 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / August 2007What Atheists Can't Answer
What Atheists Can't Answer By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007; Page A17 Washington Post " Human nature, in other circumstances, is also clearly constructed for cruel exploitation, uncontrollable rage, icy selfishness and a range of other less desirable traits. So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains. Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts" because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm going to do whatever I please." " Consider, Mr. Gerson: If it were the case that religion is our instructor, then there would be no prisons. There are, and consider, further, that the most religious (at least professing to be) group in this country is the two million criminals in our prisons. 'Nouf said. But if you still think that morality/ethics is in any way/shape/form associated with religious belief, then but think about the depravity of priests and preachers --who have been caught. Shouldn't that, at least, be enough to remove any convictions you might have had about religious instruction "bettering" our "naturally evil nature." Further: People who think they should be good BECAUSE their God requires it are only setting themselves up for the most evil preacher's definition of The Good. Time and time again we have seen preachers "inform" their congregations that God wants them to fight this or that war (Confederate preachers urged their congregations to kill as many Yankees as possible), or to butcher and plunder this or that people (in the best of Islamic traditions, Turkish preachers told their congregations that murdering Armenians for their possessions (and raping their women and children before slaughtering them) was what God expected of them... and because acknowledging this monstrous truth about Islam before the whole world is so impossible, the Turks to this day refuse to acknowledge that the Armenian/Muslim genocide even ever took place). But I don't have to prove to any parent that we are ALL born with unfettered instincts--to be "bettered" by the (sometimes even the most casual & offhand) instructions of our parents and societies: Every child KNOWS the difference between good and evil (deeds) by the time he/she is four or five. And if they don't, then that is a certain sign that such children live in a warped and perverted society or family. The four-year-old who does "evil" may not yet know how to "get away with it," but he certainly knows he had better not get caught doing it. Therefore, if there be man or woman on this earth who still does not know the difference between Good and Evil... let them inquire of any (as-yet religiously- uninstructed) four-year-old: for he will surely know, and tell them. S D Rodrian http://poems.sdrodrian.com http://physics.sdrodrian.com http://mp3s.sdrodrian.com All religions are local. Only science is universal. > What Atheists Can't Answer > By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007; [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between > good and bad instincts? Theism, Only children chose between good and bad out of fear of a boogeyman, or all powerful, nonexistent sky pixie. True human adults chose what is right because they know it is right. Child like theists will never understand that explanation. >> What Atheists Can't Answer >> By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007; [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > right because they know it is right. Child like theists will never > understand that explanation. Interesting. How do YOU choose what is right? Education? Instinct? Are you superior to all people that have a different belief system? >>> What Atheists Can't Answer >>> By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007; [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Interesting. How do YOU choose what is right? By knowing what is right. It's not a very hard concept. > Education? Instinct? > Are you superior to all people that have a different belief system? I'm not a child, caught in a fear based religion, if that's what you mean. > In News Tlfmi.27841$C96.17...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net,, Tom Gardner at > tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > I'm not a child, caught in a fear based religion, if that's what you mean. Maybe you should try and explain the murderous behavior of Islamists, and the severe hatred of Jews over all other "infidels", and why they use suicide bombs. They believe in "something" evil, and nothingness isn't any better...... Study your books. You book people are sooooo smart, just like the book people in the global warming field. Soooo pinched in the books to see the reality. Pitiful college education gets yer head stuck in a folder mentality. >> In News Tlfmi.27841$C96.17...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net,, Tom >> Gardner at tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Maybe you should try and explain the murderous behavior of Islamists, Theists are well known to have murderous behaviors. The various Christian sects spent their first 1,500 years or so murdering and forcing people to convert all over Europe, Later the Americas, and Austrialia. Fortunately, most Western Governments have extricated them from state power, at least for now. Otherwise, they'd still be up to their old tricks. > and the severe hatred of Jews over all other "infidels", and why they > use suicide bombs. They believe in "something" evil, and nothingness > isn't any better...... They're Theists. Theist have long used their make believe Gods to justify all manner of horror. It's certainly nothing new. > Study your books. I have. I've also studied your one book. > You book people are sooooo smart, just like the > book people in the global warming field. Soooo pinched in the books > to see the reality. And the reality is? Well, now we're back to not needing a celestial sky-pixie to teach me right from wrong. Why don't you explain to all the world why you have such a need? > Pitiful college education gets yer head stuck in a folder mentality. Professed ignorance gets your head stuck in your own a.s. >>> In News Tlfmi.27841$C96.17...