflicted Homo
Sapiens Sapiens cannot reconcile the the fact that we descend from apes to
some degree, and it took a looooong time to evolve to this state, and humans
(some of us, anyway) have developed bigger brains, and can reason, and some
of us have developed the keen sense of determining who's a sucker...Just
because humans can design and build glass churches to preach in, doesn't
mean 'the cut of one's jib' is any better than an ape's.
>
> 2) Since I'm not truly having any choice, I'm not responsible for anything
> I do.
>
This is a bizzare conclusion, Bob. I am an atheist, but I also think the
best situation for a child is a two-parent home where the parents are
involved, and/or the parents aren't assholes, or as Frank Zappa put it so
eloquently: "(Children) aren't just little lumps destined to grow up to be
big lumps like you!"
> Seems to me like you'd have more shootings and sneaky murders, by
> people who believe they are ULIMATELY just...living to die so they'd might
> as well get all they can. What feels good? If the flesh is all you
believe
> you have, then that pretty much becomes the bottom line.
Seems like another part of the 'murder continuum' that is more and more
media AND pulpit exploited and repeated as well...I think people can be
'moral' while not following ALL of the ten commandments...and why are you
equating murder and sex in the same paragraph? Do you think AIDS is
retrobution for sexual activity as well? Do you think that the average
fornicator would shoot someone as soon as they would fuck them? The guys in
Littleton weren't getting laid, Bob. Maybe that was the problem...
Historically,
> that has been the way MOST people have lived and it has NOT led to a
> happy world.
MOST OF THEM ARE/WERE RELIGIOUS IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
> I have no time to guess why your songs haven't made it, but I
> think there might be clues in the fact that you make a very poor
> assessment of history in your statement above. I believe, as I
> said, that people like to see some kind of rational direction in
> our music. If it's too much that way, they maynot like it either....
> but if you just make statements like the one above, it starts to
> sound like "Imagine there's no heaven...." When I first heard that song
> my reaction was (before even understanding the words) "what a lame piece".
> I was so disappointed to hear that kind of work coming from a "beetle"!
> And the lame music worked so well with the lame philosophy therein.
> Here, I rewrote it for him....
(FLUSH)
Who cares? Everyone knows Clapton is God anyway.
M
PWEI
Bob Weigel says...
> >> something rediculous, DO THE RESEARCH yourself to disprove what I'm
saying.
> >
> >disprove them. You could stand to do some research yourself in the area
> >of logic.
1. Syllogism
2.Reasoning
> >
>
> I've already done the work of research, as I said. Do you want me to
quote the
> particulars? Sorry. I'd rather just leave it to people who are really
> interested to research it themselves. In my experience, you go to all the
> work of laying it out here and STILL nobody agrees because of there
agendas.
> When I look at the statements in the other thread, where they are accusing
> ME, a Christian, of "persecuting Wiccans" and stuff.....I just can't see
> trying to reason with that many narrow minded bigots about. It always
> just turns into a long flame war. Sorry.
> I am QUITE free to MAKE assertions and QUALIFY THEM. I DO NOT HAVE THE
> TIME OR MONEY TO DO EXHAUSTIVE RESEARCH which WOULD ultimately be demanded
> BEFORE the people here would believe me (and then most of them wouldn't
> anyway, just as a reward for all that effort).
Wadda fucking COPOUT! Here's a suggestion: SHUT THE FUCK UP, THEN!
I CANNOT do the poll I
> suggested with ALL of the PP people. I'm just saying I'm convinced due
> to the OTHER logical assertions I made (regarding motive breakdown
> for people advocating abortions) and those I've talked to that this
> is pretty much a thing that goes with the organization. THAT DOESN'T
> mean I go up to individuals and assume things, LIKE the people in the
> other article I posted to obviously ASSUME about CHRISTIANS from their
> bigot ridden language. They spoke conclusions about ALL Christians in
> their grammar. I try to be more careful with mine. My problem usually
> is saying things like "All the people" referring to a large number of
> people rather than "all"...and you can tell that from my context if you
> want to but when I slip up, someone always fails to and hammers me. :-)
> -Bob
> >
> >
> >
> >> POLL people who are in Planned Parenthood leadership, and ask POINTED
> >> questions that will reveal their philosophies. Questions like:
> >>
> >> 1) Do you believe children who are unwanted by their parents stand a
> >> very high chance of becoming detriments to society?
YES. Ever been to the inner city, Bob? If you're REALLY into saving lives,
how about blocking a stray bullet from hitting an infant, or someone's
MOTHER?
> >>
> >> 2) Do you believe that it would have been better for mothers of
> >> these children to have had an abortion?
YES.
> >
> >Even if all of them answered yes to both questions, that still doesn't
> >add up to Eugenics. Perhaps you don't really know what Eugenics is. I
> >suggest you look it up.
No need-it is an evil plot by Eugene Levy to bring back SCTV.
M
PWEI
Define Eugenics, Bob.
M
Susan Lee
Remedy that breach by telling us YOUR definition of eugenicist.
Respectf...(oh shine it!)...Sincerely, Susan
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ken Hamer
>
> In article <388060...@attglobal.net>,
> Ken Hamer <kenh...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <85o657$igv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> Susan Lee <susa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >Bob Weigel said:
> >> >(I snipped a lot for brevity)
> >> >> Quite aware, but much as Margaret Sanger has been dead for years,
> >> >> planned parenthood is still heavily saturated with people who hold to
> >> >> her "Eugenist" philosophies.
> >> >
> >> >What a ridiculous assertion. Do you have first hand experience with
> >> >this "saturation"? Are you relying on hearsay? Or are you just making
> >> >it up?
> >>
> >> I've spoken with many people. I've been involved in abortion sit
> >> ins and so on, and have been arrested for peaceful demonstration...all
> >
> >
>
Ah, yes. The standard whacko fundie technique of changing the
definition of words.
> I'm sure there are
> people involved in PP who are not understanding the Eugenic roots, and
> maybe even don't get involved in counselling people to kill babies....
> and I'm even quite certain that there are people in "cults" who
> aren't really adhered to it. They've been "socialized" into the group,
> and no doubt will depart from it someday.
>
> >It's a known fact that everyone who attends your church is a secret
>
> Ahh, now we're back to botrous language....Bigot. Bigot. Bogot...
>
> >member of the KKK, the Christian Identity Movement, Branch Davidians,
> >Free Masons, and Tele-Tubbies Fan Club.
> >
> >I've spoken with many people -- thousands upon thousands, in fact. I've
> >been involved in all kinds of sit ins and demonstrations, peaceful,
> >disruptive, and otherwise...all that to say I've done my research, had
> >my run ins, etc....so I'm not just "making it up". And it's not
> >"ridiculous". If you want to call my claims rediculous [sic], DO THE
> >RESEARCH yourself to disprove what I'm saying.
>
Ken Hamer
>
> I guess since you don't know anything about "my church", it would be
> absurd for me to give any credence to your claims. On the other hand, PP
> is a very common organization. If people want a functional knowledge of
> what their local chapter is about, take those questions I suggested and
> go down and ask them. I can giveyou the reference from Sangers' writings
> that prove she's a Eugenist. I can lay out the logical implications
> recommending abortions lays on one's life....but I can't help you stop
> being a mocker.
>
And sadly, I can't help you stop being an imbecile.
Susan Lee
b...@efn.org (Bob Weigel) wrote: (and Susan snipped to smithereens for
the sake of beloved brevity):
> Look. I'm a Christian. I recognized that there was nothing good
> happening with Larson ohhh..about the early 80's as I recall. Now
> he's had no effect on my life since. Why would I care if God "does
> something" that would be termed as a "reaction" to Bob's antics? If
> God thinks it's best to allow him to go about like this, fine. He
> must have a purpose in it.
Funny that you take the "let God handle it" attitude with Larson, but
not Planned Parenthood.
>Looks like
> you need to just stop assuming you know so much about things.
Pot-kettle...etc etc.
> God sees a much bigger picture...and even I (just another
> silly nobody) see possibilities you don't see.
Give at least some credance to the idea that others like
Ranger, "eugenicist heathen " that he is, may see things you dont.
It'll be good for that pride thing you have going.
> Actually, he draws people to the church by setting a crappy example
> that will draw them FROM him TO the TRUE SHEPHERD!!! :-) That's the
> way I see it, but that's because I'm listening to the true shepherd
> instead of Larson.
No. Larsons' followers have grasped the wrong hem of the wrong
guys garment. But these lost hold tenaciously and desperately to that
hem. Their seeking is at an end for now. Larson offers a false end to
their seeking.
Larson is a false teacher. The new testament has some things to say
about false teachers. Check out 2 Peter 2:3-22 for starts.
Respectf....Bite me!, Susan
Mike Marlow
Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote in message news:85qcvk$4...@garcia.efn.org...
> In article
<03442174FBEA137C.618E9587...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Bob Wilson <litt...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >In article <85muk5$3sg$1...@news.csw.net>, moe...@mail.cswnet.com says...
> >> >
>
> This is such a narrow minded bigotrous statement. "Christians",
unfortunately,
> generally covers a whole variety of people. Some who claim to be
"christians"
> simply don't like to talk about the aspects of their life that are shaming
> the Jesus Christ of the bible who they CLAIM to follow. I don't regard
such
> people to be "christians" at all. Like Keith said, "Does going to McD's
> make you a hamburger?"...stupid analogy I know, but the fact is, JUST
> because you call your self a Christian doesn't make you one.
> I claim to be a Christian. I do NOT believe that "persecution is a
> validation for my beliefs". I found a validation through a relationship
> with Jesus Christ BEFORE I started getting persecuted, so this is just
> flat wrong.
> If you go about making statements like that your credibility
> will diminish until nobody worth convincing of anything are listening.
Hmmmm....that'd be the voice of experience talking there.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Susan Lee
b...@efn.org (Bob Weigel) wrote:
> Seems it would be just like what things are trending toward.
Haven't
> you noticed that, as the schools have taught more and more that there
> are strong "scientific" evidences for an evolutionary "creation", and
> as fewer and fewer kids acknowledge that there is a God in the way
> they live.... that more and more of them believe that
>
> 1) Since there are no spiritual things going on....just physical
laws, and
> the state of all things an increment in time ago (....and
maybe "randomness"
> which I personally believe is just an (non)explanation for events we
> dont' have the ability to explain, but whatever....) we have no choice
> in what we do. Our FIRST "choice" was a result of physical laws, the
> state of things around us and in us at that moment, and maybe
randomness,
> ALL of which I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. My second "choice"....a result
of
> perhaps my first choice and the same stuff.
>
anything
> I do.
>
> people who believe they are ULIMATELY just...living to die so they'd
might
> as well get all they can. What feels good? If the flesh is all you
believe
> you have, then that pretty much becomes the bottom line.
> that has been the way MOST people have lived and it has NOT led to a
> happy world.
This, all because we dont use Genesis as a text in science classes?
> I have no time to guess why your songs haven't made it, but I
> think there might be clues in the fact that you make a very poor
> assessment of history in your statement above. I believe, as I
> said, that people like to see some kind of rational direction in
> our music. If it's too much that way, they maynot like it either....
> but if you just make statements like the one above, it starts to
> sound like "Imagine there's no heaven...." When I first heard that
song
> my reaction was (before even understanding the words) "what a lame
piece".
> I was so disappointed to hear that kind of work coming from
a "beetle"!
> And the lame music worked so well with the lame philosophy therein.
> Here, I rewrote it for him....
>
> [verse 2]
>
> "Imagine no drunk drunk drivers, that keeps them off the road.
> No nucle,ar arsenol. So that it won't explode
> Imagine all you want to; still it's just a dream,....eeeeeam.
> Oh you may say I'm sarcastic. But down inside I cry.
> For this world of dilluded people, who dare to imagine a lie."
Well now! Thank you! Mystery solved! I have a much fuller understanding
of why you havnt "made it" as a song-writer.
Respectfu....
Heck with it!
Mike Marlow
Ken Hamer <kenh...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3880E5...@attglobal.net...
