a little buzzed, a lot cheesed off.
kitznegari.and.the.infinite.sadness
so very ceaselessly pissed off. I was robbed. When I was 13 I was robbed of
my entire existance, and there's no way to get back the 10 years that has been
wasted afterward. I keep trying to end myself because I can't stand to go on
this way.
This post is being made to verbalize the fact that I detest god. A 13 year old
kid does not deserve to be stripped and mutilated like I was... a child does
not deserve to miss out on their entire youth and then to become expected to
behave like an "adult" all of a sudden. From the day that I was born until
1999 I served him faithfully, and I was dealt every single bad hand that a
person could endure.
So this is it, god. A big "fuck you" to you, you invisible nobody, you
self-made proprietor of evil. Fuck you and everything you've ever created.
And a happy fucking new year to me. I'm going to become something with "your
majesty" on my side. I'd rather burn in hell for all eternity than be in
paradise with someone who would let little kids suffer in a hospital bed and
miss out on everything that makes a person someone who is worth existing. I
worshipped you for 23 years and you've been nothing but invisible made up
folklore that inspires people to become mindless, evangelizing zombies. I'm no
longer one of your programmable minions.
Strike me dead when I hit "send" if you feel like it. I want you to. I dare
you to. I don't even want to live in this fucking garbage hole you call "life"
because it's such a joke, and you're "followers" are the same. Death would be
a welcome change of pace.
*off to listen to some satanic hate-music now*
- kitz -
"Check the claws." -deftones
"When you're ripe you'll bleed out of control."
http://spinning_plates.tripod.com
Joel
news:20011231225727...@mb-mu.aol.com...
Aw kitz.... that ain't God, that's satan tryin' to make you think it's
God.... but anywho... *hug*
(BTW, we're not -all- zombies... Hell, I don't even think people need to
attend church every Sunday. And I'm a preachers kid. And I like extreme
rock. Heh. A lot of Christians are zombies though... )
Old Dan
news:20011231225727...@mb-mu.aol.com...
The only problem with abandoning God is that it brings the whole futility of
life thing into a completely new, much sharper persective. Then there's the
'yes I know life is futile, but I have this survival instinct thing which
means that knowing about being nothing but worm-food in a few short years
with my consciousness no longer existing at all scares the shit out of me so
what the hell can I do about that?' complex...
If I could've stuck with God, in any way, I would've. But then I've never
believed in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or anything else like that so I
guess I'm just a born sceptic.
Anyway, {{hugs}}
night night
Dan
Who's been up far, far too long. All night, in fact.
Simon Avery
Hello kitznegari.and.the.infinite.sadness
katis> Strike me dead when I hit "send" if you feel like it. I
katis> want you to. I dare you to. I don't even want to live in
katis> this fucking garbage hole you call "life" because it's such
katis> a joke, and you're "followers" are the same. Death would be
katis> a welcome change of pace.
You hate God, and you've certainly got more reason than most, but you
still believe in Him?
katis> *off to listen to some satanic hate-music now*
There is no Satan, IMO.
--
Simon Avery, Dartmoor, UK İ http://www.digdilem.org/
Leo Fellmann
"kitznegari.and.the.infinite.sadness" <kitzn...@aol.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:20011231225727...@mb-mu.aol.com...
*cheers*
Well, look at it this this way: if there is a god, did he create us ( well -
sort of, this kind of reasoning is faulty ) or did man create him?
>
> Strike me dead when I hit "send" if you feel like it. I want you to. I
dare
> you to. I don't even want to live in this fucking garbage hole you call
"life"
> because it's such a joke, and you're "followers" are the same. Death
would be
> a welcome change of pace.
Death - so tempting sometimes, no? But I suggest staying alive, just to show
the buggers.
>
> *off to listen to some satanic hate-music now*
Bah. They're just the other side of the same thing.
Leo Fellmann
"Old Dan" <da...@fledgeling.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1CgY7.3471$k35.4...@news1.cableinet.net...
> The only problem with abandoning God is that it brings the whole futility
of
> life thing into a completely new, much sharper persective. Then there's
the
> 'yes I know life is futile, but I have this survival instinct thing which
> means that knowing about being nothing but worm-food in a few short years
> with my consciousness no longer existing at all scares the shit out of me
so
> what the hell can I do about that?' complex...
Nah. I'd say you have 2 options - philosophy or hedonism.
Leo Fellmann
news:10098...@digdilem.org...
If you accept the existance of god, does this not logically also mean that
you accept the existance of Satan?
You can't just have one side of the stick.
Free Radical
Leo Fellmann <l.fel...@free.fr> wrote in message
*
> >
> > There is no Satan, IMO.
>
> If you accept the existance of god, does this not logically also mean that
> you accept the existance of Satan?
> You can't just have one side of the stick.
>
It is the existence of people that I question. We are just a psychodrama
being played on a big television in the heavens for the amusement of Satan.
lost reality
>sort of, this kind of reasoning is faulty ) or did man create him?
i dont really believe anything like this.i never have done, but i do have a
theory about the so called virgin mary....
i reckon that she was a whore who used to sleep around with most men in the
village and when she fell pregnant she wanted to move to another village, but
she didnt let her hubby onto the fact that she was preggers so she made a whole
story up about somthing to get away before peaple found out about her, so then
when she gave birth to the child later to be known as jesus, her hubby was
shocked about the whole thing, so as a thought on the spur of the moment she
told her hubby that she was a VIRGIN and that god came down and fucked the shit
out of her in a dream because you wouldnt, so she contradicts her self there a
little bit. and as her husband started to beleive this he eventually agreed to
it....and to cut a long story short, the three wise men are the 3 real possible
fathers, to see which one it looked like most.
sorry for the lengthy explanation and im sure im going t flamed at now by jsut
about every christian *zombie*
LR____________________________________________________________
water is the drug to make the soul euphoric.lose the reality and be part of me.
____________________________________________________________
Joel
news:20020101160110...@mb-bj.aol.com...
Not gonna comment on anything above, simply 'cause it's obvious you don't
believe in any of it, but what I will say is "There -weren't- three wise
men!" Grrr... There is no mention of the word 'three' anywhere -near-
references to the wise men. Also, if you think the wise men saw Jesus around
the same time the shepherds did, you're wrong as well. They came anywhere up
to two years later.
--Joel
Neo 1061
jacked into the Matrix and the following appeared in alt.geek:
>>Well, look at it this this way: if there is a god, did he create us ( well -
>>sort of, this kind of reasoning is faulty ) or did man create him?
>
>i dont really believe anything like this.i never have done, but i do have a
>theory about the so called virgin mary....
>
>i reckon that she was a whore who used to sleep around with most men in the
>village and when she fell pregnant she wanted to move to another village, but
>she didnt let her hubby onto the fact that she was preggers so she made a whole
>story up about somthing to get away before peaple found out about her, so then
>when she gave birth to the child later to be known as jesus, her hubby was
>shocked about the whole thing, so as a thought on the spur of the moment she
>told her hubby that she was a VIRGIN and that god came down and fucked the shit
>out of her in a dream because you wouldnt, so she contradicts her self there a
>little bit. and as her husband started to beleive this he eventually agreed to
>it....and to cut a long story short, the three wise men are the 3 real possible
>fathers, to see which one it looked like most.
>
>sorry for the lengthy explanation and im sure im going t flamed at now by jsut
>about every christian *zombie*
One theory I heard is that the "virgin Mary" was a Temple Virgin. Then
someone misunderstood the phrase and came up with that nonsense about
an "immaculate" conception. (A prude, obviously, as anyone else would
consider all the pain and bullshit of pregnancy and labour without the
fun bit at the beginning to be a real let-down if not an out-and-out
rip-off...)
No sig
Just me
AtomicPoo
I choose a combination of philosophy, and ethical hedonism.
Ethics are up to the person though.
Simon Avery
Hello Leo
>> You hate God, and you've certainly got more reason than
>> most, but you still believe in Him? *off to listen to some
>> satanic hate-music now* There is no Satan, IMO.
LF> If you accept the existance of god, does this not logically
LF> also mean that you accept the existance of Satan? You can't
LF> just have one side of the stick.
Exactly my point, Leo, exactly.
nothing to write home about
[snip]
> This post is being made to verbalize the fact that I detest god. A 13 year
> old kid does not deserve to be stripped and mutilated like I was... a child
> does not deserve to miss out on their entire youth and then to become
> expected to behave like an "adult" all of a sudden. From the day that I
> was born until 1999 I served him faithfully, and I was dealt every single
> bad hand that a person could endure.
do you think you would have found it easier or more difficult to cope with
your life since the age of thirteen if you'd been atheist?
and good luck, btw. losing long-term faith is difficult in a lot of ways. i
hope you're better off.
--
post geek
Kevin
nothing to write home about <post...@outrightspiritualdeath.com>
wrote:
In my experience those who "give-up" faith are one step closer to taking
the Red Pill. They may not be happier, but definitely a notch closer to
seeing the real world (which is why they aren't necessarily happier!).
But, to each their own. ;-)
kevin at quosig dot com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCA d-(+) s: a- C+(++)$>++++ UL>++++ P L>+ E? W+(++)$>+++ N++ o?
K-? w--- !O M+$(++) V? PS(+) PE Y+(++) PGP>++ t+(++) 5++ X+ R>+ tv+
b+>+++ DI+(++)>+++ D+(++) G(++)>+++ e(*) h+ r--(-)>+++ y+(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
"The more they overthink the plumbing,
the easier it is to stop-up the drain."
--Commander Montgomery Scott, "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Wednesday, January 2, 2002
6:00 PM PST
AtomicPoo
"Simon Avery" <SPAM.B.GO...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:10099...@digdilem.org...
> "Leo Fellmann" <l.fel...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> Hello Leo
>
> >> You hate God, and you've certainly got more reason than
> >> most, but you still believe in Him? *off to listen to some
> >> satanic hate-music now* There is no Satan, IMO.
>
> LF> If you accept the existance of god, does this not logically
> LF> also mean that you accept the existance of Satan? You can't
> LF> just have one side of the stick.
>
> Exactly my point, Leo, exactly.