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net,, Tom >>> Gardner at tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Theists are well known to have murderous behaviors. I have found that "generally" the more religious a person is the prone to hate. >>>> In News Tlfmi.27841$C96.17...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net,, Tom >>>> Gardner at tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > I have found that "generally" the more religious a person is the > prone to hate. Agreed, that has also been my observation. >>>>> In News Tlfmi.27841$C96.17...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net,, Tom >>>>> Gardner at tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Agreed, that has also been my observation. What I have observed 'is'...the more Liberals try to deny Truth, Justice and accountability the more they justify acts of Evil which leads to mental instability. The more unstable, the more need for restraint by laws and Psychotropic drugs. Psychotropic drugs are the result of quack doctors trying to suppress Humanitarian conscience and guilt from moral depravity like Homosexuality  SignatureCB http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid =37&source=2&seq=i.24.13.24 Spare the rod, spoil the child (listen to the end 2:26). >>>>> On Jul 14, 10:16 pm, "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAI...@FAM.NET> >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > What I have observed 'is'...the more Liberals try to deny Truth, > Justice and accountability LOL! A conservative that spouts lines like this has no credibility. Truth? Justice? Accountability? These terms have been foriegn to the current lot and brand of religious conservative for a long time now. What you really want to say is that the Liberals should be held to these standards, but not the Conservatives. > Psychotropic drugs are the result of quack doctors trying to suppress > Humanitarian conscience and guilt from moral depravity like Homosexuality Your ignorance is impressive. > "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message > >> "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > What I have observed 'is'...the more Liberals try to deny Truth, Justice > and accountability the more they justify acts of Evil which leads to mental Says the guy who calls people "nigger" and lies about what the word means... > instability. The more unstable, the more need for restraint by laws and > Psychotropic drugs. > > Psychotropic drugs are the result of quack doctors trying to suppress > Humanitarian conscience and guilt from moral depravity like Homosexuality HAHHAAHHA - You can, of course, cite something in support of such a wild claim? RT >> "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message >> > In News 2Bsmi.7907$Od7.5422@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net,, grinder [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > RT Of course > "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message > >> "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Of course Well then -> (silence) CB wrote: > "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message > > CB wrote: [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > Of course Well then -> (silence) > CB wrote: >> "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > (silence) That's the sound of a girl answering your call >>> >> Psychotropic drugs are the result of quack doctors trying to suppress >>> >> Humanitarian conscience and guilt from moral depravity like [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >That's the sound of a girl answering your call Actually that sound is usually something along the lines of, "Oh god! Oh GOD! OH! OH! OH GOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!" Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>> >> Psychotropic drugs are the result of quack doctors trying to >>>> >> suppress [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Actually that sound is usually something along the lines of, "Oh god! > Oh GOD! OH! OH! OH GOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!" .........NOOOOOOOoooooo > Swill > "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message > > CB wrote: [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > That's the sound of a girl answering your call It's the sound of you not able to back up your mouth. RT >> "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message >> > CB wrote: [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > It's the sound of you not able to back up your mouth. You axed for it. Pre-Introduction: A Warning Concerning the Use of Psychiatric Drugs What Suffering Tells Us ... Emotional suffering is inevitable in life. But is has a meaning - a purpose. Suffering is a signal that life matters. Specifically, it is usually a signal that something in our lives that matters a great deal needs to be addressed. Depression, guilt, anxiety, shame, chronic anger, emotional numbing - all of these reactions signal that something is amiss and requires special attention. The depth of suffering is a sign of the soul's desire for a better, more creative, more principled life. For example, when faced with a patient in deep depression, should we