Hey - that ain't fair. The rest of us whacko funies don't necessarily like
getting lumped in with -Bob on this one. A little more selectivity in your
wording please.
-Mike-
mike....@usa.net
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: Frankly, I'd rather have a world where there were no religious beliefs.
: Seems like it'd be a safer, happier, friendlier, better world.
Like Stalinist Russia, I suppose.
--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------------------ pet...@interchg.ubc.ca ---
No man is an Island, entire of it self... -- John Donne, Meditation XVII
I am a little world made cunningly... -- John Donne, Holy Sonnet V
Brian Trosko
: On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Ken Hamer wrote:
: : Frankly, I'd rather have a world where there were no religious beliefs.
: : Seems like it'd be a safer, happier, friendlier, better world.
: Like Stalinist Russia, I suppose.
There were no religious beliefs in Stalinist Russia? Funny that St.
Basil's is still around.
Bob Weigel
<Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Bob Weigel wrote:
>
>> In article <387FBE93...@concentric.net>,
>> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> >Bob Weigel wrote:
>>
>
> <we've covered my views on Christianity, abortion, and even a
>bad Pat Boone joke in previous installments>
>
>> ALSO, you might note that some of the most significant groups in
>> modern music history had dominant creative characters who actually
>> came to Christ: Kerry Livegren and the Elefante's of Kansas, Keith
>> Emerson, of ELP,
>
> At which point, they tend to go right in the tank. Even Dylan went
>in the tank when he flirted with Christendom.
Well, there you have it again. If you look at Dylan's STC, does it
display any less talent than his other albums? NO! ON THE CONTRARY.
It is AMAZING that the guy can kick right in and write stuff in a
"field" where he's never been, with the same kind of proficiency!
The OBVIOUS problem? His audience he had spent YEARS writing for
did not want to hear about Jesus...period. When they saw where he
ws going they booed him. Bob is the most outstanding case in
point.
>
> And don't forget Barbarella. Hubby dumps her (according to the
>tabloids), and she runs off to a nunnery (with one stop to see Val
>Kilmer?).... :)
who? missed that one, sounds like a cool sequel to the flying nun though.
>
>> and.... what about some of those Mike and the Mechanics
>> tunes? Hmmm. Makes you wonder. Alice Cooper?
>
> Now, he hangs with corrupt televangelists. Big improvement.
>Hmmm.... Makes you wonder.
>
Yup. But my point is, we're all on a path. Some hint of a search of
truth is the most marketable thing it seems...but actually claiming
to find it will "ruin" you . :-) Where you go from there...it's up to
you.
>> Dylan? Ok, Freddy
>> Mercury did not it appears for sure. But so many others wind up
>> claiming to have made some committment to Christ....and I clearly see
>> in a lot of their work that they were searching for thuth in various
>> ways and that is what fueled their creativity.
>
> I see more of it in those who didn't. The Beatles are Exhibit A.
>"And no religion too...."
Like I said...yuk. Incidently, you know that all that appeared to be
"Beatles" was not...Clapton did most of Georges complex solo work in
those early albums I guess. The beatles hit a "niche" and people
picked up on it and rode it for all it was worth. Lenon sucked as
a solo artist. The rest of them had enough money to get together
good musicians, but only Paul really wrote anything with and kind
of depth...though a lot of it sounded kind of drug induced and
incoherent.
That's what I see about the beatles. If you are into worshipping
capitolism, then they are it. I love a lot of the tunes because
a lot of money and hence thought went into making them. But the
direction played up to a movement in society that...was not a good
thing.
>
>> And it seems that if
>> an artist mixes a bunch of real cruddy songs with a few of those,
>> that is the best formula for success! :-)
>
> Exhibit B: Elvis. I would not presume to dispute you there. :)
Well, Elvis claimed to be a Christian. Yet he lived like someone
who wasn't, portraying a standard trending towards "playboy" status.
You think THAT isn't MASS MARKETABLE? Of course it was. And
hoardes followed him away from the "stuffy" world their parents
had established. So what?
There's a big difference between doing art that has conviction
in it, and "art" that sees what people want to hear and...gives it
to them. It's MUCH like the difference between a cheesy salesman
and a teacher. I have problems making a lot of money, because I
tell the customer what I believe will help him. Some appreciate it,
and we become friends. Others just go to a cheesy salesman. That's
why I couldn't make it in computers. There's just TOO MUCH involved
in explaining why a person should buy my machine. In my CURRENT
business...it's MUCH easier. If they take their amp to the cheezy
sales guy...it STILL doesn't work when he gets done snowing them. :-)
They take it to me, and it works. No brainer.
>
>> I don't know why. Could
>> it have to do with Ezekiel 33 near the end there?
>
> Ezekiel 33:1-6? I beat Christians over the head with that one all
>the time.
>
Is 1-6 near the end? No, at the end it says "My people wait behind their doors
saying 'let's go hear the word of the Lord'...but to them you are as a minstrel
who sings and plays well on an instrument; for they hear my words but will
not obey them".
You've heard words from me. Not just bible quotes. But real reasoning
that anyone can see the validity of whether or not they believe the bible.
I believe if you just seek the truth and get rid of the unjust grudge
you've formed against God, he will draw near you, regardless of what Larson
or Leon do.
>
>> If you do something
>> different, you don't get listened to. There is no room for people who di
>> it different because CHRISTIAN BUSINESSMEN/WOMEN....are typically the
>> most insecure people on earth.
>
> A by-product of becoming a "new man in Christ?"
No. A by=product of the "seed" falling among those nasty "weeds" that
choke it out. The weeds represented the worries of this life, as I
recall. I always get that one mixed up. :-) but anyway you get the point
I'm sure. I'm a new man in christ, and it made me more creative. As
I just discussed in the OTHER thread where the "Christians" can't keep
their composure enough to keep from calling me names every other breath...
something that YOU have shown great restraint in, and as a result we've
been able to talk and agree on things, and reason about others. That
is the way it should go.....anyway, I got blackballed from sub teaching
because I use "unorthodox" creative techniques with kids. I always
refer to my "crowning accomplishment" :-) which was teaching several
kids in a remedial math class at Independence HS the fundamental
principles of calculus! It can be done. If you establish a friendship
with kids FIRST, it is AMAZING what you can do. And...people who look
on try to find reasons why I'm doing something wrong. :-) They
are the "pharisees" aren't they? Because, what IS wrong with joking
around with kids and relating to them, and being a clown a bit to
show them you dont' take yourself too seriously?...as long as they
don't get out of hand and start hurting each other or property...
as though that's what they are going to do normally when you start
to break down the boundaries which have kept them from learning.
Lately, I've been giving a special Ed. kid voice lessons, and
just being her friend. I met her doing a street ministry thing and
she'd shared about having been suicidal and stuff. God is working
in her life. There's nothing really wrong with her mentally. She
just had some things that were stifling her. (like a self focus.
Isn't that ironic? Now, how do you figure God can use ME, Mr.
"self focus" himself to help a girl understand that it's causing
her to do things that aren't glorifying to God? Well, I dunno.
It worked though. :-) Glory to God for using stumbling bumbling
people like myself! Praise God! HE is the creative one, and LOOK
how he CREATES THROUGH US when we let him!
Naturally, I hated poetry, playing the piano, and singing. These
were my most hated things in School. Yet here I am. Doing those things
to God's glory. My lyrics are strong because he has given them. A few
times I've poured out a song in 15 minutes...extremely complex lyrically
yet so cohesive. I can't do that. It's God. I'd be weeping as the
song would minister to me. Interesting...one of those actually
talks about the very Ezekiel verse I spoke above. Another is has
the chorus line "And are you the church...are you the church? or just
part of the beast?" I'm sure you'd enjoy that one. They are on
my web page at members.xoom.com/wookieman if anyone wants to check
them out. There are also a few 8 bit sounds clips. Sorry. Like I
say I've been poor and beaten for a few years. :-) Well, I'm getting
a tight neck from writing too much. I pray you understand. I dont'
want to be harsh with you on the abortion stuff, but I don't want you
to go off thinking something that isn't true either.
>
>> Again, LN proved that years ago, when he got
>> basically shunned by the "industry" while he did stuff NEVER before heard
>> in Christian music for 8 years with some notariety before he finally got
>> hooked up with Word so he could learn what a joy it was! :-)
>
> But getting hooked up with an outfit like Word? You might as
>well do business with Penthouse! At least, Larry Flynt of Hustler
>is a man with some semblance of principle.
Larry didn't know that at the time. He got snowed. We're talking 1975
when they finally decided they could make dough off Larry. The whole
community thought they were really a Christian company at the time,
and Larry is also a pioneer in revealing what was really going on.
Anyway...Oh god I pray you see what I'm saying. You can't unknow
God. You may have thought you were a christian, but I'm telling
you, there is more. Take these words and give him another chance.
Again, I love you to the point of tears as I write. -Bob
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: Peter Thomas Chattaway <pet...@interchange.ubc.ca> writes:
: : On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Ken Hamer wrote:
: : : Frankly, I'd rather have a world where there were no religious
: : : beliefs.
: : : Seems like it'd be a safer, happier, friendlier, better world.
: :
: : Like Stalinist Russia, I suppose.
:
: There were no religious beliefs in Stalinist Russia?
Officially, no. It was a country run according to anti-religious
principles. And thus it was safer, happier, friendlier, better.
Now, if you want to argue that those anti-religious principles were,
themselves, religious, in the broadest sense, then fine, let's run with
that. But the fact is, even within that broad sense, people are
religious, and a world without religion is a world without people.
Not that the Voluntary Human Extinction Society would object. :)
Doug
> At least, Larry Flynt of Hustler is a man with some semblance of
> principle.
Ken's credibility takes flight...
Richard Towry
>
> Peter Thomas Chattaway <pet...@interchange.ubc.ca> writes:
> : On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Ken Hamer wrote:
> : : Frankly, I'd rather have a world where there were no religious beliefs.
> : : Seems like it'd be a safer, happier, friendlier, better world.
>
> : Like Stalinist Russia, I suppose.
>
> Basil's is still around.
Well, unless you want blame the "religious types" that made Stalinist
Russia the horrible failure that it was, that's as close an example as
you're going to find. Unless you'd like to try Mao's China.
--
Richard W. Towry
rwt...@ameritech.net
"Hope springs eternal... once in a while."
-Mark Heard
Mirele
wrote:
>Funny that you take the "let God handle it" attitude with Larson, but
>not Planned Parenthood.
Susan, that's a very astute observation. Maybe fundamentalist
Christians need to clean their own houses before trying to break into
my house to "clean" it.
Deana
=======================================================================
Our unanimous affirmance of the Court of Appeals' judgment concerning
16-1-20.2 makes it unnecessary to comment at length on the District
Court's remarkable conclusion that the Federal Constitution imposes no
obstacle to Alabama's establishment of a state religion.
=============== Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) ================
mir...@xmission.com (Deana M. Holmes) mirele_ on EFNet #scientology
David Haley
Susan Lee <susa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:85r4pu$h7q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <85qmap$c...@garcia.efn.org>,
> b...@efn.org (Bob Weigel) wrote:
>
> >Incidently, you know that all that appeared to be
> > "Beatles" was not...Clapton did most of Georges complex solo work in
> > those early albums I guess.
The Beatles wrote the friggin' songs, right?
> > The beatles hit a "niche"
Do yourself a favor and just admit that the Beatles had loads of talent as a
band as well as individuals, not to mention a sense of humor. Anybody see
the film _Help_ with Leo ("Number Two") McKern as the villian? Well...
> > and people picked up on it and rode it for all it was worth. Lenon
sucked as
> > a solo artist.
>
> I strongly disagree! Yoko Ono now..THERES some SUCKAGE!
Boy, no kidding! I don't even think Larson would take her to the Disn...oh,
never mind. It's just too cruel.
>
> The rest of them had enough money to get together
> > good musicians, but only Paul really wrote anything with and kind
> > of depth...
Boy, you have no idea what the sam hell you're talking about. Now, I really
don't like popular music, with the exception of a few bands [like the
Beatles] because I'm a stuffy-ass proghead, but even the most musically
challenged person can recognize the depth of some of the other members' solo
material, especially Harrison's.