Errr, okay. Maybe I'm a little off the mark here, but that's only within
the realms of written religious texts. Why can't one say "I beleive in God,
but not Satan". Isn't it a personal choice?
AtomicPoo
"nothing to write home about" <post...@outrightspiritualdeath.com> wrote in
message news:a3abb1f...@cam.ac.uk...
I've been an atheist all my life (my parents never bothered with religion)
and so it's quite possible to cope. I don't see why some need god to give
their life purpose. There's purpose in just existing. Why would anyone
want to stop existing simply because they now beleive that there is no
supreme being? Find interests, and make those interests the reason why you
want to live. Knowing someone you care about would probably help also.
Its certainly a difficult concept to imagine that at some point your
consciousness will cease to exist, perhaps more disturbing than
anything...hell, I stay awake at night thinking about it. In the end, I
told myself that's simply the bargain, and it's somthing I am going to have
to deal with if I want to get anywhere with the rest of my life.
That's not to say of course, that it doesn't still bother me. :)
It's like life is one great bet, and only at the end do you either collect,
or simply loose.
Free Radical
AtomicPoo <atomi...@dieevilspammer.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> I've been an atheist all my life (my parents never bothered with religion)
> and so it's quite possible to cope. I don't see why some need god to give
> their life purpose. There's purpose in just existing. Why would anyone
> want to stop existing simply because they now beleive that there is no
> supreme being? Find interests, and make those interests the reason why
you
> want to live. Knowing someone you care about would probably help also.
>
It seems to me that the lure of a perpetual reward is more likely to lead
one to the dark side than living in the present making choices on the basis
of immediate and tangible results. Those being lured by the promise of
eternal bliss are always trying to guess what God wants of them and how to
earn that reward. And they are always arguing among themselves about what
it is that will earn them a place among the few that actually succeed in
gaining Gods favor. Those that actually believe they know the one truth
tend to get blinded by their swelled head.
Methuselah Jones
> This post is being made to verbalize the fact that I detest god. A 13 year old
> kid does not deserve to be stripped and mutilated like I was... a child does not
> deserve to miss out on their entire youth and then to become expected to behave
> like an "adult" all of a sudden. From the day that I was born until 1999 I
> served him faithfully, and I was dealt every single bad hand that a person could
> endure.
>
> So this is it, god. A big "fuck you" to you, you invisible nobody, you self-made
> proprietor of evil. Fuck you and everything you've ever created. And a happy
> fucking new year to me. I'm going to become something with "your majesty" on my
> side. I'd rather burn in hell for all eternity than be in paradise with someone
> who would let little kids suffer in a hospital bed and miss out on everything
> that makes a person someone who is worth existing. I worshipped you for 23 years
> and you've been nothing but invisible made up folklore that inspires people to
> become mindless, evangelizing zombies. I'm no longer one of your programmable
> minions.
I was raised a Seventh-Day Adventist. For the first part of my life I followed
along contentedly, and in my late teens even became quite devoted and active. Then
one day I asked myself why I believed what I did, and the only reason I could come
up with was because it was what I had been taught. That was not an acceptable
answer. The only other possibility was that it gave me a feeling of peace and
happiness. I decided that, if I could achieve that same thing on my own, there
really was no reason. So I decided to see if I could. I decided to seek truth on
an objective basis, keeping an open mind, and see where it led. If it led back to
where I started, that was fine; at least I would know why I was there. So I became
an instant atheist, and started looking.
I believe in god, but not necessarily God. That is, I believe in a supreme being,
but my concept of such is not necessarily the same as anyone else's. Religion is a
very personal thing; you could take two people sitting beside each other in their
pews, who are in apparent total agreement about their religion; and if you
questioned them closely and in depth, you would find that they have very different
*concepts* of things. It's a very personal, individual matter, strictly between the
person and (G|god)|(L|life)|(T|the U|universe)|(K|karma)|(W|whatever). And this is
why I always say that everyone has religion, even if they don't call it that.
Everything happens for a reason. That doesn't mean that it's part of some big plan
or something, just that every effect has a cause. There's an old Chinese proverb:
"Looking for Truth is like riding an ox in search of an ox." Truth isn't "out
there", it's right here -- all around you. Life is its own purpose, whether you
believe it ends in a total void at death, or whether you believe it goes on, in a
mystical sense or a heaven/hell sense or a reincarnation sense, or something else.
If you learn to find happiness in the fact of being alive, then you will always
find happiness so long as you are alive, ipso facto.
I don't mean to sound cliche' or platitudinous. Reading back over what I've
written, it sounds a bit easy or glib, but I don't know how else to put it. What
I've learned, the road that I've traveled, has most definitely not been easy. Your
post really struck a chord in me. But I have survived and I have learned; I just
try to express how I see things, in the hope that it helps. It may or may not; I
hope it does.
--
Methuselah
"We have an obligation to one another, responsibilities and trusts. That means that
we should look out for one another when and as much as we can; and that we have a
personal responsibility for our behavior; and that our behavior has consequences of
a very real and profound nature. We are not powerless. We have tremendous potential
for good or ill. How we choose to use that power is up to us; but first we must
choose to use it. We're told every day, 'You can't change the world.' But the world
is changing every day. Only question is...who's doing it? You or somebody else?
Will you choose to lead, or be led by others?"
-- J. Michael Straczynski
Thanatos
> As an atheist, I welcome you to the world of notgodtheism. :)
>
> The only problem with abandoning God is that it brings the whole futility of
> life thing into a completely new, much sharper persective. Then there's the
> 'yes I know life is futile, but I have this survival instinct thing which
> means that knowing about being nothing but worm-food in a few short years
> with my consciousness no longer existing at all scares the shit out of me so
> what the hell can I do about that?' complex...
Indeed, scary. But there is nothing that can be done.
> If I could've stuck with God, in any way, I would've. But then I've never
> believed in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or anything else like that so I
> guess I'm just a born sceptic.
Yeah, I want to see hard evidence. :)
> Dan
> Who's been up far, far too long. All night, in fact.
Cool.
Shane.
--
[PGP: 0x035e63e3]
I just want to feel every part of me, touching every part of you..
huh huh.. especially your thingies. - Butt-head.
Thanatos
> Strike me dead when I hit "send" if you feel like it. I want you to. I dare
> you to. I don't even want to live in this fucking garbage hole you call "life"
> because it's such a joke, and you're "followers" are the same. Death would be
> a welcome change of pace.
We wouldn't be happy about that.
> *off to listen to some satanic hate-music now*
God hates us all. -Slayer. :)
Curious Gene
> kitznegari.and.the.infinite.sadness wrote:
>> Strike me dead when I hit "send" if you feel like it. I want you to. I dare
>> you to. I don't even want to live in this fucking garbage hole you call "life"
>> because it's such a joke, and you're "followers" are the same. Death would be
>> a welcome change of pace.
> We wouldn't be happy about that.
>> *off to listen to some satanic hate-music now*
> God hates us all. -Slayer. :)
I knew you were going to say that. Is it any good? I haven't had the
chance to pick up a copy of it yet.
--
Gene Sullivan | System Operator | ge...@xlrn.ucsb.edu
Who mouths inanity disorders thought for all who listen. There must
be some minimum allowable dose of inanity beyond which the mind cannot
remain reasonable. -The Underground Grammarian
Curious Gene
> Curious Gene <ge...@xlrn.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>> I knew you were going to say that. Is it any good? I haven't had the
>> chance to pick up a copy of it yet.
> "Raining Blood," you're missing out on a terrifying, terrifying thing.
I've been meaning to pick up _Strange Little Girls_ as well. I hate
not having disposable income. I'm interested to hear "New Age" and
"Happiness Is a Warm Gun."
Simon Avery
Hello AtomicPoo
>> LF> If you accept the existance of god, does this not
>> LF> logically also mean that you accept the existance of
>> LF> Satan? You can't just have one side of the stick.
>> Exactly my point, Leo, exactly.
A> Errr, okay. Maybe I'm a little off the mark here, but
A> that's only within the realms of written religious texts.
A> Why can't one say "I beleive in God, but not Satan". Isn't
A> it a personal choice?
I want to add a disclaimer before I go any further, for anyone
reading:
If anyone gets upset by my talking about religion and gets all uppity
- I ain't replying. IME, nobody can ever change anyone else's thoughts
on religion, and one geek talking abstractly about the subject in a ng
isn't going to change your way of thinking, so don't feel threatened
and act like a berk, mmm'kay?
Right...
My saying "There is not Satan" is exactly the same as saying "There is
no God" - you can't have one without the other, ying to yang, bad cop
to good cop.
If you say you believe in God, it follows you believe what's Written,
and what's Written is that God's fallen angel is Satan. (Jeez, how
many times must I stop myself typing "santa"?) If you choose not to
believe in Satan, you're chosing not to believe in God's Word.
I don't believe in Christianity, despite having been raised one. Too
much has been disproved by science and too many terrible things done
in its name. And, when it comes down to it, I don't need it.
Christianity offers a lot of excuses and asks you to believe in an
awful lot of rumour and supposition as if it were fact. Science has to
prove its findings, Religion calls you a blasphemer if you dare to
question.
I haven't found a religion that matches my own thinking yet. Certain
parallels with paganism, buddhism and maybe taoism as well - but
nothing close enough to hang a label on.
Maybe I'll just go worship at the Church of Dilbert.
Free Radical
Why can't I reason out that the word you speak of is man's word and may
contain some inaccuracy that I choose not to believe? Why would reasoning
like that negate a belief in God? Even a God close to a fundamentalist
perception?
Kevin
"Free Radical" <freera...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If you say you believe in God, it follows you believe what's Written,
> > and what's Written is that God's fallen angel is Satan. (Jeez, how
> > many times must I stop myself typing "santa"?) If you choose not to
> > believe in Satan, you're chosing not to believe in God's Word.
> >
>
> Why can't I reason out that the word you speak of is man's word and may
> contain some inaccuracy that I choose not to believe? Why would reasoning
> like that negate a belief in God? Even a God close to a fundamentalist
> perception?
Could it have something to do with the fact that Christians can't make
up their minds? Some treat it as literal rules, some treat it as a broad
overview, some use both sides to defend whatever when it's convenient
(Jehovah's Witness seem particularly prone to this behavior)--broad one
minute, loose interpretations, very specific quoting exact details when
it's handy.
And how many English-speaking Christians bothered to learn Hebrew or
Latin to get closer to the source? King James is the end result of a
game of Telephone (remember that game in grade school?).
Besides, when it comes right down to it, "God" (or one of his offspring)
hasn't bothered to make a personal appearance in quite a while. For all
we know he could be *dead* or moved on to another teraforming
experiement.
And for that matter, I think if Jesus walked into any major metropolitan
town, right now, we'd think he was a cook. Almost all (or maybe all by
now) Biblical "miracles" except for Creation can be explain by logical
science and the effect of time on ancient stories, even the parting of
the Red Sea and Noah's Flood.
And then there is the whole matter of Evolution....
kevin at quosig dot com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCA d-(+) s: a- C+(++)$>++++ UL>++++ P L>+ E? W+(++)$>+++ N++ o?
K-? w--- !O M+$(++) V? PS(+) PE Y+(++) PGP>++ t+(++) 5++ X+ R>+ tv+
b+>+++ DI+(++)>+++ D+(++) G(++)>+++ e(*) h+ r--(-)>+++ y+(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
"The more they overthink the plumbing,
the easier it is to stop-up the drain."
--Commander Montgomery Scott, "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Thursday, January 3, 2002
6:45 PM PST
Free Radical
Kevin <ke...@quosig.com> wrote in message
news:kevin-42EE02....@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
> In article <MG7Z7.69540$a56....@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com>,
> "Free Radical" <freera...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you say you believe in God, it follows you believe what's Written,
> > > and what's Written is that God's fallen angel is Satan. (Jeez, how
> > > many times must I stop myself typing "santa"?) If you choose not to
> > > believe in Satan, you're chosing not to believe in God's Word.
> > >
> >
> > Why can't I reason out that the word you speak of is man's word and may
> > contain some inaccuracy that I choose not to believe? Why would
reasoning
> > like that negate a belief in God? Even a God close to a fundamentalist
> > perception?
>
> Could it have something to do with the fact that Christians can't make
> up their minds? Some treat it as literal rules, some treat it as a broad
> overview, some use both sides to defend whatever when it's convenient
> (Jehovah's Witness seem particularly prone to this behavior)--broad one
> minute, loose interpretations, very specific quoting exact details when
> it's handy.
Well yeah! There is that.
>
> And how many English-speaking Christians bothered to learn Hebrew or
> Latin to get closer to the source? King James is the end result of a
> game of Telephone (remember that game in grade school?).
Hmmm! Now that you mention it does seem like eternal damnation or bliss are
pretty big odds to be leaving up to the chance of an interpretation. The
size of the reward and risks would warrant some effort to be sure that one
understands the rules.
>
> Besides, when it comes right down to it, "God" (or one of his offspring)
> hasn't bothered to make a personal appearance in quite a while. For all
> we know he could be *dead* or moved on to another teraforming
> experiement.
They did promise to come back! But as much as they used to argue I would
say it is a fair chance they just scrapped the whole project.
>
> And for that matter, I think if Jesus walked into any major metropolitan
> town, right now, we'd think he was a cook. Almost all (or maybe all by
> now) Biblical "miracles" except for Creation can be explain by logical
> science and the effect of time on ancient stories, even the parting of
> the Red Sea and Noah's Flood.
>
> And then there is the whole matter of Evolution....
>
Evolution is a demonstratable phenomenon. But there are enough deviations
from what should be reasonable to expect that it warrants considering the
possibility of intervention.
Joel
"Free Radical" <freera...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hV8Z7.71490$a56....@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
| Evolution is a demonstratable phenomenon. But there are enough deviations
| from what should be reasonable to expect that it warrants considering the
| possibility of intervention.
No it ain't. Natural Selection is demonstratable (it's also a Half-Life mod
that's coming out... really cool...) but Evolution is not.
--Joel
Kevin
Kevin <ke...@quosig.com> wrote:
> And for that matter, I think if Jesus walked into any major metropolitan
> town, right now, we'd think he was a cook.
Make that "kook"....*LOL*...he wasn't a cook, he was a carpenter. ;-)
kevin at quosig dot com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCA d-(+) s: a- C+(++)$>++++ UL>++++ P L>+ E? W+(++)$>+++ N++ o?
K-? w--- !O M+$(++) V? PS(+) PE Y+(++) PGP>++ t+(++) 5++ X+ R>+ tv+
b+>+++ DI+(++)>+++ D+(++) G(++)>+++ e(*) h+ r--(-)>+++ y+(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
"The more they overthink the plumbing,
the easier it is to stop-up the drain."
--Commander Montgomery Scott, "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Thursday, January 3, 2002
7:37 PM PST
Free Radical
Joel <mole...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a137rg$o5v$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
So those experiments with salamanders being raised in and out of the dark
showed nothing about the biological ability to adapt to the environment?
The loss and gain of sight had nothing to do with natural selection.
>
>
kitznegari.and.the.infinite.sadness
>> As an atheist, I welcome you to the world of notgodtheism. :)
But now when I become a drunk, I'm ruled out of the whole 12 step program.
We hates being excluded.
- kitz -
"Check the claws." -deftones
"What has it got in its pocketses?"
http://spinning_plates.tripod.com
Kevin
"Free Radical" <freera...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Besides, when it comes right down to it, "God" (or one of his offspring)
> > hasn't bothered to make a personal appearance in quite a while. For all
> > we know he could be *dead* or moved on to another teraforming
> > experiement.
>
> They did promise to come back! But as much as they used to argue I would
> say it is a fair chance they just scrapped the whole project.
Well, personally, I wish they *would* come back and actually scrap the
project. I know this is a downer opinion for the few who realize the
problem and would like to fix it, but the majority does not and the
planet would benefit from the absence of the "entities" making up this
experiement. Shame the few humans would suffer the same fate, but *shrug*
> > And for that matter, I think if Jesus walked into any major metropolitan
> > town, right now, we'd think he was a cook. Almost all (or maybe all by
> > now) Biblical "miracles" except for Creation can be explain by logical
> > science and the effect of time on ancient stories, even the parting of
> > the Red Sea and Noah's Flood.
> >
> > And then there is the whole matter of Evolution....
> >
>
> Evolution is a demonstratable phenomenon. But there are enough deviations
> from what should be reasonable to expect that it warrants considering the
> possibility of intervention.
Or just an adjusted timeframe...we humans think too short-term. ;-)
They've already proven that tree-dating is more reliable than carbon
dating so they're already in the process of re-writing a good chunk of
pre-civilized history. Who knows what's next.
But even so, suppose "intervention" is what happened....was it a supreme
being or a being with just a few zillion year head-start in technology?
Maybe we have our very own Vorlons and Shadows screwing-around with
things (I always did *love* that conclusion on B5...).
kevin at quosig dot com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCA d-(+) s: a- C+(++)$>++++ UL>++++ P L>+ E? W+(++)$>+++ N++ o?
K-? w--- !O M+$(++) V? PS(+) PE Y+(++) PGP>++ t+(++) 5++ X+ R>+ tv+
b+>+++ DI+(++)>+++ D+(++) G(++)>+++ e(*) h+ r--(-)>+++ y+(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
"The more they overthink the plumbing,
the easier it is to stop-up the drain."
--Commander Montgomery Scott, "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Thursday, January 3, 2002
7:42 PM PST
kitznegari.and.the.infinite.sadness
>> *off to listen to some satanic hate-music now*
>
>God hates us all. -Slayer. :)
The more I become aware of how unreal god is, the more I like rock music for
making me doubt everything else. Or something. -kitz.the.backseat.philosopher
Methuselah Jones
> And for that matter, I think if Jesus walked into any major metropolitan town,
> right now, we'd think he was a cook.
Mmmm. I hear He makes a great Denver omelet.
--
Methuselah
Fear not the evil men do in the name of evil, but heaven protect us from the
evil men do in the name of good.
Kevin
Jeffrey D Johnson <je...@kokehan.ath.cx> wrote:
> Kevin <ke...@quosig.com> wrote:
> > Besides, when it comes right down to it, "God" (or one of his offspring)
> > hasn't bothered to make a personal appearance in quite a while. For all
> > we know he could be *dead* or moved on to another teraforming
> > experiement.
>
> Who says God hasn't shown up? I see God every time I look at a flower bed,
> everytime I watch somebody cry from joy, everytime I watch somebody cry
> from sadness, every time I take in a breath of cold air.
Funny, I see beautiful flowers, someone crying for joy, crying from
sadness, and a breath of cold air. ;-)
I see human beings reflecting in their own thoughts (or non-thoughts as
the case may be). I see evolution at it's finest, I see a plethora of
genetic and biological diversity and a marvel at the beauty, biology,
biochemisty, and more.
And you know what, not seeing God does not change my wonderment,
excitement, and my feelings about any of those things. I understand
clouds are simply water vapor, yet they are still "pretty." I can
believe in romance, even though I know that factually speaking, it's
pheremones and a biological sex drive.
Understanding a thing does not mean the beauty or wonder is lost, and
does not require the intervention of a higher being.
> I'm not a Christian
> by any stretch of the imagination, but I think no matter what the
> interpretation of the original idea, if you're expecting an old man with a
> beard in a long robe speaking Aramaic and turning stones into bread, you're
> not gonna see it.
Yet if you ask a Christian, they implicitly believe it will happen some
day...either actually or metaphorically, depending on which Christian
sect they belong to.
;-)
kevin at quosig dot com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCA d-(+) s: a- C+(++)$>++++ UL>++++ P L>+ E? W+(++)$>+++ N++ o?
K-? w--- !O M+$(++) V? PS(+) PE Y+(++) PGP>++ t+(++) 5++ X+ R>+ tv+
b+>+++ DI+(++)>+++ D+(++) G(++)>+++ e(*) h+ r--(-)>+++ y+(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
"The more they overthink the plumbing,
the easier it is to stop-up the drain."