> >though a lot of it sounded kind of drug induced and
> > incoherent.
What do you mean, 'incoherent'? This is music; it's supposed to be abstract.
Sounds to me like you're confusing the two.
>
> I always thought Paul McCartneys solo work, while pleasant enough to
> listen to, utterly LACKED depth. Go figure!
Yes! Susan, you've a pretty dadgum keen mind, you know that?
Rang...@concentric.net
> In article <3880A255...@concentric.net>,
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >> POLL people who are in Planned Parenthood leadership, and ask POINTED
> >> questions that will reveal their philosophies. Questions like:
> >>
> >> 1) Do you believe children who are unwanted by their parents stand a
> >> very high chance of becoming detriments to society?
> >
> > Statistically, this is true. Having one parent (as opposed to two)
> >is a significant predictor of the likelihood that that child will end up
> >in prison. The cause is in some respects obvious, and the numbers
> >themselves don't seem to be lying.
>
> Absolutely. I agree. (Not that an equal percentage of people with nice
> rich parents don't wind up being "sophistocated savages" :-) )
I've never done any studies either way, but if both parents are in
the house, it does seem to work in favor of the child, irrespective
of the family's level of material wealth.
> >> 2) Do you believe that it would have been better for mothers of
> >> these children to have had an abortion?
> >
> > As that is one question that could only be answered in hindsight, it
> >is presumptively unfair. What about the mother of Adolf Hitler? Idi
>
> Exactly. That's what I'm saying. So just ask the question. If
> they answer "well, since there's no way to know, you shouldn't kill
> anyone." then they will LOOSE their job at PP very quickly, I assure
> you. :-)
But there is more than one answer, the most obvious of which is,
"it's the prospective parents' decision." If you can't make that call,
and you don't need to make that call, you might as well not make
that call. That is the answer that PP usually gives, based on what I
know from a former counselor.
> All people who work under the organization as counsellors
> MUST consider abortion a VIABLE OPTION.
Yep. But they don't make the call -- the prospective mother
does.
> Do they ALSO employ a
> fortune teller? NO. So, like I say..to me it's rather simple.
> To you it may be more complex. Your choice.
> Also, I believe it would have been wrong to kill Adolph as a
> child. It would have been right to kill him when he started expressing
> murderous intent....but instead they made him a more exalted LEADER ...
> didn't they? I like history. It makes so many good points.
> The fact that you say "abortion is a viable choice" yet you
> admit GOOD choices REQUIRE HINDSIGHT. That is the ultimate contradiction
> my man.
Not at all. Perfect choices require 20-20 hindsight. Good choices,
on the other hand, do not.
> What you are saying, is is that "it's an acceptable 'evil'
> to murder a few kids that would have turned out to be good IN
> EXCHANGE for ELIMINATING MANY who would go on to be out and out crooks"
Wrong again, Bob. What I am saying -- and you conveniently
edited out my words to the point where no one could check your
interpretation -- is that that is a 'call' that we as a society shouldn't
make. Conversely, if you were successful in banning all abortions,
you would be saying that it is an acceptable evil to create many
kids who would go on to be out-and-out crooks, so that a few
good kids can be born. I don't see how that is morally superior
to the converse.
> I LOVE LOGIC!
I am surprised; at times, you seem to be a stranger to it. Here,
you have committed the straw man fallacy by misrepresenting my
positions in a deliberate manner, and then claiming to defeat them.
> Don't you?
I am at least able to use it. An argument is only as good as its
underlying premises.
> See why you can't see that most PP people are Eugenists?
Nope.
> You are one yourself.
Wrong answer, Bob.
> That is the definition right there.
> Keep fighting Bob Larson. Maybe the Lord will use you to help him
> get away from these bad influences and dillusions of self-importance
> he's allowed to be expressed through his sype for years. I pray some
> where along the way you'll see what I'm saying here. That really
> is one of the more beautifully laid out pieces of Logic I've ever
> had the priveledge of writing, and I will put a copy of this on my web
> page I believe.
I have no objection if my original statements are reprinted in their
entirety, so that visitors can see that you have built a straw man and
thereby demonstrated your apparent ignorance of the rules of logic.
Otherwise, it would probably be a copyright violation, and I do not
grant you permission to use only a selected portion of my material.
> (with your name removed so you don't get mail as a
> result. I just believe a LOT of people share your thoughts, and
> this is a great way to help them see the fallacy.) -Bob
I'm sure that if you print my entire statement, the few heathen who
visit your site will see that you have committed a logical fallacy.
Rang...@concentric.net
You don't have to agree with his principles to agree that he has
them.... :)
Luke Cooper
> Even the most daft, drooling addlepate realizes that creation is horseshit
> once s/he has learned about evolution. Most religiously afflicted Homo
> Sapiens Sapiens cannot reconcile the the fact that we descend from apes to
> some degree, and it took a looooong time to evolve to this state, and humans
> (some of us, anyway) have developed bigger brains, and can reason, and some
> of us have developed the keen sense of determining who's a sucker...Just
> because humans can design and build glass churches to preach in, doesn't
> mean 'the cut of one's jib' is any better than an ape's.
How does one such as I, who believes in creation, somehow enter
college? I
_have_ learned about the theory of evolution, and it just doesn't fit
the facts.
It looks good in general, but collapses under close scientific
scrutiny. It's
really a very religious belief in ourselves, the ultimate culmination of
a
theoretical fluctuation in the nothingness that was before the Big
Bang. Why
is more than 90% of the angular momentum of the solar system in the
planets?
Just how did birds evolve from reptiles? Why do fossil beds show
evidence of
catastrophic origins, when evolution requires billions of years?
-- Luke Cooper
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: Peter Thomas Chattaway <pet...@interchange.ubc.ca> writes:
: : : : : Frankly, I'd rather have a world where there were no religious
: : : : : beliefs.
: : : : : Seems like it'd be a safer, happier, friendlier, better world.
: : : :
: : : : Like Stalinist Russia, I suppose.
: : :
: : : There were no religious beliefs in Stalinist Russia?
: :
: : Officially, no. It was a country run according to anti-religious
: : principles. And thus it was safer, happier, friendlier, better.
:
: What a load of garbage, Peter. The assertion you seem to want to argue
: with is the one that a world without religious beliefs would be a safer,
: happier, and friendlier world than the one we have no.
That is indeed the assertion that I am arguing with. It was naive when
John Lennon made it years ago, and it was no less naive when Ken
articulated it above mere hours ago.
: Since there were plenty of religious beliefs in Stalinist Russia, it can
: hardly be used as a counterexample. Sure, *officially*, the State was
: run according to anti-religious principles.
Then you concede the point. The State was where Stalinist Russia was its
most Stalinist. And the absence of "religious beliefs" did not make the
State a "safer, happier, friendlier, better" place to be.
: This is a far, far cry from there being no religious beliefs in
: Stalinist Russia, and I'm certain you know that.
True, there was always an element of religious dissent within the official
system. There were even religious elements that collaborated with the
official system. But the tone was set by the State, which was officially
atheist and non-religious (even anti-religious), and if Stalinist Russia
was not safer, happier, friendlier or "better" (whatever that means), you
can hardly blame it on the religious elements within the culture.
: : But the fact is, even within that broad sense, people are religious,
: : and a world without religion is a world without people.
:
: Then, by your own arguments, Stalinist Russia was a nation without
: people.
No, because in "that broad sense" to which I referred -- a sense broader
than Ken intended, I'm sure -- even members of the Soviet State were
religious. They couldn't help it. It's in our nature.
: Again, Peter, it's a piss-poor example of what you're trying to say.
*shrug* So I responded to a glib remark with another glib remark.
It would be interesting to see what Ken has in mind when he envisions "a
world where there were no religious beliefs." Does he mean a world that
does not have *specific* religious beliefs? Then his statement is too
broad. Does he mean a world with *no* beliefs whatsoever? Then he
envisions a world without functioning human beings. Does he mean that
certain beliefs are religious and others aren't, and if we adhere only to
non-religious beliefs we'll be okay? If so, then first he would have to
clarify how one separates religious beliefs from non-religious beliefs,
and second he would have to demonstrate that this could work in practice.
Incidentally, on the bus tonight I came across this article in the latest
_Books & Culture_; it's not on their web site yet and probably won't be
until the next issue comes out, but the relevant paragraphs go like so:
Were one to examine American history, and views on the power and role
of religion, through a lens that began only with Jefferson and
continued down to present separationists who approach religion as a
kind of polluting force in political life, one would miss the boat
altogether. Jefferson's blithe dictum that it mattered not to him
whether his neighbor believed in no God or 20 gods -- it neither picked
his pocket nor broke his legs -- suggests an agnosticism about
religious belief not shared by the vast majority. It is, then, not at
all surprising that when Alexis de Tocqueville toured America during
the Jacksonian era, he noted, in his subsequent masterwork, _Democracy
in America_, that settled ideas about God and human nature were
indispensable to the conduct of daily life and that, in general, when a
people's religion is destroyed, it enervates and prepares them, not for
liberation but for bondage. (Here he had the horrors of the French
Revolutionary Terror in mind.)
In America, by contrast, the social and political implications of the
belief that all were equal in the eyes of God were being played out on
a grand scale. Religion contributed powerfully to the maintenance of a
democratic republic by directing the mores and by drawing people into
community and away from narrow materialism. Religion helped to "purify,
control, and restrain that excessive and exclusive taste for well-being
human beings acquire in an age of equality." The separation of church
and state in America seemed a catalyst for, rather than a hindrance to,
an astonishing flourishing of religion. By diminishing the official
power of religion, the Americans had enhanced its social strength. They
seemed to recognize that religion (by which, of course, Tocqueville
meant Christianity, including Catholicism, regarded by so many others
as an anti-democratic element in American life) feeds hope and is
attached to a constitutive principle of human nature. Amidst the flux
and tumult of American politics, religion shaped and mediated the
passions. Tocqueville didn't mince words. He insisted that the ideas of
Christianity and liberty were so intermingled that if one were to try
to sever religion from democracy, one would destroy that democracy.
What about the views of the eighteenth-century philosophes, then, who
held that spreading enlightenment would inevitably bring about a
weakening of religion? Tocqueville's riposte is pithy: "It is tiresome
that the facts do not fit their theory at all."
-- Jean Bethke Elshtain, "The Know-It-All State: How liberalism
suppresses dissent," _Books & Culture_, Jan/Feb 2000, pages 22-25.
Make of all that what you will.
Bob Weigel
I don't even give this stuff the priveledge of being requoted. Saying that
nobody with any sense of whatever doesn't believe in creation once they
learn is to TOTALLY IGNORE the people who obviously DO have good sense who
claim to have had a personal relationship with God. I CHALLENGE you,
PWEI....as I did in the other chat when a self inflated person started
accusing me of having no sense on other issues. If you think you are
smart and all the people who believe in God are just ditz's....let's
take a little side by side test. We need someone to ask questions of
practical importance. You know...things that test whether a person
has learned from being in this world. Physics, math problems, material
properties questions, questions about biology, and evolutionary
process which IS documented, etc. Then we'll see if there is any
significant difference between YOU (obviously the much keener, more
perceptive one) and ME (obviously the bonehead leaning on his "God
crutch".)
What do you say? Should be no problem, right? Talk is cheap.
Fact is, some of the most learned men on the planet hold to a
creation theory for one or two main reasons. One being that they have
WEIGHED the possibility of life "spontaneously evolving" from raw
materials against the "incalculable odds" that a God could have
done what we see...and what appears to have a "design" to their
inner being. (I say incalculable, because obviously this God who
created doesn't obey the laws of physics, or otherwise the 2nd law
of TD says that he and ALL other matter would currently...here at time
t=infinity....be at "heat death".)