--Commander Montgomery Scott, "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Thursday, January 3, 2002
7:49 PM PST
Kevin
"Joel" <mole...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> | Evolution is a demonstratable phenomenon. But there are enough deviations
> | from what should be reasonable to expect that it warrants considering the
> | possibility of intervention.
>
> No it ain't. Natural Selection is demonstratable (it's also a Half-Life mod
> that's coming out... really cool...) but Evolution is not.
Care to explain the outwardly-seeming semantic hair you're splitting?
kevin at quosig dot com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCA d-(+) s: a- C+(++)$>++++ UL>++++ P L>+ E? W+(++)$>+++ N++ o?
K-? w--- !O M+$(++) V? PS(+) PE Y+(++) PGP>++ t+(++) 5++ X+ R>+ tv+
b+>+++ DI+(++)>+++ D+(++) G(++)>+++ e(*) h+ r--(-)>+++ y+(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
"The more they overthink the plumbing,
the easier it is to stop-up the drain."
--Commander Montgomery Scott, "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Thursday, January 3, 2002
7:51 PM PST
Joel
| Or just an adjusted timeframe...we humans think too short-term. ;-)
| They've already proven that tree-dating is more reliable than carbon
| dating so they're already in the process of re-writing a good chunk of
| pre-civilized history. Who knows what's next.
I never did like carbon14 dating. Too many loose variables back them
thousands 'o years.
--Joel
Joel
Sure it did. Natural selection is an adaptation using already existing
genetic prelidiction (I can't find it in the dictionary, but it sorta means
tendency.). Evolution is a fundamental change to the structure of the
organism itself, a radical difference, such as extra limbs or something.
The prelidiction for being born with better/worse vision is -already-
present within organisms, but it's quite another thing for something with
four legs to be born with six, or eight, in a response to some sort of
environmental change.
--Joel, responding to the both of your posts... both Kevin's and Free
Radicals.
Free Radical
Kevin <ke...@quosig.com> wrote in message
>
> But even so, suppose "intervention" is what happened....was it a supreme
> being or a being with just a few zillion year head-start in technology?
> Maybe we have our very own Vorlons and Shadows screwing-around with
> things (I always did *love* that conclusion on B5...).
>
Might have been technologically advanced beings with advanced knowledge of
supreem beings.
Free Radical
> |
> | So those experiments with salamanders being raised in and out of the
dark
> | showed nothing about the biological ability to adapt to the environment?
> | The loss and gain of sight had nothing to do with natural selection.
>
> Sure it did. Natural selection is an adaptation using already existing
> genetic prelidiction (I can't find it in the dictionary, but it sorta
means
> tendency.).
Uh uh! Natural selection is when less fit genetic tendencies get killed off
by environmental factors. Allowing for more it tendancies to grow and
breed.
Evolution is a fundamental change to the structure of the
> organism itself, a radical difference, such as extra limbs or something.
> The prelidiction for being born with better/worse vision is -already-
> present within organisms, but it's quite another thing for something with
> four legs to be born with six, or eight, in a response to some sort of
> environmental change.
Uh uh! Evolution is slow gradual change due to accident or environmental
stimuli.
s.
>
>
Free Radical
Agreed! Scientists have been claiming greater knowledge than they could
actually substantiate since the beginning of science.
Kevin
"Joel" <mole...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sure it did. Natural selection is an adaptation using already existing
> genetic prelidiction (I can't find it in the dictionary, but it sorta means
> tendency.). Evolution is a fundamental change to the structure of the
> organism itself, a radical difference, such as extra limbs or something.
> The prelidiction for being born with better/worse vision is -already-
> present within organisms, but it's quite another thing for something with
> four legs to be born with six, or eight, in a response to some sort of
> environmental change.
Actually, from what I understood, Natural Selection is just the
mechanism by which Evolution works. Nobody said man just jumped straight
from monkeys...there are dozens of hominids, quite a few dead-end lines
(typical of antural selection...nature tries something that doesn't
work).
As I recall, the two terms go hand in hand, complementing each other,
not at opposition.
I mean, if a sea animal can become a land animal and then become a sea
animal again before *we* come on the scene, "evolution" still has it's
place.
kevin at quosig dot com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCA d-(+) s: a- C+(++)$>++++ UL>++++ P L>+ E? W+(++)$>+++ N++ o?
K-? w--- !O M+$(++) V? PS(+) PE Y+(++) PGP>++ t+(++) 5++ X+ R>+ tv+
b+>+++ DI+(++)>+++ D+(++) G(++)>+++ e(*) h+ r--(-)>+++ y+(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
"The more they overthink the plumbing,
the easier it is to stop-up the drain."
--Commander Montgomery Scott, "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Thursday, January 3, 2002
8:42 PM PST
Kevin
"Free Radical" <freera...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > | Or just an adjusted timeframe...we humans think too short-term. ;-)
> > | They've already proven that tree-dating is more reliable than carbon
> > | dating so they're already in the process of re-writing a good chunk of
> > | pre-civilized history. Who knows what's next.
> >
> > I never did like carbon14 dating. Too many loose variables back them
> > thousands 'o years.
> >
>
> Agreed! Scientists have been claiming greater knowledge than they could
> actually substantiate since the beginning of science.
That's the difference between Science and Christianity. Science makes
mistakes, but keeps going, and usually arrives at decent conclusions
eventually. Sometimes they have to eat crow and try again, sometimes a
true genious comes along and solves everything at it works until the end
of time.
With Christianity, it's based on a book (more like an anthology or
collection of short stories), and thus is fixed. The only way to make it
evolve to fit new conditions is to violate the strict tenants,
over-broaden certain concepts (while keeping other specific, which
itself is a contradiction), and generally maul the intent of the book.
OR, you keep the intent and live isolated from the world to make it work
(Tibet Monks and the Amish come to mind as examples of isolation that
helps religion, not necessarily Christian of course).
Either way, you end up with a religion with which the Bible holds less
meaning (and thus is a creation of Man, not God by definition), or risk
your religion dying or becoming an anachronism.
Science may not be as comforting as religion, but at least science
acknowledges it's own faults.
kevin at quosig dot com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCA d-(+) s: a- C+(++)$>++++ UL>++++ P L>+ E? W+(++)$>+++ N++ o?
K-? w--- !O M+$(++) V? PS(+) PE Y+(++) PGP>++ t+(++) 5++ X+ R>+ tv+
b+>+++ DI+(++)>+++ D+(++) G(++)>+++ e(*) h+ r--(-)>+++ y+(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
"The more they overthink the plumbing,
the easier it is to stop-up the drain."
--Commander Montgomery Scott, "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Thursday, January 3, 2002
8:48 PM PST
Free Radical
> In article <edaZ7.73190$a56....@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com>,
> "Free Radical" <freera...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > | Or just an adjusted timeframe...we humans think too short-term. ;-)
> > > | They've already proven that tree-dating is more reliable than carbon
> > > | dating so they're already in the process of re-writing a good chunk
of
> > > | pre-civilized history. Who knows what's next.
> > >
> > > I never did like carbon14 dating. Too many loose variables back them
> > > thousands 'o years.
> > >
> >
> > Agreed! Scientists have been claiming greater knowledge than they could
> > actually substantiate since the beginning of science.
>
> That's the difference between Science and Christianity. Science makes
> mistakes, but keeps going, and usually arrives at decent conclusions
> eventually. Sometimes they have to eat crow and try again, sometimes a
> true genious comes along and solves everything at it works until the end
> of time.
>
> With Christianity, it's based on a book (more like an anthology or
> collection of short stories), and thus is fixed. The only way to make it
> evolve to fit new conditions is to violate the strict tenants,
> over-broaden certain concepts (while keeping other specific, which
> itself is a contradiction), and generally maul the intent of the book.
>
Christianity evolved with the introduction of the new testament. The Church
of Later day Saints evolved with the introduction of the book of Mormon.
Catholicism in constantly evolving with the acceptance of new
interpretations and the acceptance of new documentation such as the Gospel
of Thomas. Religions are constantly evolving. If they did not people would
still be sacrificing live goats.
Kevin
Jeffrey D Johnson <je...@kokehan.ath.cx> wrote:
> Kevin <ke...@quosig.com> wrote:
> > I can
> > believe in romance, even though I know that factually speaking, it's
> > pheremones and a biological sex drive.
> You've obviously never been in love. :)
Truly in love, that is quite possible. Way too few females take the Red
Pill.
Experienced the pheremones thing though...wow, powerful stuff! Lots of
fun combined with lots of trouble. We still talk to each other, but only
hang-out when there's at least one other friend along. 5 years later and
we still don't trust each other alone in a room for too long. Woohoo!
But "True Love" as it where, no, you're right. That's why I'm still
single and looking. ;-)
> > Understanding a thing does not mean the beauty or wonder is lost, and
> > does not require the intervention of a higher being.
> How does your scientific understanding differ at all from a religious
> understanding? Show me one scientific 'truth' that's based in concrete,
> known facts, with no connection to anything that hasn't been proven, and
> I'll bow down. I believe in scientific explanations too, wholeheartedly,
> but I don't believe one explanation is any better than another just because
> it's based on a different set of unproven theories. No matter what
> explanation for any phenomenon you're dealing with, at some point in its
> explanation chain you're going to find a leap of faith.
Well, then the braking point for me is that the leap of faith in Science
is that you believe there may yet be another discovery behind the basis
you've built your knowledge on. We can't see Quarks, for example, yet
some day we might and it could turn everything on-end.
In my understanding, Science does not outlaw an inifinit regression of
this manner. And it can be question and tested...and nobody considers in
blasphemous. Sure, people get cranky (witness the nastiness surround
room-temperature fusion), but even those nasty one would (or should)
probably admit that such constant questioning is usefula and necessary.
However, there is *no* way to prove God exists...even the circumstantial
evidence is shakey. And by definition, there can be nothing "beyond"
God. Questioning religion is "bad" unless it's done on religion's own
terms, and then it can never prove anything against religion. It's
self-sustaining in the worst way, by blindness. It's asking the forger
to authenticate the painting of the Mona Lisa in his hallway!
> > Yet if you ask a Christian, they implicitly believe it will happen some
> > day...either actually or metaphorically, depending on which Christian
> > sect they belong to.
>
> And? They don't need to see God to believe God. That's their leap of
> faith. Science? Doesn't need to see electrons to believe electrons.
Yet the circumstantial eveidence in favor of electrons is alot better
than the existance of God...a how many hundred year old book translated
how many times by how many humans with how many agendas and human many
control fetishes?
You're right, both rely on faith, but one to me has more basis in
reality--the reality of existance itself and the self realization of the
fallacy of the scientists themselves. God is assumed perfect, which I
can't buy. I've never assumed science was...it's "good", maybe
"excellent," but not perfect.
kevin at quosig dot com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCA d-(+) s: a- C+(++)$>++++ UL>++++ P L>+ E? W+(++)$>+++ N++ o?
K-? w--- !O M+$(++) V? PS(+) PE Y+(++) PGP>++ t+(++) 5++ X+ R>+ tv+
b+>+++ DI+(++)>+++ D+(++) G(++)>+++ e(*) h+ r--(-)>+++ y+(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
"The more they overthink the plumbing,
the easier it is to stop-up the drain."
--Commander Montgomery Scott, "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Thursday, January 3, 2002
9:13 PM PST
Kevin
"Free Radical" <freera...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yet if you ask those in the orthodox forms, that very "evolving" goes
against the Bible, the foundation of their religion. The same would go
for the Koran or other "definitive" holy works supposedly given by "God."
Ask a Jehovah's Witness, for example, what they think of Catholics,
Protestants, Muslims, etc. and they cane come up with hundreds of
reasons these religions have violated the Bible both literally in in
spirit. Ask a Muslim about Jesus and they'll say he's just another
prophet (at best) and Ibrahim (Abraham) is the true path.
Both would claim such "evolutions" are blasphemous. In my view, such
evolution is hypocritical because it either is, or isn't, the word of
God. If it is, who the heck is Man to change it or re-interpret it. If
it isn't, why not just throw the darn thing away and read L. Ron
Hubbard? ;-)
And for the record, some followers of forms of Christianity *do*
practice all the ancient rights. The "orthodox" Muslims go the furthest
because they follow the teachings of Abraham, which is whole different
world from the teachings of Jesus.
Of course, Abraham always got some Divine help, which must have Muslims
at a loss...at least followers of Jesus know God doesn't get involved as
much. ;-)
(FWIW: On these religious reference, I'm playing Devil's Advocate,
pardon the pun, by using their own definitions and logic structures
against them, which they rarely do themselves.)
So yes, it's evolution, but it's evolution contrary to itself and it's
own teachings. It also dillutes it's own meaning to the point where
there is little moral foundation left (and is not Christianity about a
code moral and ethical conduct?).
So maybe it's evolving, yet it's real close to having Natural Selection
make it a moot point? Now there's a thought I can live with...
kevin at quosig dot com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCA d-(+) s: a- C+(++)$>++++ UL>++++ P L>+ E? W+(++)$>+++ N++ o?
K-? w--- !O M+$(++) V? PS(+) PE Y+(++) PGP>++ t+(++) 5++ X+ R>+ tv+
b+>+++ DI+(++)>+++ D+(++) G(++)>+++ e(*) h+ r--(-)>+++ y+(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
"The more they overthink the plumbing,
the easier it is to stop-up the drain."
--Commander Montgomery Scott, "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Thursday, January 3, 2002
9:24 PM PST
kitznegari.and.the.infinite.sadness
>Truly in love, that is quite possible. Way too few females take the Red
>Pill.
ROTFL
Oh brother!
Joel
"Kevin" <ke...@quosig.com> wrote in message
news:kevin-48DC30....@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
| In article <a139uv$ojj$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
| "Joel" <mole...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| > Sure it did. Natural selection is an adaptation using already existing
| > genetic prelidiction (I can't find it in the dictionary, but it sorta
means
| > tendency.). Evolution is a fundamental change to the structure of the
| > organism itself, a radical difference, such as extra limbs or something.
| > The prelidiction for being born with better/worse vision is -already-
| > present within organisms, but it's quite another thing for something
with
| > four legs to be born with six, or eight, in a response to some sort of
| > environmental change.
|
| Actually, from what I understood, Natural Selection is just the
| mechanism by which Evolution works. Nobody said man just jumped straight
| from monkeys...there are dozens of hominids, quite a few dead-end lines
| (typical of antural selection...nature tries something that doesn't
| work).
|
| As I recall, the two terms go hand in hand, complementing each other,
| not at opposition.
|
| I mean, if a sea animal can become a land animal and then become a sea
| animal again before *we* come on the scene, "evolution" still has it's
| place.
|
| kevin at quosig dot com
|
| -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
| Version: 3.12
| GCA d-(+) s: a- C+(++)$>++++ UL>++++ P L>+ E? W+(++)$>+++ N++ o?
| K-? w--- !O M+$(++) V? PS(+) PE Y+(++) PGP>++ t+(++) 5++ X+ R>+ tv+
| b+>+++ DI+(++)>+++ D+(++) G(++)>+++ e(*) h+ r--(-)>+++ y+(-)
| ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
|
| "The more they overthink the plumbing,
| the easier it is to stop-up the drain."
| --Commander Montgomery Scott, "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
|
| Thursday, January 3, 2002
| 8:42 PM PST
Ok, to the both of you... I don't know if the two terms are different in the
way I described them or not, but I know I've never seen -true- evolution
demonstrated in any way. An organism losing sight, or any other already
pre-existing genetic possibility is -not-, IMO, any indication that
organisms can develop a whole slew of brand new genetic possibilities (and
I'd say the chances of those changes being helpful were smaller, but what's
zero minus something? a negative number? Can't have negative chances) is
nil.
--Joel
Kevin
kitzn...@aol.com (kitznegari.and.the.infinite.sadness) wrote:
> >Truly in love, that is quite possible. Way too few females take the Red
> >Pill.
>
> ROTFL
>
> Oh brother!
If you went where I think you did with that, that's Lust, not Love my
friend. Take my word, I've learned Lust is fun, but Love is more
rewarding over time (and Lust has a bad habit of blinding us to the fact
that Love just isn't anywhere around).
But I have to admit,the unintended meaning is funny in an adolescent
kinda way. *snicker*
;-)
kevin at quosig dot com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCA d-(+) s: a- C+(++)$>++++ UL>++++ P L>+ E? W+(++)$>+++ N++ o?
K-? w--- !O M+$(++) V? PS(+) PE Y+(++) PGP>++ t+(++) 5++ X+ R>+ tv+
b+>+++ DI+(++)>+++ D+(++) G(++)>+++ e(*) h+ r--(-)>+++ y+(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
"The more they overthink the plumbing,
the easier it is to stop-up the drain."
--Commander Montgomery Scott, "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Thursday, January 3, 2002
9:33 PM PST
Kevin
"Joel" <mole...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ok, to the both of you... I don't know if the two terms are different in the
> way I described them or not, but I know I've never seen -true- evolution
> demonstrated in any way. An organism losing sight, or any other already
> pre-existing genetic possibility is -not-, IMO, any indication that
> organisms can develop a whole slew of brand new genetic possibilities (and
> I'd say the chances of those changes being helpful were smaller, but what's
> zero minus something? a negative number? Can't have negative chances) is
> nil.
You need a better grasp of genetics...you'd be surprised the strange
things you can do if you go back far enough, or get a genetic slip
(mutation is evolution, essentially). It all makes alot of sense if you
take it slow and learn each step. Extra limbs, eyes, wings, feet, etc.
are not beyond the imagination given the right environment.
There is some current theory that life on this planet is predisposed
towards four "limbs"...like Earth has a "default" form, at least for the
"higher life forms." Mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, etc. all generally
have four limbs or at least vestiges.
Now bugs are a different story, not sure what the theory is on that.
One look at bacteria and virii and you get a real feel for what
genetics, even simpler RNA and protein forms (which also "evolve" in a
more simplistic fashion), is capable of and it certainly gives one pause
to stop and think.
Never underestimate Nature...worse than understimating God, and on a
day-to-day basis, far more dangerous.
(Of course, I can hear people saying "But God *is* Nature" or some such
thing, in which case, re-read the last few long posts of mine...same
theories apply.)
kevin at quosig dot com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCA d-(+) s: a- C+(++)$>++++ UL>++++ P L>+ E? W+(++)$>+++ N++ o?
K-? w--- !O M+$(++) V? PS(+) PE Y+(++) PGP>++ t+(++) 5++ X+ R>+ tv+
b+>+++ DI+(++)>+++ D+(++) G(++)>+++ e(*) h+ r--(-)>+++ y+(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
"The more they overthink the plumbing,
the easier it is to stop-up the drain."
--Commander Montgomery Scott, "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Thursday, January 3, 2002
9:40 PM PST
Joel
Well, I'd have to say that those books sure are amazing things though... the
fact that somehow, someone, wayyyyy back when, when the Torah part 'o the
bible (that'd be the first five books, written by Moses) was written, that
it was -Moses- that knew that exactly eight days after a child was born was
the most common time for clotting agent to be at it's peak for a child,
therefore making it the perfect time to circumcise them. I also find it
amazing that the Jews were the -only- civilization (that I've ever heard of
from that time period) that disposed of wastes outside of the living areas,
washed hands, things like that.... all because of that 'book'. You'd almost
think they had some really smart guy (or God) telling them to do these
things for a -reason-.
--Joel
Kevin
"Joel" <mole...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if you hold with the theory that the Bible is collection of
tribal stories (which explains the whole Begat bit, which was a common
tribal practice), some tribes did have brains, and quite a few of the
Middle Eastern ones had very safe practices long before Africa or Europe
(with some basic history study, this becomes very apparent).
"People die near waste heap."
"Move waste heap away from people."
Not a big leap of logic (well, it was for Elizabethans, but that's
another story!).
"Eat barely cooked pork, people get sick."
"Don't eat pork."
"Other animals have same feet."
"Don't eat them either, same thing might happen."