The other reason is, like me, they have a personal relationship with
that creator. I can't help you understand this since you pronounce
yourself to be "a"theist. You need spiritual eyes to perceive the God
I'm talking about, and being "a"theist rather than "a"gnostic...which
is a state where you have no knowledge on the matter...but could were
your eyes to be opened... you have put yourself in a place where I
cant' relate. You obviously think you can teach me something. Why
don't we play the general knowledge of the physical universe game in
a chat session somewhere, and see which of us seems to be dealing well
with the mind he has been given. Then you can boast all you want and
you'll have at least a SHRED of backing, right? -Bob
PS, to quote Aaron Novick, former head of U of Oregon's Institute
of molecular biology, and one of the most noteworthy characters in
the history of the field:
[Bob] "But Aaron, everyone who has done a serious odds assessment,
they come up with odds on the order of ONE in 10^50th of even
a first generation happening by events that might occur in
an environment where no previous cell life had existed"
(paraphrased to clarify intent in layman's terms)
[Aaron] "I know! I know...but that's just the way it HAD to happen!"
(exact words)
How sad....sad that people must hold to a "theory" whose likelihood
of actually having taken place is simply UNTHINKABLE! We might
enhance those "odds" by considering that "well, there are billions
of stars with stuff floating around them out there. So, that at
least increases the odds by a factor of 10^15 or so doesn't it?
Rather than waste time arguing about the fact that from what we've
seen so far, a MINISCUAL number of those systems have ANY kind
of "material" in orbit which would have a stable enough temperature
to sustain any ordered molecular arrangement for sufficient time
to become something that might form the basis of a "life form"...
I'd just say "sure, chop off that and we get 10^35th. Fine. That's
STILL about 10^30th from being THINKABLE, which is a HUGE HUGE number!!!
Remember, we're not talking about 1 in 1 followed by fifty ZERO's
compounded daily for three billion years folks. We're talking....
that's it. Those ARE the overall odds!!! Nobody has come up with a
better way to look at it. That's best case scenario. Miller's
experiment flipped. fried sludge...it's all you ever get! not
even a stinking thing CLOSE to anything that might be regarded as raw
materials for cell formation. Those kinds of compounds ONLY can be
generated under...very controlled, designed circumstances. Nobody
but a class "A" idiot would EVER say "it's likely it happened this
way." If people say that, they simply don't know what's going on.
Talk to some people in Genetics. Go to a university with an
acclaimed program and talk to some people...and stop wasting your time
here talking about something you are obviously not an expert in...
to say the least. It's a VERY complex subject, but enough
research HAS been done to turn on the lights IF...anyone's home. -Bob
Bob Weigel
Susan Lee <susa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <85qe3r$5...@garcia.efn.org>,
If that's the conclusion you arrive at after reading what I said, whatever.
I'm tired to spoon feeding lazy minds. YOU go over it again and drag out
all the rich possibilities from the grammar presented. I just can't take
time to detailing answers to this kind of thing. I'll just say "no"
and leave it at that. -Bob
Bob Weigel
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Peter Thomas Chattaway <pet...@interchange.ubc.ca> writes:
>: : Seems like it'd be a safer, happier, friendlier, better world.
>
>: Like Stalinist Russia, I suppose.
>
>Basil's is still around.
I don't think you are getting the drift here. Stalinist russia heavily
persecuted anyone who functioned as a Christian. If you followed Christs
teaching you would not mix well. If you went to the state approved
"church", you went to a mumbo jumbo session that was, as much as possible,
controlled by the government as a tool to promote the spirit of nationalism;
a worship of the man made structure of the state...not God. If you even
BELIEVED there was a God and openly spoke it you would be persecuted.
Now, realizing that, we see that the closer people drew to that
"ideal" the worse things got. Man doesn't need a belief in God to twist
things around and be evil. He already IS evil by his dissociation with
the creator who instended us to live in harmony with that spirit. History
proves that THE MOST DEVOUT leaders who overtly stood behind the thought that
"there is no God" and sought to stamp out all religion, are the BIGGEST
MURDERERS of ALL TIME! They made HITLER look like a stinking BOY SCOUT!
(Yes, he did stink, and some boy scouts do not....) Stalin, En-Lai,
Mao. 3-2-1. There they are. What a strange thing to try to justify.
ALL the evidence of history points against it. America has had rather
minimal human death tolls, aside from the civil war. Historically, I
think most would agree it's one of the best places ever to have a chance
to have a life free from getting sacked by other nations, killed by
your government for just doing things humans ought to have the right
to do, etc. AND we have an extremely HIGH percentage of people who
claim there is a God.
COMPARE that to ANY of the societies where there were NOT very
many who are saying there is a god....and weep. Their histories have
ALL contained brutality. The inquisition actually persecuted NOT
people who were refusing to follow christ...but people who were refusing
to be part of the RC church. The teachings of Christ prevent us from
persecuting those who hate us...and tell us to rather love them, and give
them our tunic and stuff. That's why nations with lots of christians...
real ones, are more peaceful. I'm not out there trying to kill those
who disagree with me. But look around you! There are TONS of people who
think killing Christians would free the world. The Chinese have been
actively persecuting the church for a long time. There's always heavy
persecutinos somewhere. Why is that? -Bob
Susan Lee
b...@efn.org (Bob Weigel) wrote:
>Incidently, you know that all that appeared to be
> "Beatles" was not...Clapton did most of Georges complex solo work in
> those early albums I guess. The beatles hit a "niche" and people
> picked up on it and rode it for all it was worth. Lenon sucked as
> a solo artist.
I strongly disagree! Yoko Ono now..THERES some SUCKAGE!
The rest of them had enough money to get together
> good musicians, but only Paul really wrote anything with and kind
> of depth...though a lot of it sounded kind of drug induced and
> incoherent.
I always thought Paul McCartneys solo work, while pleasant enough to
listen to, utterly LACKED depth. Go figure!
> That's what I see about the beatles.
If you are into worshipping
> capitolism, then they are it. I love a lot of the tunes because
> a lot of money and hence thought went into making them. But the
> direction played up to a movement in society that...was not a good
> thing.
Was asking the world to "give peace a chance" so awful?
Brian Trosko
: : : : beliefs.
: : : : Seems like it'd be a safer, happier, friendlier, better world.
: : : Like Stalinist Russia, I suppose.
: : There were no religious beliefs in Stalinist Russia?
: Officially, no. It was a country run according to anti-religious
: principles. And thus it was safer, happier, friendlier, better.
What a load of garbage, Peter. The assertion you seem to want to argue
with is the one that a world without religious beliefs would be a safer,
happier, and friendlier world than the one we have no.
Since there were plenty of religious beliefs in Stalinist Russia, it can
hardly be used as a counterexample. Sure, *officially*, the State was run
according to anti-religious principles. This is a far, far cry from there
being no religious beliefs in Stalinist Russia, and I'm certain you know
that. There are plenty of Russian Christians today, and there were plenty
when Stalin and Beria ran things. Stalin had control over areas where the
Eastern Orthodox Church was very much active.
: that. But the fact is, even within that broad sense, people are
: religious, and a world without religion is a world without people.
Then, by your own arguments, Stalinist Russia was a nation without people.
Again, Peter, it's a piss-poor example of what you're trying to say.
Brian Trosko
: How does one such as I, who believes in creation, somehow enter
: college?
Well, I'd imagine that depends on which sort of creation you believe in.
If you're a member of any of the varieties of "weak" creationism out
there, it's entirely possible that you are also, coincidentally, capable
of a certain degree of rational thought. If you're a Young Earth
Creationist, on the other hand, I'm surprised you can manage to remember
to breathe without government assistance.
: I
: _have_ learned about the theory of evolution,
Really? For some reason, I don't believe you. Where and how did you
learn about it?
: and it just doesn't fit
: the facts.
Which ones?
: It looks good in general, but collapses under close scientific
: scrutiny.
Tell me more.
: It's
: really a very religious belief in ourselves, the ultimate culmination of
: a
: theoretical fluctuation in the nothingness that was before the Big
: Bang.
Huh? I'm suddenly fearful that you've "learned" as much about cosmology
as you've learned about evolution: not much. Evolution doesn't have a bit
to do with the Big Bang.
: Why
: is more than 90% of the angular momentum of the solar system in the
: planets?
I'm not sure what in the world that question has to do with evolutionary
theory, but here goes, from memories of back when I studied astronomy:
Theories of solar system formation must explain two big observations: that
the planets mostly orbit in the plane of the ecliptic, and the presence of
gas giants in the outer solar system and their absence in the inner part.
The Sun formed from the collapse of a large cloud of gas and particulate
matter left over from the remains of previous stars. What triggered
this collapse is up for grabs. Maybe chaotic pressure fluctuations in
the interstellar medium, or the passage of another body, or the
neutrino and photon flux from a supernova, what have you. But it was
something. This cloud was many times the current size of the solar system,
probably at least a few thousand astronomical units in diameter. The
cloud had a rotation rate, and due to conservation of angular momentum, as
it collapsed upon itself this rotation rate increased. But not all of
this raw material collapsed into a single ball. Some was rotating fast
enough already to withstand the gravitation from the parts of the cloud
that was already collapsing towards the center.
You have to know some of the rest. Dust grains in parts of the cloud
happened to collide and stick together, forming seeds that in turn
colliding with more matter, eventually forming rocky planitesimals and
later, actual planets. The larger quanity of gas in the center underwent
collapse into a protostar, eventually contracting tightly enough to reach
temperatures sufficient for the triple-alpha process to begin and a star
to ignite.
So why does Jupiter on its own possess about 98% of the solar system's
angular momentum?
Because young stars have ways to shed angular momentum, and they do. The
sun's solar wind *continues* to carry the sun's angular momentum away with
each, and there's evidence this wind was *much* stronger in the past.
CMEs are another example of a way for the sun to shed angular momentum.
The planets have more angular momentum than the sun does because the
planets have spend the last 5 billion years spitting chunks of themselves
into outer space. There's also magnetic breaking to factor in, and that
probably accounts for a good deal of the reduction in the sun's angular
momentum.
Seriously, Luke, this is a question dealt with in freshman-level astronomy
texts. It's very good evidence *against* a young earth, because the
relative lack of angular momentum of the sun is indeed a great mystery if
the solar system is only a few thousand years old, but it's readily
answerable if the solar system is at least the ~5 billion years old that
we think it is.
: Just how did birds evolve from reptiles?
The same way staphylococcus evolves resistance to vancomycin.
: Why do fossil beds show
: evidence of
: catastrophic origins, when evolution requires billions of years?
Where'd you get the idea that evolution requires billions of years?
I really don't you think you've learned very much about evolution. Or
cosmology.
Brian Trosko
: : with is the one that a world without religious beliefs would be a safer,
: : happier, and friendlier world than the one we have no.
: That is indeed the assertion that I am arguing with. It was naive when
: John Lennon made it years ago, and it was no less naive when Ken
: articulated it above mere hours ago.
Then what good does it do you to bring up Stalinist Russia, given that it
wasn't a place without religious beliefs?
: : Since there were plenty of religious beliefs in Stalinist Russia, it can
: : hardly be used as a counterexample. Sure, *officially*, the State was
: : run according to anti-religious principles.
: Then you concede the point. The State was where Stalinist Russia was its
: most Stalinist. And the absence of "religious beliefs" did not make the
: State a "safer, happier, friendlier, better" place to be.
No, I don't concede the point, and I'm beginning to see why Jason gets so
annoyed with you.
There was no absence of religious beliefs in Stalinist Russia. It
therefore can not be used as an example of a place that had no religious
beliefs. It therefore can not be used to refute Ken's argument.
: : This is a far, far cry from there being no religious beliefs in
: : Stalinist Russia, and I'm certain you know that.
: True, there was always an element of religious dissent within the official
: system. There were even religious elements that collaborated with the
: official system. But the tone was set by the State, which was officially
: atheist and non-religious (even anti-religious), and if Stalinist Russia
: was not safer, happier, friendlier or "better" (whatever that means), you
: can hardly blame it on the religious elements within the culture.
And? That's got naught to do with Ken's argument, anymore than pointing
out that Hitler considered himself a Christian would support an argument
that religious beliefs make the world a more dangerous, sadder, more
hostile, or "worse" (whatever that means) place. Regardless of the
*official* attitude of Stalinist Russia towards religion, the
*inhabitants* of Stalinist Russia remained as religious as ever.