And as for the clotting bit, we in the modern world of Western Medicine
have a bad habit of discounting ancient herbalism out of hand. We're
just not regaining that knowledge. The fact that the Bible catches some
of this lore does not require any omniscient being.
Come-on Joel, any so-called "devout" Christian can give me better proof
of God than this...give me a tough one! ;-P~
I'm more likely to believe the Pyramids required that kind of
intervention. ;-)
kevin at quosig dot com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCA d-(+) s: a- C+(++)$>++++ UL>++++ P L>+ E? W+(++)$>+++ N++ o?
K-? w--- !O M+$(++) V? PS(+) PE Y+(++) PGP>++ t+(++) 5++ X+ R>+ tv+
b+>+++ DI+(++)>+++ D+(++) G(++)>+++ e(*) h+ r--(-)>+++ y+(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
"The more they overthink the plumbing,
the easier it is to stop-up the drain."
--Commander Montgomery Scott, "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock"
Thursday, January 3, 2002
9:58 PM PST
Free Radical
Kevin <ke...@quosig.com> wrote in
> > Christianity evolved with the introduction of the new testament. The
Church
> > of Later day Saints evolved with the introduction of the book of Mormon.
> > Catholicism in constantly evolving with the acceptance of new
> > interpretations and the acceptance of new documentation such as the
Gospel
> > of Thomas. Religions are constantly evolving. If they did not people
would
> > still be sacrificing live goats.
>
> Yet if you ask those in the orthodox forms, that very "evolving" goes
> against the Bible, the foundation of their religion. The same would go
> for the Koran or other "definitive" holy works supposedly given by "God."
Your entire argument is based on the premise that the word of God is an
absolute and complete discription of God and God's expectation.. Combined
with the premise that there is only one possible and true understanding that
must be adopted to be true to the faith.
Granted their are plenty of people who profess such a beleif. But those
people do not speak for all with religeous faith. Most of the text that
religeons are based upon are written as situational guidelines. Situations
change, priorities change, and the level of comprehension change the way
people practice their faith. None of this undermines the validity of the
faith in a supreme being. It may cast some doubt on the validity of what
people beleive is expected by this supreme being. But that always boils
down to the judgement of the leaders of any particular following.
The fact that religeon does evolve is not proof that there is no God. It is
only proof that there is no absolute and complete word about God.
Free Radical
Joel <mole...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
> Ok, to the both of you... I don't know if the two terms are different in
the
> way I described them or not, but I know I've never seen -true- evolution
> demonstrated in any way. An organism losing sight, or any other already
> pre-existing genetic possibility is -not-, IMO, any indication that
> organisms can develop a whole slew of brand new genetic possibilities (and
> I'd say the chances of those changes being helpful were smaller, but
what's
> zero minus something? a negative number? Can't have negative chances) is
> nil.
>
> --Joel
Would you consider the mutation of virus and micro-organisms to be
evolution?
>
>
Neo_1061
<freera...@yahoo.com> jacked into the Matrix and the following
appeared in alt.geek:
The alternative is worse. Religious types have claimed even greater
knowledge and substantiated none of it for thousands of years.
No sig
Just me
Free Radical
Neo_1061 <inv...@erehwon.invalid> wrote in message
news:3c354f33....@news.primus.ca...
Joel
No. They don't develop into anything more complex.
--Joel
Joel
news:3c354f33....@news.primus.ca...
That's funny, things have been proven to exist where before they were
believed to be nothing but fairy tales. Take the city of Ur, the 'home' of
Abram, before he went trekking across the desert. Most people thought it to
be nothing but a fictional place, since no one had ever dug the place up.
Then, lo and behold, the place gets unearthed.
--Joel
Joel
Either that, or some of those 'evolutions' are wrong.
--Joel
Joel
I really hate the people who fight 'in the name of Christianity'. They're
nothing but selfish bastards trying to justify themselves by tacking on the
name of a religion to their cause.
--Joel
Joel
I still haven't seen -evolution- demonstrated. Just because it can
theoretically happen, doesn't mean it does in reality. A lot of theories in
life have been proven wrong.
--Joel
Joel
No one else had figured any of that stuff out. Makes you kinda -think-
doesn't it?
--Joel
Joel
BTW, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are considered cults by the rest of
Christianity.
Oh, and.. uhh.. I didn't get what your point was. Could you be blunter? (I'm
not being sarcastic or anything. I seriously did -not- follow you.)
--Joel
Free Radical
Joel <mole...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> I really hate the people who fight 'in the name of Christianity'. They're
> nothing but selfish bastards trying to justify themselves by tacking on
the
> name of a religion to their cause.
>
Religion is loaded with superstition. Large masses of people are easily
controlled by superstition. That makes religion a great tool for tyrants.
Free Radical
>
> --Joel
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/stevenharris/theory/040.htm
And as these colonies grew larger and cells began to assume specialized
functioning, a unison response to various stimuli was no longer a system for
successful survival and was no longer possible because of the increased time
for signaling to reach from one end of the organism to the other. Therefore
there would be cells at parts of the colony reacting to positive stimuli or
pleasures, and cells at other parts of the colony reacting to negative
stimuli or pains. Cells in the inner reaches of the colony might be
receiving chemical signals from various directions from the various parts of
the colony and these signals could be at odds with one another. Taking into
account that signals of distress would have more sway over signals of
pleasure, reactions of the entire organism would entail a system of polling
or voting... whichever signaling was the most intense would create the
reaction in that part of the colony or organism. This was the beginning of
mental processing.
An evolution of cellular specialization was needed for the much larger
colonies of cells. Larger organisms could not function effectively if all of
the cells communicated in the same early way of chemically signaling cell by
cell, membrane by membrane, across the entire breadth of the colony. A type
of cell that could quickly send a message from one end of the colony to
another was very helpful to survival. This cell that quickly sent the
messages (of pleasure or pain) from one end of the organism to the other
needed to have more sway in the decisions of the accumulated cells for the
success of the organism. (Otherwise the messenger cell, or nerve cell,
signaling activity in the distant parts of the colony would always be
overruled by the signaling of the local cells at various parts of the colony
seeking a pleasure or avoiding a pain.)
Somehow these early nerve cells were able to evolve a lightning-fast action
potential that could signal instantly from any point in the colony to
another, and this type of cell also developed a magnified sensation of
emotion (pleasure or pain) in the signaling so that the nerve cells (able to
communicate the voting from the far reaches of the colony) had the greatest
influence on decisions in the system making survival much more likely for
the greater organism as a whole. (Think of nerve cells as the executive or
national organization, and the other kinds of cells as the local
organizations.)
This was the beginning of mental processing and higher intelligence and all
that matters from this point on is the size and the organization of this
nervous system as more and more complicated life forms evolved.
Joel
And -all- of that is based off of the Theory of Evolution, not an actual
experiment. Unless I misread it. I don't -think- they mentioned this
occurring within a lab or anything.
--Joel
Joel
That's why so many people finally woke up to the fact that Catholicism was
being used in that very way, and broke away from it AND separated religion
from the state.
--Joel
Free Radical
Joel <mole...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> And -all- of that is based off of the Theory of Evolution, not an actual
> experiment. Unless I misread it. I don't -think- they mentioned this
> occurring within a lab or anything.
>
> --Joel
Oops! You are right. So if it this was observed in a labatory would you
accept it as evidence of evolution? What do you find invalid about this
particular theory?
>
>
Free Radical
Uh oh! time for me to call in prelude.
>
>
Simon Avery
Hello Free
>> saying "There is not Satan" is exactly the same as saying
>> "There is no God" - you can't have one without the other,
>> ying to yang, bad cop to good cop. If you say you believe
>> in God, it follows you believe what's Written, and what's
>> Written is that God's fallen angel is Satan. (Jeez,
>> how many times must I stop myself typing "santa"?) If you
>> choose not to believe in Satan, you're chosing not to
>> believe in God's Word.
FR> Why can't I reason out that the word you speak of is man's
FR> word and may contain some inaccuracy that I choose not to
FR> believe? Why would reasoning like that negate a belief in
FR> God? Even a God close to a fundamentalist perception?
It's a hell of a get out claus, ain't it?
Pretend to life your life by the bible, yet ignore anything that you
don't like - no wonder it's such a popular religion...
--
Simon Avery, Dartmoor, UK İ http://www.digdilem.org/
Simon Avery
Hello Kevin
K> Funny, I see beautiful flowers, someone crying for joy,
K> crying from sadness, and a breath of cold air. ;-)
K> I see human beings reflecting in their own thoughts (or
K> non-thoughts as the case may be). I see evolution at it's
K> finest, I see a plethora of genetic and biological diversity
K> and a marvel at the beauty, biology, biochemisty, and more.
K> And you know what, not seeing God does not change my
K> wonderment, excitement, and my feelings about any of those
K> things.
Damn, that's beautiful!
Free Radical
Simon Avery <SPAM.B.GO...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:10101...@digdilem.org...
Do you live your life by the laws of the society you live in?
prelude
>
> > That's why so many people finally woke up to the fact that Catholicism was
> > being used in that very way, and broke away from it AND separated religion
> > from the state.
> >
> > --Joel
>
> Uh oh! time for me to call in prelude.
Actually it was King Henry VIII that got that ball rolling. I've
posted a paper I wrote on it a while ago below.
Henry married Catherine of Aragon after his brother, and her
husband, Arthur died. He stayed with Catherine for nearly 25 years
and had a daughter named Mary (who later was known as the infamous
Bloody Mary, but that's another story). Catherine also had many
miscarriages and stillbirths over the duration of the marriage.
Also Catherine was about 6-7 years older than Henry, and he was
beginning to worry that she would never produce a badly needed heir
to the throne of England. The Brits really have a sick obsession
with pricks and whether or not you are born with one.
Henry decided to go to the pope and ask for an annulment due to
something in the marriage contract being illegal. The pope didn't
want to seem to ignore the king's request so he ordered some other
catholic dudes to England and investigate a good way of denying the
king's idea of an annulment.
Since both the Catholic Church and England are bureaucracies; there
was a lot of red tape and communications got all mixed up. The
commission the pope sent and all the king's men missed each other;
got angry about it and went home.
At that time a young up and comer, named Tomas Cromwell became
Henry's minister. I really don't know what credentials he came
with, but he was pretty much anticlergy. He granted the divorce
that the king so badly wanted from Catherine of Aragon.
Thomas then helped Parliament draw up a long list of grievances
against the Catholic church at the time. He also helped to draw up
a document known as the "Submission of the Clergy". Basically it
gave all ecclesiastical legistion power to the King of England,
whomever he may be.
The pope still would not support the King in his annulment, but
decided to indulge the king in approving his appointment of Thomas
Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury. Cranmer immediately granted
the annulment that Henry wanted. Five days later he officially
married Anne Bolyn (mother to Elizabeth I). I say officially,
because rumor has it that he had married Anne secretly before this
time.
Of course the pope was pissed and excommunicated Henry the moment he
heard of the deception. Henry then went ahead and declared himself
as the head of the church of England.
Next the King gave all the monasteries in England the choice to
reform or be shut down. The ones that decided to shut down were
disassembled and the properties were given to landed gentry and
supporters for his cause, and acquired the loyalty of a large and
influential group.
A lot of England's clergy were executed at that time. It was pretty
bloody for a while. Henry and his advisors thought this was
necessary as Mary, his first born daughter of he and Catherine of
Aragon, may be able to claim the thrown when Henry was gone and
usurp the path they had so recently made. They pretty much were
stating that Catholicism itself was treason to the Crown, and would
not be tolerated. Since Mary was a devout Catholic this meant she
would never sit on the thrown.
And this is how England went from being Catholic to being
Protestant.
The King, as I had said before, married Anne Bolyn. She was a
Protestant. And she gave birth to Elizabeth I. Then she gave birth
to two stillborn sons. The King thought this was God's way of
punishing him. So he trumped up charges that she was sleeping with
some of the nobility that he did not like, and her brother. He had
the whole lot of them beheaded and he went on to marry 4 more
times. He did eventually have a son, but he was a pretty sickly
child, and did not make much past Henry's own death. A cat fight
pursued between Mary and Elizabeth for the crown, but like I said
that is quite a different story, if you would like to hear it let me
know.
Curious Gene
> "Free Radical" <freera...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Free
> >> saying "There is not Satan" is exactly the same as saying
> >> "There is no God" - you can't have one without the other,
> >> ying to yang, bad cop to good cop. If you say you believe
> >> in God, it follows you believe what's Written, and what's
> >> Written is that God's fallen angel is Satan. (Jeez,
> >> how many times must I stop myself typing "santa"?) If you
> >> choose not to believe in Satan, you're chosing not to
> >> believe in God's Word.
> FR> Why can't I reason out that the word you speak of is man's
> FR> word and may contain some inaccuracy that I choose not to
> FR> believe? Why would reasoning like that negate a belief in
> FR> God? Even a God close to a fundamentalist perception?
> It's a hell of a get out claus, ain't it?
Yup. Satan Claus. Comes in handy. :)
> Pretend to life your life by the bible, yet ignore anything that you
> don't like - no wonder it's such a popular religion...
Lots of people do that, not just Christians. After all, I distinctly
remember God saying "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to all 3 major monotheistic
faiths. D'oh!
Seriously, though, take a look sometime at the Bible section in a
bookstore, and compare tables of contents against which sect had
them published. Different people choose to leave out different
things that they don't like. And, if you're arguing with somebody
belonging to a certian sect, and you counter one of their points
with something from a book they leave out, they give some line
about that one not being "true scripture".
--
Gene Sullivan | System Operator | ge...@xlrn.ucsb.edu
Who mouths inanity disorders thought for all who listen. There must
be some minimum allowable dose of inanity beyond which the mind cannot
remain reasonable. -The Underground Grammarian
Joel
Heh, if I observed this in a laboratory, not only would I accept it as proof
that some (if not all) forms of evolution are possible, but they guy who did
the experiment would probably get the Nobel Prize.
--Joel
Joel
news:3C36289E...@yahoo.com...
You have to admit though, that since then, the only people fighting have
been Catholics -and- Protestants -with- each other, rather than ugly
Crusades that the Catholic church have started.
--Joel
prelude
> You have to admit though, that since then, the only people fighting have
> been Catholics -and- Protestants -with- each other, rather than ugly
> Crusades that the Catholic church have started.
>
> --Joel
You are totally right on that point. The Crusades were a shambles,
and I think they were started more for profit than saving souls for
God or Allah. The Pope wanted all the resources the Middle East had
to offer. According to the Bible it is supposed to be the land of
milk and honey.
Free Radical
> been Catholics -and- Protestants -with- each other, rather than ugly
> Crusades that the Catholic church have started.
>
> --Joel
>
>
Free Radical
Tell that to the American Indians.
Joel
Who were wiped out by disease, and de-homed by the American government,
neither of which are religious. And for those few groups that came across
for reasons of 'converting the heathens'... those were Catholics as well.
--Joel
Joel
What part don't you agree with? It's the truth. The only religious fighting
that has happened in the last few hundred years would be the Catholic V
Protestant stuff in N. Ireland (or wherever it is over there near Ireland).
--Joel
Free Radical
there were indians killed for not being christians by many different sects.
You said the only ones fighting were catholics and protestants and they only
fight each other. I don't beleive that for a minute.
>
>
Free Radical
What about Isreal? How about the numberous acts of genocide between serbs
and muslims in many parts of the world?
>
>
Joel
Ok, so I was focusing on Christianity. They're all nice, but since I don't
tend to subscribe to their beliefs (as they tend to involve killing everyone
who doesn't agree with them, except for the Jews, they're supposed to just
do whatever God says, but their religion became obsolete with Christianity),
I just kinda ignored them. They also don't fit in with this argument about
the veracity of the Bible, or Christianity.
--Joel
Free Radical
>
Little Nemo
<mole...@yahoo.com> writes
Muslim versus Hindu?
--
Little Nemo
Joel
Humans suck, don't they? When they start misinterpreting religious texts,
things start going wrong.
--Joel
Free Radical
Humans can damn sure be stubborn and self righteous. We are pretty good at
manipulating our logic circuits also.
>
>
prelude
I do agree abou the Crusades and how bloody they were and that they
were justified and sanctified by the Catholic Church. However, I
don't agree that they are the only ones fighting a holy war at the
moment. Bin Laden is more than proof of that. He is saying that it
is all for Allah. When the World Trade Center went down and in the
weeks that followed, I was terrified of the Crusades happening all
over again. Or has it???
Free Radical
Joel <mole...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > Humans suck, don't they? When
they start misinterpreting religious texts,
> things start going wrong.
>
> --Joel
>
>
Joel
Ok, I'll take your word for that. They sure as hell ain't following God's
word though.
--Joel
Curious Gene
> Free Radical wrote:
>>
>> > That's why so many people finally woke up to the fact that Catholicism was
>> > being used in that very way, and broke away from it AND separated religion
>> > from the state.
>> >
>> > --Joel
>>
>> Uh oh! time for me to call in prelude.
> Actually it was King Henry VIII that got that ball rolling. I've
> posted a paper I wrote on it a while ago below.
> Henry married Catherine of Aragon after his brother, and her
> husband, Arthur died. He stayed with Catherine for nearly 25 years
> and had a daughter named Mary (who later was known as the infamous
> Bloody Mary, but that's another story). Catherine also had many
> miscarriages and stillbirths over the duration of the marriage.
> Also Catherine was about 6-7 years older than Henry, and he was
> beginning to worry that she would never produce a badly needed heir
> to the throne of England. The Brits really have a sick obsession
> with pricks and whether or not you are born with one.
And, it should be mentioned, Henry was already becoming somewhat
less than fond of his wife, and had turned his eyes toward some
other (more... *agreeable*) women. Namely, Mary Boleyn (Anne's
sister).
> Henry decided to go to the pope and ask for an annulment due to
> something in the marriage contract being illegal. The pope didn't
> want to seem to ignore the king's request so he ordered some other
> catholic dudes to England and investigate a good way of denying the
> king's idea of an annulment.
> Since both the Catholic Church and England are bureaucracies; there
> was a lot of red tape and communications got all mixed up. The
> commission the pope sent and all the king's men missed each other;
> got angry about it and went home.
Not exactly. They were both communicating quite well. The problem
was that Henry didn't really have a case. When Henry and Catherine
were first to be married, it was noted that Catherine was Henry's
dead brother's wife. Such a marriage was forbidden by Leviticus.
However, the marriage was a very good political move, and Catherine
claimed that her marriage to Arthur was never consummated. (She was
probably telling the truth about that, but who knows for sure?) The
Pope granted a special dispensation so that the marriage would be
allowed despite its prohibition in scripture.
This presented something of a problem when Henry decided he wanted
a divorce. He tried to bring up the Levitical prohibition again,
but the Pope reminded him that he had been granted a dispensation,
so, despite what he wanted, the marriage was still valid. When
things *really* got ugly was when Anne Boleyn became pregnant.
Henry couldn't wait for the Pope to come around anymore.
> At that time a young up and comer, named Tomas Cromwell became
> Henry's minister. I really don't know what credentials he came
> with, but he was pretty much anticlergy. He granted the divorce
> that the king so badly wanted from Catherine of Aragon.
> Thomas then helped Parliament draw up a long list of grievances
> against the Catholic church at the time. He also helped to draw up
> a document known as the "Submission of the Clergy". Basically it
> gave all ecclesiastical legistion power to the King of England,
> whomever he may be.
Well, Cromwell couldn't actually give Henry a divorce. What he did
do was use Parliament, who was already a bit miffed at the clergy
(Wolsey was a bit... excessive), to cut back on the Pope's power
and revenues (you can bet the Act against Annates really pissed
off the Pope) within English borders. The Act of Submission of the
Clergy and the Act of Succession happened after Cranmer was appointed
Archbishop of Canterbury and after Cranmer had declared Henry's
marriage invalid.
> The pope still would not support the King in his annulment, but
> decided to indulge the king in approving his appointment of Thomas
> Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury. Cranmer immediately granted
> the annulment that Henry wanted. Five days later he officially
> married Anne Bolyn (mother to Elizabeth I). I say officially,
> because rumor has it that he had married Anne secretly before this
> time.