If the argument presented is "The world would be better off without
relgiious beliefs," then responding with "Look at Stalinist Russia" is a
non sequitur. You might as well have said "But fish don't wear corsets."
: : Again, Peter, it's a piss-poor example of what you're trying to say.
: *shrug* So I responded to a glib remark with another glib remark.
Ah. Sorry, I have this habit of expecting you to make sense. Maybe I
should do something about that.
Rang...@concentric.net
> In article <388093E0...@concentric.net>,
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel wrote:
> >> In article <387FBE93...@concentric.net>,
> >> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >> >Bob Weigel wrote:
>
>
> > <we've covered my views on Christianity, abortion, and even a
> >bad Pat Boone joke in previous installments>
> >
> >> ALSO, you might note that some of the most significant groups in
> >> modern music history had dominant creative characters who actually
> >> came to Christ: Kerry Livegren and the Elefante's of Kansas, Keith
> >> Emerson, of ELP,
> >
> > At which point, they tend to go right in the tank. Even Dylan went
> >in the tank when he flirted with Christendom.
>
> Well, there you have it again. If you look at Dylan's STC, does it
> display any less talent than his other albums?
In my opinion, yes.
> NO! ON THE CONTRARY.
> It is AMAZING that the guy can kick right in and write stuff in a
> "field" where he's never been, with the same kind of proficiency!
> The OBVIOUS problem? His audience he had spent YEARS writing for
> did not want to hear about Jesus...period. When they saw where he
> ws going they booed him. Bob is the most outstanding case in
> point.
Hardly. Unfortunately, "talent" is too subjective a word. Let us
just say that the "Christian" Dylan (he later repented!) didn't have
scoreboard.
> > And don't forget Barbarella. Hubby dumps her (according to the
> >tabloids), and she runs off to a nunnery (with one stop to see Val
> >Kilmer?).... :)
>
> who? missed that one, sounds like a cool sequel to the flying nun though.
Barbarella, a.k.a. "Hanoi Jane" Fonda. A most amusing story in the
National Enquirer seems to explain her sudden conversion.... :)
> >> and.... what about some of those Mike and the Mechanics
> >> tunes? Hmmm. Makes you wonder. Alice Cooper?
> >
> > Now, he hangs with corrupt televangelists. Big improvement.
> >Hmmm.... Makes you wonder.
>
> Yup. But my point is, we're all on a path. Some hint of a search of
> truth is the most marketable thing it seems...but actually claiming
> to find it will "ruin" you . :-) Where you go from there...it's up to
> you.
A proposition unsupported by a sufficient quantum of credible
evidence. Your opinion is yours alone.
> >> Dylan? Ok, Freddy
> >> Mercury did not it appears for sure. But so many others wind up
> >> claiming to have made some committment to Christ....and I clearly see
> >> in a lot of their work that they were searching for thuth in various
> >> ways and that is what fueled their creativity.
> >
> > I see more of it in those who didn't. The Beatles are Exhibit A.
> >"And no religion too...."
>
> Like I said...yuk. Incidently, you know that all that appeared to be
> "Beatles" was not...Clapton did most of Georges complex solo work in
> those early albums I guess. The beatles hit a "niche"
Pretty big niche.
> and people
> picked up on it and rode it for all it was worth. Lenon sucked as
> a solo artist. The rest of them had enough money to get together
> good musicians, but only Paul really wrote anything with and kind
> of depth.
Paul "Band on the Run" McCartney? BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
> ..though a lot of it sounded kind of drug induced and
> incoherent.
Their material worked like no other.
> That's what I see about the beatles. If you are into worshipping
> capitolism, then they are it. I love a lot of the tunes because
> a lot of money and hence thought went into making them. But the
> direction played up to a movement in society that...was not a good
> thing.
How so? I think that for society in general, the Sixties were
exceptionally profitable.
> >> And it seems that if
> >> an artist mixes a bunch of real cruddy songs with a few of those,
> >> that is the best formula for success! :-)
> >
> > Exhibit B: Elvis. I would not presume to dispute you there. :)
>
> Well, Elvis claimed to be a Christian. Yet he lived like someone
> who wasn't,
Just like about 95.47% of all Christians.
> portraying a standard trending towards "playboy" status.
> You think THAT isn't MASS MARKETABLE?'
Elvis was marketed brilliantly. But he put out a lot of songs which
were truly disgraceful.
> You've heard words from me. Not just bible quotes. But real reasoning
> that anyone can see the validity of whether or not they believe the bible.
> I believe if you just seek the truth and get rid of the unjust grudge
> you've formed against God,
I have been wronged. If your god exists, he is responsible. And
there is no excuse or justification for his malicious action. Period.
If the end justifies the means, the injury is no less real nor grievous.
> Anyway...Oh god I pray you see what I'm saying. You can't unknow
> God. You may have thought you were a christian, but I'm telling
> you, there is more. Take these words and give him another chance.
> Again, I love you to the point of tears as I write. -Bob
Bob, your lack of sincerity is exceeded only by your intellectual
dishonesty. While I can't unknow your god, I can recognize that
he is unworthy of even a modicum of respect. And at this point,
your Jesus H. Lewinsky deserves no more respect than President
Clinton's animate vacuum cleaner.
Susan Lee
Luke Cooper <lwc...@psu.edu> wrote:
>
> How does one such as I, who believes in creation, somehow enter
> _have_ learned about the theory of evolution, and it just doesn't fit
> the facts.
Do you mean to say, "It just dosnt fit the story in Genesis."? If not,
which "facts" do you cite which oppose evolutionary theory?
> It looks good in general, but collapses under close scientific
> scrutiny.
Give us an example.
It's
> really a very religious belief in ourselves, the ultimate culmination
>of a theoretical fluctuation in the nothingness that was before the Big
> Bang.
Nonsense. EVERYONE knows theat evolution culminated in the BIRD.
Why
> is more than 90% of the angular momentum of the solar system in the
> planets?
Dunno. Someone else may have an opinion.
> Just how did birds evolve from reptiles?
Birds and reptiles share more anatomical features than any of the other
vertebrate classes. The only absolute difference between all birds and
all reptiles is the presence of feathers. All birds have em. Nothing
thats not a bird has em.
Feathers are modified scales.It can be surmised that endothermic (warm-
blooded) reptiles existed, based on the presence of 4- chambered
heart. The 4 chambers are an adaptation that makes endothermy possible.
Endothermic reptiles whose scales had insulating qualities required
less energy to keep warm at a time when the world was cooling. What
would an insulating scale look like? (Reptile scales are an
overlapping arrangement of proteinacious dermal projections, with a
thichened midrib from which project fused rays.....Consider what
happens if those loosely fused rays are un-fused...A feather! Ta Da!
Now wer're talking bird! A fossil (Protornis? or Protoavis? I cant
recall the name), was recently uncovered , within the last 7 years,
which roughly fits this stage of bird evolution. This one is only a
little more reptile-like than the splendid and awsomely beautiful
fossil, Archaeapteryx, a fully fledged bird.
A feathered, lightly built biped with gliding capabilities similar to
that seen in some modern reptiles, might attain greater loft with these
adapted scales, and greater, faster mobility....(Try this experiment:
Toss a popsicle stick off your roof. Then toss a popsicle stick to
which you've affixed a few ounces of feathers. See how they fall. The
point here is even if wings arent present,feathers give an object more
loft, more air time.)
So we have a feathered gliding biped. Basic bird. Varied adaptations to
the flying lifestyle follow. Some of these include (in no particular
order):
1.Varying forelimb adaptatations (involving fusing and lengthening of
bones) to different sorts of flight (or swimming as in penquins)
2. Further lightening of the skeleton by hollowing and fusing skeletal
features as the pelvis and some vertebrae. (The fused pelvic features
were already present in those light bipedal reptiles).
3. As the forelimbs became specialized for flight, the cervical
vertebrae became longer and more flexibly aligned, allowing the head to
do the work that many animals use the forelimbs for.
4.Reduction of gonads: Most flying birds have single teste or ovary to
reduce ballast. The right hand gonad is vestigial.Seasonal migratory
species take this even further by reduction of gonad size and activity
during the non breeding seasons.
5. Huge and fabulous eyes: The flying lifestyle is visually
complicated. If ya dont see well,and process visual information
quickly, you might run into a tree. Bird eyes are large in ratio to
body size, with retinas served by many times the receptor cells (rods
and/or cones)than other vertebrates. The head is so stuffed with
eyeballs , there is little room for much else. Almost no olfactory
lobes in the avian brain. (No great loss, really , because few birds
would be incined to trail game or sniff out mates, when they can sense
these things more efficiently using vision.
6.Reduction and disappearance of teeth. No modern birds have teeth.
Many fossil birds were toothed. Reduced number and size of teeth is
common in domestic animals after only a few short thousands of years of
selection. (Most dog breeds, have less and smaller teeth than wild
canids. As do some modern domestic horses, Arabs, particularly.
7.The hard shelled egg. Reptile and bird eggs start as yolk (one cell!
Cool huh!). As the yolk moves down the reproductive tract, layers are
added...The albumin,(white) then those leathery membranes (chorion).
The difference between birds and reptiles is that an additional calcium-
based layer is added. The advantages of this sort of egg is in its
durability and resistance to water loss. Reptile eggs will only hatch
under very exact and narrow conditions of humidity , and temperature.
These conditions are generally found only underground. As birds began
to live above the earth, it was an advantage to have an egg that could
also survive above the earth.
Well theres more...The fused hind limb elements, enlarged heart,
Extrordiarily high blood pressures (Makes diffusion of Oxygen into the
blood super-fast) ,reduction of muscular diaphram, (They move air by
moving their ribs!....So if you grab a bird, dont hold tight round the
middle),
Excretory system which excretes urine in its most concentrated hydro-
efficient form (uric acid), lack of urinary bladder, No areo-
dynamically unsound (dangling) genitalia, .....
Luke, Tell me, Do you REALLY fail to see a Beauty here? A gape-mouthed,
bring -you -to-your-knees, cant hardly breathe, BEAUTY?
Why do fossil beds show
> evidence of
> catastrophic origins, when evolution requires billions of years?
Billions? How many billions, Mr Science?
Fossil beds show evidence of the exact same sort of catastrophes that
beseige the earth now....What year has gone by that there WASNT a
catastrophic flood or mudslide in some handful of towns , cities , or
villages?
Luke, I noticed your address was psu.edu. Do you , by chance attend
Portland State University in Portland, Or? Thats my alma mater.
Susan Lee
Rang...@concentric.net
> In article <38807E93...@concentric.net>,
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel wrote:
>
> >that your allegation is patently absurd.
> >
> Talk is cheap.
I'm glad you have conceded that point. Now, unless you have
some credible evidence to support your claims concerning your
malicious and/or missing-in-action messiah, I would ask that you
concede that your religion has nothing of substance to offer.
> I've already proved from your own words that YOU
> are a "Eugenist" who believes there ARE viable times to kill a baby
> that we "guess" might not have a "good future".
What a joke! You haven't used my words, but quite a painful
'straw man' argument. My position was that society was not in
a position to make that decision. Your abject ignorance of the
definition of the word "eugenics" weakens your argument even
further, as for a meaningful genetic selection to take place, you
need to have a preconceived systematic plan. If the decision is
left up to individual mothers -- who will conceive at a later date
with the same partner, in many instances -- there is no element
of genetic selection and thus, no eugenic program.
By stark contrast, your god is arguably in the "eugenics" busi-
ness, as he chooses to 'bless' certain couples with children, but
curses others with barrenness. Any plan is eugenics, and you
are the only one who supposedly advocates a plan.
> I mean, what other
> basis would we use to decide to take action to kill a baby?
But we don't make that decision. The parents do. As such,
there is no plan. Eugenics has to do with genetic control, and
not all abortions would fall under that category. Choosing the
(apparently) best time to bear offspring is not "eugenics," as it
has nothing to do with genetic selection.
> I think the whole thread is patently absurd.
You've lost the argument, because you don't know what the
operative word means. Thus, you are only digging your grave
a little deeper by persisting.
> 115 lines deleted. Good day.
> -Bob
Susan Lee
b...@efn.org (Bob Weigel) wrote:
(Snipped Bob W's brain challange to PWEI)
> PS, to quote Aaron Novick, former head of U of Oregon's Institute
> of molecular biology, and one of the most noteworthy characters in
> the history of the field:
>
> [Bob] "But Aaron, everyone who has done a serious odds assessment,
> they come up with odds on the order of ONE in 10^50th of even
> a first generation happening by events that might occur in
> an environment where no previous cell life had existed"
> (paraphrased to clarify intent in layman's terms)
>
> [Aaron] "I know! I know...but that's just the way it HAD to happen!"
> (exact words)
[Susan] "But Bob, were YOU the result of one in a gazillion
sperms uniting with a single egg? Whats the odds of THAT one sperm
cell hitting target? Pretty slim, eh?
[Bob] (Fill in your resonse)
[Susan] "And isnt THAT sperm from your father who happened by chance to
meet your mother , out of all the people in the whole world? Whats the
chance of THAT happening?
[Bob] (Fill in your resonse)
[Susan] And wasnt your dad and your mom EACH the result of the very
very very slim odds of one particular sperm uniting with a particulaar
egg on a particular day in a particular menstral cycle?.....And each of
their parents and each of their parents parents....
Bob! The chances of these events all coinciding are so incredibly
minmal as to be non-existant.
[Bob] (At this point the only sensible thing you could possibly say is:
"I know! I know...but that's just the way it HAD to happen!")
How sad...sad that you're existance whose likelyhood of actually having
taken place, is simply unthinkable!
In your words,:. Nobody but a class "A" idiot would EVER say "it's
likely it happened this way."
But it DID, didnt it? Youre something that couldnt possibly exist,
according to the odds. Yet here you are.
Respectfully, (I gotta respect someone who beat THOSE odds), Susan
Susan Lee
b...@efn.org (Bob Weigel) wrote:
(Much snipping)
> >Susan said : This, all because we dont use Genesis as a text in
science classes?
> >
>
>Bob W. responded: If that's the conclusion you arrive at after reading
what I said, whatever.
> I'm tired to spoon feeding lazy minds.
NO WAY you know me well enough to suggest that I have a lazy mind!
YOU go over it again and drag out
> all the rich possibilities from the grammar presented.
Going through that "Richness" once was quite enough. Your point was
not clear. A bog is also rich, even productive, but is an uninviting
place to spend time.
Maybe you should forgo some "richness" for the sake of clarity, and do
us all a favor.
May I suggest E.B.Whites' "Elements of Style". Its a brief, even
amusing writing manual.
>I'll just say "no" and leave it at that. -Bob
Better! Now THAT was a line I can wade through!
PWEI
Bob Weigel <b...@efn.org> wrote in message news:85rkgu$6...@garcia.efn.org...
> of molecular biology, and one of the most noteworthy characters in
> the history of the field:
>
> [Bob] "But Aaron, everyone who has done a serious odds assessment,
> they come up with odds on the order of ONE in 10^50th of even
> a first generation happening by events that might occur in
> an environment where no previous cell life had existed"
> (paraphrased to clarify intent in layman's terms)
>
> [Aaron] "I know! I know...but that's just the way it HAD to happen!"
> (exact words)
>
Show me a god.
So, a failed Xtian musician AND a Physics/Microbiology expert? What are the
odds of THAT?
Do you have a degree in said topics, or was this a discussion while you were
auditing the course?
Do you have a copy of Strunk and White? Or a Dictionary?
What are you doing now? What kind of work do you do?
BTW, that's a class 'M' Idiot, "A"sshole.
"Consider the impasse of the 'One God Universe':
He is all knowing and all powerful. He can't go anywhere since he is
already everywhere. He can't do anything because the act of doing
presupposes opposition.
His Universe is irrevocably thermodynamic, having no friction by
definition. So he has to create friction: War, fear, sickness, death, to
keep his
dying show on the road...
From William S.Burroughs "A One God Universe"
M
Bob Wilson
> In article <388060...@attglobal.net>,
> Ken Hamer <kenh...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >Bob Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> <snip>
> >
> >> I wouldn't go that far. Although persecution would serve christians
> >> right, I'd rather have a world where NO ONE was persecuted for their
> >> religous beleifs.
> >
> >
> >Frankly, I'd rather have a world where there were no religious beliefs.
> >
>
>
> Seems it would be just like what things are trending toward. Haven't
> you noticed that, as the schools have taught more and more that there
> are strong "scientific" evidences for an evolutionary "creation", and
> as fewer and fewer kids acknowledge that there is a God in the way
> they live.... that more and more of them believe that
You write pretty incoherently, Bob, so I won't respond to your entire
post. But if you want to live somewhere where Chritianity is strong,
firmly in control, and getting stronger, I suggest you move to Texas.
Our Governor is a Born-Again Christian, one of our cities, (Waco) has the
most churches per-capita of any city in the United States, even Bob
Larson finds his strongest market here (Dallas). You won't find a more
Christian place on Earth. Atheists are killed around here (I'm assuming
that's what happened to Madelyn and her family). C'mon down and look
around! I've a friend who is a realtor who would be pleased to help you
find a place to settle down.
Bob Wilson
> > b...@efn.org (Bob Weigel) wrote:
> >> Seems it would be just like what things are trending toward.
> >Haven't
> >> you noticed that, as the schools have taught more and more that there
> >> are strong "scientific" evidences for an evolutionary "creation", and
> >> as fewer and fewer kids acknowledge that there is a God in the way
> >> they live.... that more and more of them believe that
> >>
> >laws, and
> >> the state of all things an increment in time ago (....and
> >maybe "randomness"
> >> which I personally believe is just an (non)explanation for events we
> >> dont' have the ability to explain, but whatever....) we have no choice
> >> in what we do. Our FIRST "choice" was a result of physical laws, the
> >> state of things around us and in us at that moment, and maybe
> >randomness,
> >> ALL of which I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. My second "choice"....a result
> >of
> >> perhaps my first choice and the same stuff.
> >>
> >> 2) Since I'm not truly having any choice, I'm not responsible for
> >anything
> >> I do.
> >>
> >> Seems to me like you'd have more shootings and sneaky murders, by
> >> people who believe they are ULIMATELY just...living to die so they'd
> >might
> >> as well get all they can. What feels good? If the flesh is all you
> >believe
> >> you have, then that pretty much becomes the bottom line.
> >Historically,
> >> that has been the way MOST people have lived and it has NOT led to a
> >> happy world.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> all the rich possibilities from the grammar presented. I just can't take
> and leave it at that. -Bob
>
exist. You're a terrible writer. You can't spell, your conclusions
don't necessarily derive from the conditions you set, and you contradict
yourself. Good writers strive for clarity, and if that means simplifying
the text, well, so be it. To blame your readers for misunderstanding you
is the mark of someone who can't write. Your lyrics are terrible, too.
I'm not saying this means you are stupid. Plenty of intelligent people
can't write. There are far more poor lyricists than good ones. But
maybe the reason people don't agree with you after reading your posts is
because you can't write for shit. Simplify, Bob. Strive for clarity.
Bob Wilson
100...@inch.interchange.ubc.ca>, pet...@interchange.ubc.ca says...
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Ken Hamer wrote:
> : Seems like it'd be a safer, happier, friendlier, better world.
>
Anthropologists beleive that religous behavior in humans is innate. The
world will never be free from religion, as long as we are genetically
predisposed in favor of it. In the Soviet Union, when religion was
suppressed, even Stalin allowed the Orthodox Church to continue, so long
as they stayed away from politics. But the majority of people, at least
after a couple of generations, were avowed atheists. But their innate
desire to believe in the supernatural came out in other ways. In the
1970's, belief in the paranormal was almost total in the Soviet Union.
Even the Red Army and the KGB did "scientific" research in the areas of
telekinesis and mind reading. A plethora of paranormal charlatans
abounded there, just as priests and monks once had.
So, I don't think there will ever be a world without religous beleif, I
just hope for a world where relgion might be somewhat more benign, on the
level of Falun Gong or something
Bob Wilson
says...
> > : : Frankly, I'd rather have a world where there were no religious beliefs.
> > : : Seems like it'd be a safer, happier, friendlier, better world.
> >
> > : Like Stalinist Russia, I suppose.
> >
> > Basil's is still around.
>
> Russia the horrible failure that it was, that's as close an example as
> you're going to find. Unless you'd like to try Mao's China.
You lost me there. Please explain what you meant.
Bob Wilson
> In article <85qukp$nlm$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>,
> Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
> >Peter Thomas Chattaway <pet...@interchange.ubc.ca> writes:
> >: On Sat, 15 Jan 2000, Ken Hamer wrote:
> >: : Frankly, I'd rather have a world where there were no religious beliefs.
> >: : Seems like it'd be a safer, happier, friendlier, better world.
> >
> >: Like Stalinist Russia, I suppose.
> >
> >There were no religious beliefs in Stalinist Russia? Funny that St.
> >Basil's is still around.
>
>
as non-christians. What do you think happened to all of the Indians in
North and South America? Who do you think first enslaved them, then
stole their land, and then massacred them? Who rounded up the remainder
and put them on reservations on marginal (or worse) lands?
If the Indians owned all of the land in North America when the White
Christian Conquerors got here, why do they own so little of it now? Who
brought Slaves to this hemisphere? Muslims? Jews? Try again. Let's go
back further. During the Dark Ages in the Christian parts of the world,
What people were flouristhing, and had preserved the learning of the
ancients, and had many Scietific and mathmatical achievements? The
Arabs. Why then, until this century, when it was discovered that they
sat atop most of the world's oil, were the Arab parts of the world a
backwater of poverty and ignorance? Because of the Crusades. European
Christians were disturbed by the fact that the Holy Lands were in the
hands of muslims, launched ury after century of brutal attacks against
Arabs. Although they were ultimately unsuccesful at holding Jerusalem,
they did succeed in confining the Arabs to marginal lands, and dominating
them culturally. The point is: Christians bow to no one when it comes to
murdering their fellow man. For a more recent example, look at the
behavior of the Serbs toward the Bosnians, a people ethnically identical
to them. What was the fight about? The Bosnians were Islamic, the Serbs
were Christian.
Bob Wilson
> In article <03442174FBEA137C.618E9587...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Bob Wilson <litt...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >In article <85muk5$3sg$1...@news.csw.net>, moe...@mail.cswnet.com says...
> >> >
> >> >Christians believe that persecution is a validation of their beliefs.
>
> This is such a narrow minded bigotrous statement.
There is no such word as 'bigotrous', Bob.
]
"Christians", unfortunately,
> generally covers a whole variety of people. Some who claim to be "christians"
> simply don't like to talk about the aspects of their life that are shaming
> the Jesus Christ of the bible who they CLAIM to follow. I don't regard such
> people to be "christians" at all. Like Keith said, "Does going to McD's
> make you a hamburger?"...stupid analogy I know, but the fact is, JUST
> because you call your self a Christian doesn't make you one.
> I claim to be a Christian. I do NOT believe that "persecution is a
> validation for my beliefs". I found a validation through a relationship
> with Jesus Christ BEFORE I started getting persecuted, so this is just
> flat wrong. If you go about making statements like that your credibility
> will diminish until nobody worth convincing of anything are listening.
>
How do you decide what people are worthy of your trying to convince them
of anything?
> >> >They're so desperate for such validation that they consider it
> >> >discrimination when they don't receive preferential treatment and are
> >> >prevented from persecuting others.
> >> >
> ? "They"? There's that language again...bigot bigot bigot....
>
Quit saying that. He isn't a bigot.
> >> >We could solve this problem very easily by giving them some real
> >> >persecution to deal with. They'd finally be happy, and the rest of us
> >> >could have a lot of fun. :)
>
> Oh the world was just TONS of fun before all the Christians. :-) If you
> call massive wars, corrupt government, and little bigots like you
> running around finding things to bellyache about fun.