> Of course the pope was pissed and excommunicated Henry the moment he
> heard of the deception. Henry then went ahead and declared himself
> as the head of the church of England.
Yup. The Act of Supremacy. Nasty.
> Next the King gave all the monasteries in England the choice to
> reform or be shut down. The ones that decided to shut down were
> disassembled and the properties were given to landed gentry and
> supporters for his cause, and acquired the loyalty of a large and
> influential group.
Did he offer a chance of reform? I thought he just shut them all
down. Henry was often in need of money, and reposessing all of the
property of the Monasteries was a good way to get some. Wolsey had
closed a few small ones in the 1520s because he needed to funds to
pay for new foundations as Oxford and Ipswitch.
> A lot of England's clergy were executed at that time. It was pretty
> bloody for a while. Henry and his advisors thought this was
> necessary as Mary, his first born daughter of he and Catherine of
> Aragon, may be able to claim the thrown when Henry was gone and
> usurp the path they had so recently made. They pretty much were
> stating that Catholicism itself was treason to the Crown, and would
> not be tolerated. Since Mary was a devout Catholic this meant she
> would never sit on the thrown.
It wasn't really all that bloody under Henry. A lot of Catholics
either continued practicing serruptitiously or went to France or
Spain. And Henry didn't really want to kill too many people, since
that doesn't always do a lot of good for a person't popularity. And
Mary, while she did execute quite a few people, wasn't any more
bloody that Elizabeth, who also executed quite a few people. But
the Protestants wrote these particular history books, so Elizabeth
came off looking better.
> And this is how England went from being Catholic to being
> Protestant.
Amazing what people are willing to go through, isn't it? Jesus shows
up, teaches us to drink some wine and be groovy, and suddenly people
are killing each other over it all. Sheesh.
> The King, as I had said before, married Anne Bolyn. She was a
> Protestant. And she gave birth to Elizabeth I. Then she gave birth
> to two stillborn sons. The King thought this was God's way of
> punishing him. So he trumped up charges that she was sleeping with
> some of the nobility that he did not like, and her brother. He had
> the whole lot of them beheaded and he went on to marry 4 more
> times. He did eventually have a son, but he was a pretty sickly
> child, and did not make much past Henry's own death. A cat fight
> pursued between Mary and Elizabeth for the crown, but like I said
> that is quite a different story, if you would like to hear it let me
> know.
The really funny thing about it all is that Henry, for all intents and
purposes, died a Catholic. A *bad* Catholic, mind you, but still a
Catholic. He even endowed Chantrys for hiself, something which he
himself had made illegal in 1534. And, after he finally gets the male
heir he wanted so badly, the kid dies of comsumption at 16 after
having been on the throne for only 7 years, leaving the country in
the hands of the Catholic daughter of the first woman Henry divorced.
Yikes.
Free Radical
Joel <mole...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > | > | What about Isreal? How
about the numberous acts of genocide between
> | serbs
> | > | and muslims in many parts of the world?
> | >
> | > Ok, so I was focusing on Christianity. They're all nice, but since I
> don't
> | > tend to subscribe to their beliefs (as they tend to involve killing
> | everyone
> | > who doesn't agree with them, except for the Jews, they're supposed to
> just
> | > do whatever God says, but their religion became obsolete with
> | Christianity),
> | > I just kinda ignored them. They also don't fit in with this argument
> about
> | > the veracity of the Bible, or Christianity.
> | >
> | > --Joel
> | >
> | Serbs are Christians
>
> Ok, I'll take your word for that. They sure as hell ain't following God's
> word though.
>
> --Joel
>
beleif of the group. I think we would be hard pressed to find a single
Christian denomenation that did not have someone commit an attrocity in the
name of God. I Don't think it has only been Catholics who have bombed
abortion clinics.
prelude
>>
> > Pretend to life your life by the bible, yet ignore anything that you
> > don't like - no wonder it's such a popular religion...
>
> Lots of people do that, not just Christians. After all, I distinctly
> remember God saying "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to all 3 major monotheistic
> faiths. D'oh!
>
> Seriously, though, take a look sometime at the Bible section in a
> bookstore, and compare tables of contents against which sect had
> them published. Different people choose to leave out different
> things that they don't like. And, if you're arguing with somebody
> belonging to a certian sect, and you counter one of their points
> with something from a book they leave out, they give some line
> about that one not being "true scripture".
I think what people loose sight of is the fact that the bible in
it's entirety was written by men. Therefore it up to
interpetation. Not to mention whatever version you are reading it
contradicts itself throughout.
Have you ever noticed that God is a loving jelous angry god?
Free Radical
Curious Gene <ge...@xlrn.ucsb.edu> wrote in message
>
> Amazing what people are willing to go through, isn't it? Jesus shows
> up, teaches us to drink some wine and be groovy, and suddenly people
> are killing each other over it all. Sheesh.
>
It certainly amazes me. It should be quite simple. As you put it. Drink
some wine and be groovy.
Joel
Ah, lets take a look at -this- common argument. The first five books were
written by Moses, listening to God speak on the top of a mountain. The
rest.... tend to be letters, historical texts, and sayings. History ain't
really all that fallible, since it's a record of what happened, and the
letters (at least in the new testament) were from people who knew Jesus
personally. The Old Testament isn't Christianity, merely a historical record
to corroborate it.
--Joel
Joel
Everyone tends to be sure they know the truth. You, me, Bob down the
street... whether the truth we know is the truth or not is what matters.
--Joel
prelude
In my opinion, I think Henry was miffed that the Pope had so much
power over his life. And in a way he has a point. I mean, the
Pope granted the annulment between Arthur and Catherine. It showed
that the Catholic Church did not heed the Bible any more than Henry
did as they went about ruling England. I've often wondered if Henry
would have been so brazen if the Pope had not allow him to marry
Catherine; or if it would have just expedited the events that took
place after all.
>
> > At that time a young up and comer, named Tomas Cromwell became
> > Henry's minister. I really don't know what credentials he came
> > with, but he was pretty much anticlergy. He granted the divorce
> > that the king so badly wanted from Catherine of Aragon.
>
> > Thomas then helped Parliament draw up a long list of grievances
> > against the Catholic church at the time. He also helped to draw up
> > a document known as the "Submission of the Clergy". Basically it
> > gave all ecclesiastical legistion power to the King of England,
> > whomever he may be.
>
> Well, Cromwell couldn't actually give Henry a divorce. What he did
> do was use Parliament, who was already a bit miffed at the clergy
> (Wolsey was a bit... excessive), to cut back on the Pope's power
> and revenues (you can bet the Act against Annates really pissed
> off the Pope) within English borders. The Act of Submission of the
> Clergy and the Act of Succession happened after Cranmer was appointed
> Archbishop of Canterbury and after Cranmer had declared Henry's
> marriage invalid.
It was the turning point of seperating the church from the
government. I'm not so sure that politicians would have the power
they do now if it had not been for this historic event.
>
> > The pope still would not support the King in his annulment, but
> > decided to indulge the king in approving his appointment of Thomas
> > Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury. Cranmer immediately granted
> > the annulment that Henry wanted. Five days later he officially
> > married Anne Bolyn (mother to Elizabeth I). I say officially,
> > because rumor has it that he had married Anne secretly before this
> > time.
>
> > Of course the pope was pissed and excommunicated Henry the moment he
> > heard of the deception. Henry then went ahead and declared himself
> > as the head of the church of England.
>
> Yup. The Act of Supremacy. Nasty.
>
> > Next the King gave all the monasteries in England the choice to
> > reform or be shut down. The ones that decided to shut down were
> > disassembled and the properties were given to landed gentry and
> > supporters for his cause, and acquired the loyalty of a large and
> > influential group.
>
> Did he offer a chance of reform? I thought he just shut them all
> down. Henry was often in need of money, and reposessing all of the
> property of the Monasteries was a good way to get some. Wolsey had
> closed a few small ones in the 1520s because he needed to funds to
> pay for new foundations as Oxford and Ipswitch.
This is, to me, a very interesting time in history for many many
reasons. I look at history as something of a hobby, so I am no
expert. In most of the text I have read he did give them a chance
to reform, because deep inside he was afraid of the Pope and what
God would do to him. But depending on the interests of the people
writing the text it could just be shaded that way.
>
> > A lot of England's clergy were executed at that time. It was pretty
> > bloody for a while. Henry and his advisors thought this was
> > necessary as Mary, his first born daughter of he and Catherine of
> > Aragon, may be able to claim the thrown when Henry was gone and
> > usurp the path they had so recently made. They pretty much were
> > stating that Catholicism itself was treason to the Crown, and would
> > not be tolerated. Since Mary was a devout Catholic this meant she
> > would never sit on the thrown.
>
> It wasn't really all that bloody under Henry. A lot of Catholics
> either continued practicing serruptitiously or went to France or
> Spain. And Henry didn't really want to kill too many people, since
> that doesn't always do a lot of good for a person't popularity. And
> Mary, while she did execute quite a few people, wasn't any more
> bloody that Elizabeth, who also executed quite a few people. But
> the Protestants wrote these particular history books, so Elizabeth
> came off looking better.
>
> > And this is how England went from being Catholic to being
> > Protestant.
>
> Amazing what people are willing to go through, isn't it? Jesus shows
> up, teaches us to drink some wine and be groovy, and suddenly people
> are killing each other over it all. Sheesh.
Tell me about it. But really I think they fight these wars more for
power and use thier religious belifs as an excuse.
Joel
long... our thread's getting weighty people. *smile*
"Free Radical" <freera...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yIrZ7.5272$2b1.2...@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
Ah, but they tend to be the most vocal against it... 'specially since the
pope is against it in -any- form... and some other denominations say 'only
in cases of rape, incest, and the mother's life in danger' and things like
that. Whatever the case, bombing abortion clinics goes against the teachings
of Christianity anywho, so it's not -Christians- doing it, it's people doing
it in the name of Christianity.
--Joel
Free Radical
About God? Uh uh I don't even come close to knowing any truth.
>
>