>
I assume that your statement means that since Christianity in the 20th
Centruy was predominant, there weren't any massive wars, no corrupt
governments, and no bigotry? C'mon, Bob. I don't beleive you are this
stupid. Rather than continuing to argue when the other fellow has got
you, admit that you were wrong, and be graceful about it. Beleive it or
not, no one here is trying to talk you out of being a christian. We're
primarily concerned with Bob Larson here, and secondarily, with other
crooked Preachers. But contuing to argue after you've already been
beaten is stupid. There are some very good debaters here, and you're
simply not in their class. Neither am I, and I get nailed too, whenever
I write something stupied that I can't back up. It's well recognized
here that Christianity is a matter of faith, and as such, cannot be
proven in a debate. We are quite willing to give your beleif in Christ a
pass, that is, until you start making ridiculous incoherent assertions
about how you are right and we're wrong. Then you're gonna get reamed.
Face it, Bob. There are people in the world who are smarter than you,
and a number of them have congregated here. Stick to dissing Bob Larson,
and you'll do fine here. Save your preaching for church or a street
corner. When you try to do it here, people are gonna demand that you show
proof of what you're saying. Also, Bob, people disagreeing with you on
Usenet doesn't really qualify as persecution.
> >> >
> >> >jason
> >> >
> >> I'm all for that! COnsidering what those little bastards do to Wicca and
> >> HAlloween, the LEAST that should be done to them is a few good old
> >> fashioned doses of their own medicine!
> >>
> >> Just like in the good old days of the Inquisition.
> >>
> >>
> >I wouldn't go that far. Although persecution would serve christians
> >right, I'd rather have a world where NO ONE was persecuted for their
> >religous beleifs.
>
>
> Wow, that's swell of you. Now I'm trying to remember....what was the last
> time I persecuted a Wiccan, or "did something" to halloween? It's like
Rang...@concentric.net
> In article <388093D3...@concentric.net>,
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >> So? Just because a bunch of "ice cold fakes" put on their Jesus badge,
> >> why do you let that distract you?
> >
> > I don't -- but you wouldn't necessarily know that. For instance, I
> >don't hold Jesus accountable for Bob Larson. However, I do hold
>
> Good. There's hope then. :-)
>
> >him responsible for HIS REACTION (or, in this case, the utter lack
> >thereof) to his antics.
>
> Oops...maybe not. Are you saying that Jesus is WRONG for letting people
> parade around and gather gullible self-dilluded people at these things
> in hopes that a few of them might realize how empty it is and repent?
> NOOOO! A GOOD GOD would just STRIKE THEM ALL DOWN!!! :-)
False dilemma. Do you love logic ... or logical fallacies?
Your god should have a spectrum of alternatives, many of which
are arguably superior to the choices of non-interference and frying
the perpetrators. For instance, your god can ensure that evildoers
do not prosper in this lifetime, while people who oppose them do.
A regime of positive and negative reinforcement works in so many
venues that it is unimaginable that your god hasn't thought about it.
And if you believe the reports of Jim Bakker's prison experiences
changing him for the better (the jury is still out on this one, as our
friends at Trinity Foundation have had a few disturbing reports on
him), it seems that an extended vacation in 'Club Fed' might do a
Bob Larson or a Paul Crouch some good.
> Look. I'm a Christian. I recognized that there was nothing good
> happening with Larson ohhh..about the early 80's as I recall. Now
> he's had no effect on my life since. Why would I care if God "does
> something" that would be termed as a "reaction" to Bob's antics? If
> God thinks it's best to allow him to go about like this, fine. He
> must have a purpose in it.
Fine. If God thinks it best for people to go to Planned Parenthood
to have abortions, fine. He must have a purpose in it, right? All I'm
asking is that like situations are treated alike.
> OFTEN that purpose has to do with
> PATIENTLY "stirring the pot" until a bunch of people FINALLY go
> "help getus out of this stew!!!!" I hopeyou can understand how
> short sighted your analysis is here.
I hope you can understand how hypocritical your analysis is here.
> Only God can give us the
> full picture, and ....why not cry out to him now?
Becuase he is too busy sucking off Pat Robertson to pick up the
phone? Been there, done that, got a busy signal. Part and parcel
of my complaint.
> Looks like
> you need to just stop assuming you know so much about things.
> God sees a much bigger picture
In other words, might makes right and the ends justify the means.
Stalin ran Mother Russia that way, too. What I am saying is that
for the concept of right and wrong to have any meaning at all, they
must apply, across the board, ALL of the time.
> ...and even I (just another
> silly nobody) see possibilities you don't see. Even when I
> don't see all the possibilities, and I don't understand why
> God MIGHT be doing what he's doing/not doing....I came to a place
> in my heart where I knew he was God and he is the one who knows
> it all...not me.
I don't claim to know it all, but I do have an interest in receiving
equitable treatment. If your god is using me for some selfish pur-
pose of his, and objective morality exists, then his action is patently
immoral.
> >moneychangers from the Temple at the business end of a horsewhip.
>
> "A time for planting...aa time for reaping".
Well, then, he should have left those nice moneychangers alone.
> >That sets both an example and a precedent. Moreover, we are told
>
> A "precedent"? In what way? In a way that says "everyone who doesn't
> do God's will should be horsewhipped"? Or in a way that says "God
> might advocate this in some instances". I believe the latter.
None of the above. Rather, it obligates him to act in such a way
as to oppose evildoers. While zapping those who do is one option,
it is not the only option.
> >in Jas. 4:17 that anyone "who knows the good he ought to do and
> >doesn't do it, sins." That sets a standard of ethical conduct, which
>
> Right.
Then either your god has voluntarily bound himself to it, or he is
a Cosmic Stalin. Which is it?
> >is known in the vernacular as creating "sins of omission." Based on
> >that foundation, and the fact that Bob Larson not only damages the
> >reputation of Christianity in general by his antics, but has even been
>
> Actually, he draws people to the church by setting a crappy example
> that will draw them FROM him TO the TRUE SHEPHERD!!! :-)
Not in the real world. Most people either point to Larson as
evidence that Christianity is a crock, are sucked into his jive, or
pretend that he doesn't exist.
> That's the
> way I see it, but that's because I'm listening to the true shepherd
> instead of Larson.
>
> >caught displaying his wares on a church altar, your god has a clear
> >obligation to do something. For to not do the good he ought to do
> >is a sin ... even for a god.
>
> Well, I've thoroughly dispelled that.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! ROTFLMAO! Not even close.
> God's ways are higher than yours.
> I've constructed a VERY feasable scenario above and it's your job to look at
> that scenario and say "could this really be what's happening"?
Answer: Anything is possible, but not everything is moral. Does
might make right? Does the ends justify the means? Whether you
like it or not, your scenario requires that you answer yes to both
of the above. This makes your god's regime no different, morally
speaking, than Stalin's Russia.
> If it could be, then you are without excuse for accusing God in this way.
Wrong. If it must be, and it is moral, then I am without excuse.
Since it must not be, and it would not be moral even if it is, then
I have every right to accuse your Jesus H. Lewinsky of immoral
conduct.
Bob Wilson
> In article <38807E93...@concentric.net>,
> <Rang...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >Bob Weigel wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> is one you might consider. There is a philosophy behind counselling
> >> ANYONE to have an abortion.
> >
> > Having seen the kind of harassment which goes on at the family-
> >planning clinics (not everyone there goes to have an abortion), I
> >can speak from experience. Based upon that experience, I know
>
> I can't. I've never harrassed people at them or hung around them.
> I've only protested at abortion clinics.
>
> >that your allegation is patently absurd.
> >
> are a "Eugenist"
The word is 'Eugenecist" Sine you can't spell it or even use if properly
in a sentence, are we supposed to beleive that you know what it means?
who believes there ARE viable times to kill a baby
> that we "guess" might not have a "good future". I mean, what other
> basis would we use to decide to take action to kill a baby? I
> think the whole thread is patently absurd. 115 lines deleted. Good day.
> -Bob
>
Bob, you have demonstrated repeatedly that you don't even know what
'Eugenics' means. Please familiarize yourself with the term and it's
implications before you accuse someone of being a 'Eugenist' again. When
you argue with terms you don't know the meaning of, you look like an
idiot, Bob. As I have written before, I don't think you are an idiot,
you are just someone who cannot write well. Don't prove me wrong by
continuing to argue with your betters about things you have no
understanding of.
Rang...@concentric.net
> In article <388060...@attglobal.net>,
> Ken Hamer <kenh...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >Bob Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> <snip>
> >
> >> I wouldn't go that far. Although persecution would serve christians
> >> right, I'd rather have a world where NO ONE was persecuted for their
> >> religous beleifs.
>
>
> >Frankly, I'd rather have a world where there were no religious beliefs.
> >
> >Seems like it'd be a safer, happier, friendlier, better world.
Certainly, it would remove one bone of contention betwen clans
and neighbors.
> Seems it would be just like what things are trending toward. Haven't
> you noticed that, as the schools have taught more and more that there
> are strong "scientific" evidences for an evolutionary "creation", and
> as fewer and fewer kids acknowledge that there is a God in the way
> they live.... that more and more of them believe that
Actually, Evangelical churches seem to be increasing in size and
number. It can be correlated to the decline in educational quality
of our public schools -- and their apparent failure to teach critical
thinking skills.
> 1) Since there are no spiritual things going on....just physical laws, and
> the state of all things an increment in time ago (....and maybe "randomness"
> which I personally believe is just an (non)explanation for events we
> dont' have the ability to explain, but whatever....) we have no choice
> in what we do.
Quite the opposite. If your god has decided what experiences we
will have, then any appearance of "choice" we have is mere illusion.
> Our FIRST "choice" was a result of physical laws, the
> state of things around us and in us at that moment, and maybe randomness,
> ALL of which I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER.
If your god "runs the show," then I truly have no control. But if I
am the result of chance, or God does not try to micromanage the
universe, then I actually have some measure of self-determination.
And as such, I have some incentive to actually compete.
> My second "choice"....a result of
> perhaps my first choice and the same stuff.
>
> 2) Since I'm not truly having any choice, I'm not responsible for anything
> I do.
That is a natural and arguably inescapable corollary of Christian
belief. If God raised up the Colorado Buffaloes so that the Far-
Right Rev. Bill "Wings" McCartney could get five downs on the
way to a national championship, then if I played for the Missouri
Tigers that year, my fate was sealed before I even snapped on a
chinstrap. Why even bother competing?
> Seems to me like you'd have more shootings and sneaky murders, by
> people who believe they are ULIMATELY just...living to die so they'd might
> as well get all they can. What feels good? If the flesh is all you believe
> you have, then that pretty much becomes the bottom line.
On the contrary, if your god is in control, and he tends to favor
evildoers, you would expect most people to be more likely to be
evil. And that is precisely what you see in today's Church.
> Historically,
> that has been the way MOST people have lived and it has NOT led to a
> happy world.
Given that Christianity has been the predominant religion in Western
society for more than a millenium, it can fairly be said that if the above
is true, it is the result of Christianity. And arguably, it is an inevitable
one, as evildoers are not held to account for their crimes.
> I have no time to guess why your songs haven't made it, but I
> think there might be clues in the fact that you make a very poor
> assessment of history in your statement above.
Bob Wilson is self-deprecating to a fault, but if your observation
is true, then I can also see why you have obviously failed to 'make
it' as a songwriter.
> I believe, as I
> said, that people like to see some kind of rational direction in
> our music. If it's too much that way, they maynot like it either....
> but if you just make statements like the one above, it starts to
> sound like "Imagine there's no heaven...." When I first heard that song
> my reaction was (before even understanding the words) "what a lame piece".
> I was so disappointed to hear that kind of work coming from a "beetle"!
It had a lot more depth than their earlier work, but possessed a
simple eloquence.
> And the lame music worked so well with the lame philosophy therein.
Music doesn't have to be elaborate to 'work'.
> Here, I rewrote it for him....
>
> [verse 2]
>
> "Imagine no drunk drunk drivers, that keeps them off the road.
> No nucle,ar arsenol. So that it won't explode
> Imagine all you want to; still it's just a dream,....eeeeeam.
> Oh you may say I'm sarcastic. But down inside I cry.
> For this world of dilluded people, who dare to imagine a lie."
Your skill as a lyricist leaves much to be desired. Unless your
talent as a writer of musical scores far exceeds it, I am surprised
that you ever made it beyond garage-musician status.
> Thought someone might enjoy that about now. -Bob
Aside from you? Probably not.
Bob Wilson
> In article <388093E0...@concentric.net>,> >> In article <387FBE93...@concentric.net>,
> >bad Pat Boone joke in previous installments>
> >
> >> ALSO, you might note that some of the most significant groups in
> >> modern music history had dominant creative characters who actually
> >> came to Christ: Kerry Livegren and the Elefante's of Kansas, Keith
> >> Emerson, of ELP,
> >
> > At which point, they tend to go right in the tank. Even Dylan went
> >in the tank when he flirted with Christendom.
>
>
> Well, there you have it again. If you look at Dylan's STC, does it
> It is AMAZING that the guy can kick right in and write stuff in a
> "field" where he's never been, with the same kind of proficiency!
> The OBVIOUS problem? His audience he had spent YEARS writing for
> did not want to hear about Jesus...period. When they saw where he
> ws going they booed him.
You're a liar, Bob. Bob Dylan's christian Album was a big hit, and it
also had a hit single, 'You Gotta Serve Somebody". I saw Dylan on his
tour supporting that album. It was sold out, and no one Booed him. You
are full of shit. You make up 'facts' to support your statements. But I
caught this time, didn't I?
Good Girl Vampyre
becuase its founder was one, then the so-called "peqaceful" protests of
women's clinics,w hich have included such peaceful and loving things as
bimbings and murders of doctors.
First off, it is obvious you have NO idea how eugenics grew in the 20's
nor how Sanger was led to her views on contraception, Now with 20/20
hindsight we know that eugenics can and did lead to Nazi Germany. Butin
Sanger's time, eugenics inthe universities was an idealism, a view to end
misery and suffering. Naive, yes, but it was no different than any modern
college idealism today.
Second, about abortion. Let me say first that no sane person is for
abortion. However, if you all were honest you would read the stories of
women who went to get abortions befofe it was legal. Not pretty, and
quite a few of them died. The fact is, whether abortion is legal or not,
there will be women who will seek abortion. Ironic that Sanger was
opposed to abortion. Then there are the problems of risky pregnancies, 13
year old incest and rape victims being pregnant, and the difficult
decision for the women to even think of abortion,much less get one.
I note that the so-called pro-lifers have no real compassion for these
women, for if they did, they would not cause emotional trauma to them as
they enter the women's clinics. Getthe log out of your eye before you
point outthe mote in another's eye.
Maureen AKA Born Again Pagan
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan!
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
Doug
> Second, about abortion. Let me say first that no sane person is
> for abortion.
The Senators from the State of California certainly are. Even in the
last trimester. And not just for the physical health of the mother - but
for any reason including whim.
> However, if you all were honest you would read the stories of
> women who went to get abortions befofe it was legal.
I've read some of them. So what?
> Not pretty, and quite a few of them died.
How many - exactly? Is it anywhere near the 1.5 million or so babies
that are killed now? Let's take a high side estimate of 1500 per year
(and that's way high). That's still one in a thousand of what's
happening now.
It's just "cleaner" now.
Your statement devalues the life of the unborn child as if the death of
the child is not part of the equation. That is thoughtless and
heartless.
> The fact is, whether abortion is legal or not, there will be
> women who will seek abortion.
The fact is, whether any crime is legal or not, there will be people who
will commit the crime.
Bob Wilson
> In article <3880A255...@concentric.net>,> >> that to say I've done my research, had my run ins, etc....so I'm not
> >> just "making it up".
> >
> > And neither am I. I've been near the lines when that "peaceful"
> >form of demonstration did not appear to be as such.
(Which
> included violently ramming the back of my head against the top of the car
> frame as I was trying to answer their insinuation in a calm peaceful way.)
>
Isn't that too bad? Now you know how minorities feel.
> >> POLL people who are in Planned Parenthood leadership, and ask POINTED
> >> questions that will reveal their philosophies. Questions like:
> >>
> >> 1) Do you believe children who are unwanted by their parents stand a
> >> very high chance of becoming detriments to society?
> >
> > Statistically, this is true. Having one parent (as opposed to two)
> >is a significant predictor of the likelihood that that child will end up
> >in prison. The cause is in some respects obvious, and the numbers
> >themselves don't seem to be lying.
>
> Absolutely. I agree. (Not that an equal percentage of people with nice
> rich parents don't wind up being "sophistocated savages" :-) )
Isn't 'sophisticated savages' an oxymoron, you illogical lover of logic
you?
>
> >
> >> 2) Do you believe that it would have been better for mothers of
> >> these children to have had an abortion?
> >
> > As that is one question that could only be answered in hindsight, it
> >is presumptively unfair. What about the mother of Adolf Hitler? Idi
>
> Exactly. That's what I'm saying. So just ask the question. If
> they answer "well, since there's no way to know, you shouldn't kill
> anyone." then they will LOOSE their job at PP very quickly,
I assume you meant 'LOSE their job'. But so what? Doesn't an
organization have the right to expect it's employees to accept it's
goals? An employee at a church who went around saying how abortion was a
fine idea, and they were all for it would likely lose their job, too,
wouldn't they? Would you have a problem with it if that happened? Stop
being an idiot, Bob. Do you think the Repulican National Committee has
very many black, Socialist, Atheist, unwed mothers on their staff?
Should they be forced to hire some? If not, then why should Planned
Parenthood have to employ people who disagree with what they do?
Bob Wilson
> In article <388060...@attglobal.net>,> >> In article <85o657$igv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> Susan Lee <susa...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >Bob Weigel said:
> >> >(I snipped a lot for brevity)
> >> >> Quite aware, but much as Margaret Sanger has been dead for years,
> >> >> planned parenthood is still heavily saturated with people who hold to
> >> >> her "Eugenist" philosophies.
> >> >
> >> >What a ridiculous assertion. Do you have first hand experience with
> >> >this "saturation"? Are you relying on hearsay? Or are you just making
> >> >it up?
> >>
> >> I've spoken with many people. I've been involved in abortion sit
> >> ins and so on, and have been arrested for peaceful demonstration...all
> >> that to say I've done my research, had my run ins, etc....so I'm not
> >> something rediculous, DO THE RESEARCH yourself to disprove what I'm saying.
> >
> >
>
>
> Ahem...."saturation" is not the same as "everyone". I'm sure there are
> people involved in PP who are not understanding the Eugenic roots, and
> maybe even don't get involved in counselling people to kill babies....
> and I'm even quite certain that there are people in "cults" who
> aren't really adhered to it. They've been "socialized" into the group,
> and no doubt will depart from it someday.
>
> >It's a known fact that everyone who attends your church is a secret
>
> Ahh, now we're back to botrous language....Bigot. Bigot. Bogot...
>
Bob, please define 'Botrous'. I've never read this word before.
>
Richard Towry
> > > : : Seems like it'd be a safer, happier, friendlier, better world.
> > >
> > >
> > > There were no religious beliefs in Stalinist Russia? Funny that St.
> > > Basil's is still around.
> >
> > Russia the horrible failure that it was, that's as close an example as
> > you're going to find. Unless you'd like to try Mao's China.
>
> You lost me there. Please explain what you meant.
Ken's statement reminds me of a similar one a feminist friend suggested
to me years ago. She thought the world would be a much better place if
it were run completely by women. At first I thought she was trying to
be funny, but eventually I realized she truly believed it. When I asked
her why, she said something like, "The world has been run by men for
ages, and look at the mess they've made of it - wars, crime, racism,
etc." I didn't agree with her idea, but I found it difficult to argue
against it - to argue against something that had never been tried before
(at least in modern times). There were no countries completely run by
women that I could point to and say, "See there. That country is just
as messed up as the ones run by men."
Peter's use of Stalinist Russia as a counterexample to Ken's assertion
is not, of course, a perfect one, but it is among the best examples of a
religious free society that you can find. And for most of the Russians
living then, I think it's safe to say that they had a less than happy
existence. Now, it's all very well to claim that religious believers
still existed during Stalin's reign, but that only suggests that their
*absence* would have resulted in that "safer, happier, friendlier,
better world" that Ken was dreaming of. If that is not quaintly naive,
then it's at least conveniently insulated from criticism. (Of course,
you would be just as hard pressed trying to defend the idea as you would
trying to criticize it. I would challenge you to do so.)
Personally, I think Ken's statement is just another way of saying "If
everyone would just think like *me*, the world would be a safer, happier
place." And don't we all think that? :)
--
Richard W. Towry
rwt...@ameritech.net
"Hope springs eternal... once in a while."
-Mark Heard
Bob Wilson
> Bob Weigel wrote:
> >
> > I guess since you don't know anything about "my church", it would be
> > absurd for me to give any credence to your claims. On the other hand, PP
> > is a very common organization. If people want a functional knowledge of
> > what their local chapter is about, take those questions I suggested and
> > go down and ask them. I can giveyou the reference from Sangers' writings
> > that prove she's a Eugenist.
The word is 'Eugenecist', Bob. But so what? Everyone knows that
Margaret Sanger was interested in Eugenics. No one is trying to cover
that up. In those days, Eugenics did not have the negative connotation
that has today. That came during and after WW2. Many American
intellectuals were interested in Eugenics in Sanger's day, no doubt some
that you approve of as well. But PP, as it exist today, has no
connection at all with Eugenics, nor is it part of their operating
philosophy. You have set up a straw man argument, and as even as
enamored with your reasoning as you are, you shouldn't be surprised that
it has convinced no one. To claim that PP today is eugenecist today
because of Margaret Sanger makes as much sense as saying christianity
today is Fascist, because Hitler was a christian.
Bob Wilson
> In article <85qmap$c...@garcia.efn.org>,
> b...@efn.org (Bob Weigel) wrote:
>
> >Incidently, you know that all that appeared to be
> > "Beatles" was not...Clapton did most of Georges complex solo work in
> > those early albums I guess.
Wrong. Clapton played on 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and a couple of
others. On the early albums it's all George.
he beatles hit a "niche" and people
> > picked up on it and rode it for all it was worth. Lenon sucked as
> > a solo artist.
Wrong. He was great. He had many hit singles and Albums. Who the hell
are you to say that he sucked? He was having hits left and right while
you can't even get a record contract. Sour Grapes, man. If he was so
terrible and you're so great, why was he a big star, and you're nobody?
> I strongly disagree! Yoko Ono now..THERES some SUCKAGE!
I disagree. While she's certainly an acquired taste, if you listen to
her music from avant garde jazz viewpoint, it's really good, interesting
music. Did you know she had made records with Ornette Coleman before
even meeting John Lennon?
> The rest of them had enough money to get together
> > good musicians, but only Paul really wrote anything with and kind
> > of depth...though a lot of it sounded kind of drug induced and
> > incoherent.
While I also enjoyed Paul's solo work, I would disagree that it had more
'depth' than John Lennon's.
> I always thought Paul McCartneys solo work, while pleasant enough to
> listen to, utterly LACKED depth. Go figure!
>
> > That's what I see about the beatles.
> If you are into worshipping
> > capitolism, then they are it. I love a lot of the tunes because
> > a lot of money and hence thought went into making them. But the
> > direction played up to a movement in society that...was not a good
> > thing.
You are such an idiot. Can't you even enjoy listening to music without
worrying about how society might view such music? Jeez, lighten up.
Your opinions are not facts.
Bob Wilson
says...
But I went back and listened to all of those records again while trying
to keep an open mind, and voila!, and found myself liking them. While
most of his soundtracks weren't up the the impossibly high standard that
the King himself set with his earlier (and later) recordings, most of
those tunes actually do make for some pleasant listening. Elvis could
sing so good that he could make mediocre songs listenable. The only
records he made that I have no use for at all are the ones of Christian
Hymns. And even those sound better than they do in church.