immediately focus on relief of the pain? On the contrary, we should respond by saying that the pain is a signal of the intensity of the person's spirit: "The strength and intensity of your suffering indicates the strength and intensity of your spirit. Your discomfort shows how alive you are. Now imagine if you could learn to turn all that self-destructive energy into creative energy and a love of life." The degree to which we suffer indicates the degree to which we are alive. When we take drugs to ease our suffering, we stifle our psychological and spiritual life... http://www.michaeljournal.org/juvdm/your.drug.may.be.your.problem/page.01.html Psychotropic drugs suppress life and the soul > "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message > >> "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > > Psychotropic drugs suppress life and the soul This is not medical evidence. >> "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message >> >> "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 134 lines] > > This is not medical evidence. You have no soul so there wouldn't ever be > "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message > >> "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 136 lines] > > You have no soul so there wouldn't ever be Medicine does not recognize superstition. Cite actual medical evidence... RT > > You have no soul so there wouldn't ever be > > Medicine does not recognize superstition. Cite actual medical evidence... He just stated that there can't be. Since you have no soul and are a human being, this means that a soul is not a universal property of human beings. I suppose it's possible that CB might have one even if you don't. But he can't prove it, or even demonstrate it to a level that would withstand cursory examination. > > > You have no soul so there wouldn't ever be > > > > Medicine does not recognize superstition. Cite actual medical evidence... > > > He just stated that there can't be. Since you have no soul and are can't be? How convenient... ;) > a human being, this means that a soul is not a universal property of > human beings. I suppose it's possible that CB might have one even if > you don't. But he can't prove it, or even demonstrate it to a level > that would withstand cursory examination. >Psychotropic drugs are the result of quack doctors trying to suppress >Humanitarian conscience and guilt from moral depravity like Homosexuality *laughs and points* Psychotropic drugs are the result of chemical survival mechanisms in plants and animals. Or, if you prefer, psychotropic drugs were made by God. Thump it elsewhere. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >Psychotropic drugs are the result of quack doctors trying to suppress > >Humanitarian conscience and guilt from moral depravity like Homosexuality [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > plants and animals. Or, if you prefer, psychotropic drugs were made > by God. Not synthetic ones. >I have found that "generally" the more religious a person is the prone to >hate. Then quit finding these people. There is the vast majority of persons who live by religious principles who don't hate. DCI >> I have found that "generally" the more religious a person is the >> prone to hate. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > DCI So tell us, why do the 'vast majority" of those you say live by religious principles that don't hate, support the people that live by religious principles that do hate? >>> I have found that "generally" the more religious a person is the >>> prone to hate. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > principles that don't hate, support the people that live by religious > principles that do hate? Why do you beat your wife you 'loud peacock?' >>>> I have found that "generally" the more religious a person is the >>>> prone to hate. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Why do you beat your wife you 'loud peacock?' No, I beat your wife. She bet that I couldn't make her any uglier, so far she's won the bet. Why is it that you Christofascists can never just answer a question with an honest answer? >>>>> I have found that "generally" the more religious a person is the >>>>> prone to hate. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > she's won the bet. Why is it that you Christofascists can never just > answer a question with an honest answer? Why is it that your legion smell like rotting fish? >>>>>> I have found that "generally" the more religious a person is the >>>>>> prone to hate. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Why is it that your legion smell like rotting fish? That would be your upper lip, CB. LOL! Again, no honest answers coming from the Christofascists. No suprise. >>>>>>> I have found that "generally" the more religious a person is the >>>>>>> prone to hate. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > That would be your upper lip, CB. LOL! Again, no honest answers coming > from the Christofascists. No suprise. I don't debate emissaries of Evil, Andrealphus. What would be the point? You know your place in the bigger picture, so have your fun today. Information about the demon Andrealphus http://www.occultopedia.com/a/andrealphus.htm >>>>>>>> I have found that "generally" the more religious a person is >>>>>>>> the prone to hate. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I don't debate You can't debate. Christofascists are often stupid that way. > >>>>> I have found that "generally" the more religious a person is the > >>>>> prone to hate. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Why is it that your legion smell like rotting fish? I guess CB doesn't mean to include himself in the vast majority who do not hate. >>>>>>> I have found that "generally" the more religious a person is >>>>>>> the prone to hate. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I guess CB doesn't mean to include himself in the vast majority who > do not hate. CB is one of the biggest idiots on usenet. It's fun to mess with his mind once in a while. >>>>>>>> I have found that "generally" the more religious a person is >>>>>>>> the prone to hate. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > CB is one of the biggest idiots on usenet. It's fun to mess with his mind > once in a while. Goo goo? SignatureCB Psalm 12:8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men. Larry Flynt, Hugh Hefner and Bill Clinton come to mind > In News hugh_gibbons-45E012.15583116072...@newsgroups.comcast.net,, Hugh > Gibbons at hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > CB is one of the biggest idiots on usenet. It's fun to mess with his mind > once in a while. I have much respect for CB. You are a foolish Homosexual >> In News hugh_gibbons-45E012.15583116072...@newsgroups.comcast.net,, >> Hugh Gibbons at hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > I have much respect for CB. Then you're as big an idiot as he is. >>> In News hugh_gibbons-45E012.15583116072...@newsgroups.comcast.net,, >>> Hugh Gibbons at hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Then you're as big an idiot as he is. Andrealphus appears as the 54th demon in Johann Weyer's tome on demonology Pseudomonarchia Daemonum and is described as a great Marquis with the appearance of a Peacock who raises great noises and teaches cunning in astronomy,... Andrealphus, demon. You know how God plans to end Evil? Do you think you'll be chained up for a thousand years or thrown into the lake of fire? Live it up fool, while you can. The end is coming for you >> Then you're as big an idiot as he is. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >The end is coming for you "The end can not come until the sky starts falling." Chicken Little - 1945 AD DCI >>> Then you're as big an idiot as he is. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > DCI LOL! >>>> In News hugh_gibbons-45E012.15583116072...@newsgroups.comcast.net,, >>>> Hugh Gibbons at hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Andrealphus appears as the 54th demon in Johann Weyer's tome on > demonology Which only means something if you're a moron that believes in demons. Christians often made up demons for things they were too stupid to understand. such as Astronomy and Geometry, in the case of Andrealphus. My use of the username Andrealphus is to further point up the over all intellectual bankruptcy of Christianity. It works well too. > > "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message > >>>> Hugh Gibbons at hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Which only means something if you're a moron that believes in demons. Cb thinks Satan controls the weather. Really. > Christians often made up demons for things they were too stupid to > understand. such as Astronomy and Geometry, in the case of Andrealphus. My > use of the username Andrealphus is to further point up the over all > intellectual bankruptcy of Christianity. It works well too. >> Andrealphus appears as the 54th demon in Johann Weyer's tome on >> demonology [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >use of the username Andrealphus is to further point up the over all >intellectual bankruptcy of Christianity. It works well too. Correction, too 'ignorant' to understand and it applies not only to Christians but to all humans everywhere even to this day. People still believe superstitious nonsense. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> Andrealphus appears as the 54th demon in Johann Weyer's tome on >>> demonology [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Swill But no one near as much or as often as religionists. I used Christians as examples because we were discussing demons in particular. Demons seem to be pretty much exclusive to Christians, Muslims, and Hindu religions. >>>> Andrealphus appears as the 54th demon in Johann Weyer's tome on >>>> demonology [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > as examples because we were discussing demons in particular. Demons seem > to be pretty much exclusive to Christians, Muslims, and Hindu religions. The secular have them too but their called by different names; conscience and guilt >>>>> Andrealphus appears as the 54th demon in Johann Weyer's tome on >>>>> demonology [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > The secular have them too Nope. Secular people do not have demons. Christians have a rather large pantheon of demons though. > >>> In News hugh_gibbons-45E012.15583116072...@newsgroups.comcast.net,, > >>> Hugh Gibbons at hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > The end is coming for you The end is coming for all of us. >> > In News 1185199841.164004.55370@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com,, RamRod >> > Sword [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > The end is coming for all of us. My world, the one God created has no end. The one you're living 'is' a dead end >>> Live it up fool, while you can. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >My world, the one God created has no end. The one you're living 'is' a dead >end Then why are over here in our world acting like a moron? Go home! Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >> Live it up fool, while you can. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > My world, the one God created has no end. The one you're living 'is' a dead > end I understand that you believe that, but you believe it on the basis of no evidence. The only things we can know for certain are things that are of this world, for which we can personally produce evidence. All else we take on faith. You can trust, to some degree, what other people tell you about what they directly observed, but as we know, eyewitness testimony is the least reliable sort of evidence. Physical evidence is always better, because it can be examined by anybody and repeatable experiments can be done on it. Trusting what people tell you about the physical evidence is the next tier or plausibility, because those people could either be lying or, more frequently, just mistaken. Then we get to what people tell you about what other people said happened. That's getting pretty far removed from the facts, and it's highly unreliable. For that reason, it's not admissible in court. How reliable do you think hundredth-hand evidence of things that happened are? That's what we're talking about! Everything in the Bible happened a hundred generations ago, at least. Fortunately, it was all written down within ten generations of the death of Jesus, so by using the oldest translations available, you can perhaps draw some reasonable conclusions about what people might have believed and taught in that critical first generation of believers. And now we come to the subject of the afterlife. This is in the realm of what people who seemed to have some kind of authority told us about things they COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE OBSERVED. And we don't even know what they really said. We have at best tenth-hand accounts of it. >>>> In News 1185199841.164004.55370@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com,, >>>> RamRod Sword [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > My world, the one God created has no end. The one you're living 'is' > a dead end Your God is imaginary, and is also a dead end. >> My world, the one God created has no end. The one you're living 'is' >> a dead end > >Your God is imaginary, and is also a dead end. According to several renown astrophysicists, the galaxy we inhabit is one of a system in the entropy phase of its existence. DCI >>> My world, the one God created has no end. The one you're living 'is' >>> a dead end [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > DCI And the names of these "renown astrophysicists" would be? And what has that to do with whether or not God(s) are imaginary? >>>> My world, the one God created has no end. The one you're living 'is' >>>> a dead end [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >And the names of these "renown astrophysicists" would be? And what has that >to do with whether or not God(s) are imaginary? This a nice cogent cite from which to start: http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t18186-50.html Inquire. Call the UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy, ask for Dr. J. Manuel Urrutia, or email him at urrutia@edu.ucla.physics.hobbes and ask for a reference to the astrophysicist he has dealt with over the years on the subject of entropy of the universe. Or go to Google and inquire: Manuel Urrutia - entropy - UCLA. check his notes of Hans Keppler and entropy. You may wish to review many sites of Dr. J. Manuel Urrutia's work in the field: http://osdir.com/ml/java.imagej/2006-05/threads.html Buy starting with Dr. Urrutia, you will open the door to the who's who of astrophysicists who hold to an entropy of the universe. Then if you're not too tired, Google for Hans Keppler and see several references to entropy concepts in the universe in which we live. Look up Stephen Hawkins on the subject, too! His theoretical models are compelling! http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/02088/hawking.htm Enjoy. DCI > "Hugh Gibbons" <hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote in message > >> "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > My world, the one God created has no end. The one you're living 'is' a dead > end The sun will go nova in a few billion years. Bye bye world. RT >> "Hugh Gibbons" <hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote in message >> >> "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > The sun will go nova in a few billion years. Bye bye world. 2 Corinthians 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago---whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows---such a man was caught up to the third heaven. Bye bye for you, I 'plan' on being a long way from here > RT > >> "Hugh Gibbons" <hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote in message > >> >> "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > Bye bye for you, I 'plan' on being a long way from here Bye bye for everyone. The planet will be destroyed. RT > Bye bye for everyone. The planet will be destroyed. > > RT I see no reason to think the planet would be destroyed. > > Bye bye for everyone. The planet will be destroyed. > > > > RT > > I see no reason to think the planet would be destroyed. Earth will abide. And our little strata in the rock will be called the Plasticene Epoch during the Carciniferous Period. >> I see no reason to think the planet would be destroyed. > >Earth will abide. > >And our little strata in the rock will be called the Plasticene Epoch >during the Carciniferous Period. Zing! Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > > Bye bye for everyone. The planet will be destroyed. > > > > RT > > I see no reason to think the planet would be destroyed. The will become a red gas giant whose diameter could expand as far as Earth's orbit. Plus, some stars in this class can go nova. Stellar evolution. RT > > > Bye bye for everyone. The planet will be destroyed. > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The will become a red gas giant whose diameter could expand as far as Earth's > orbit. Plus, some stars in this class can go nova. I realize that. Let's think a little bit about what the density of a solar mass expanded to 100 million miles in diameter would be. Ms = 2x10^30 kg. 1 AU = R = 1.5*10^11 meters. V = 4/3 *pi* R^3 = 1.4x10^34 m^3 That makes the AVERAGE density of the expanded sun about 0.14 g per cubic meter. The much thinner part out where the Earth is will be just a fraction of that. The Earth will be running into that very thin medium very fast, though, about 15000 m/sec. Each second, therefore, each square meter of the Earth's cross section (approximately) will be decelerating 0.00014 kg of mass by 15000 m/sec, which delivers a 2kg-m/sec impulse to the Earth. You'd feel that wind, for sure, and it would be damn hot. Multiply that by the cross section of the Earth (1.3x10^14) and you get an impulse of 2.6x10^14 kg-m/sec of impulse each second. So each second, this would slow the earth down by 2.6x10^14 kg-m/sec / 2x10^30 kg = 1.3x10^-16 m/sec. In a whole year, it would slow down by 4x10^-9 m/sec. In a billion years, that'd slow us down by 4 meters per second. When the sun shrinks into a white dwarf at the end of its stellar lifetime, the Earth will still be orbiting it, with a mass and velocity not much different than they are now. Unless I made a huge math error, which is possible. > > > > Bye bye for everyone. The planet will be destroyed. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Unless I made a huge math error, which is possible. Well, it looks like I DID make a huge math error. Each second, a square meter of Earth's cross-section will be decelerating 15000 times as much mass as I originally computed. That brings the deceleration of the earth to 4x10^-9 x 15000 = 0.00006 m/sec each year. The expected duration of the sun's red-giant phase is on the order of 100 million years. The earth will lose several thousand meters per second of speed due to passage through the sun. years. > > > > Bye bye for everyone. The planet will be destroyed. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Unless I made a huge math error, which is possible. Surface temp of a red giant is in the 300 to 3500K range, or below, depends on the source. Plenty hot to fry and the proximity of the envelope means a kingsize dose of radiation. And solar wind. Or any other kind of emission. >> When the sun shrinks into a white dwarf at the end of its stellar >> lifetime, the Earth will still be orbiting it, with a mass and velocity [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >on the source. Plenty hot to fry and the proximity of the envelope means >a kingsize dose of radiation. And solar wind. Or any other kind of emission. The Earth will be a cinder and life would have ceased to exist on it long before. And what effect would the explosion that results in a white dwarf do to the orbit? Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >> When the sun shrinks into a white dwarf at the end of its stellar > >> lifetime, the Earth will still be orbiting it, with a mass and velocity [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > long before. And what effect would the explosion that results in a > white dwarf do to the orbit? Even worse. Time to find a sucker to sell your house and land to ;) > > >> When the sun shrinks into a white dwarf at the end of its stellar > > >> lifetime, the Earth will still be orbiting it, with a mass and velocity [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Even worse. Time to find a sucker to sell your house and land to ;) CB can have mine, in five billion years. >>>>> When the sun shrinks into a white dwarf at the end of its stellar >>>>> lifetime, the Earth will still be orbiting it, with a mass and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > CB can have mine, in five billion years. CB's fanatacism might drive him to think that your home should belong to the right type of Christian long before then. > > > >> When the sun shrinks into a white dwarf at the end of its stellar > > > >> lifetime, the Earth will still be orbiting it, with a mass and velocity [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > CB can have mine, in five billion years. He's dumb enough to take you up on it. RT >>>> When the sun shrinks into a white dwarf at the end of its stellar >>>> lifetime, the Earth will still be orbiting it, with a mass and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Even worse. Time to find a sucker to sell your house and land to ;) This discussion reminds me of that ep of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" where they were showing "This Island Earth" and Exeder is witnessing the final destruction of his home planet, Metaluna. He says something like, "The surface temperature is thousands of degrees.." and Crow says, "Cooler by the lake..." I guess you had to be there. > >> When the sun shrinks into a white dwarf at the end of its stellar > >> lifetime, the Earth will still be orbiting it, with a mass and velocity [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > long before. And what effect would the explosion that results in a > white dwarf do to the orbit? I don't think the Earth's mass will change much, but its time within the helisophere will have slowed its orbit appreciably. When the sun blows off some of that gas, it will mean all the planets have too much velocity for their distance from the sun, and they will stabilize into higher, more eccentric orbits. >> The Earth will be a cinder and life would have ceased to exist on it >> long before. And what effect would the explosion that results in a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >velocity for their distance from the sun, and they will stabilize into >higher, more eccentric orbits. Water and organics will be driven off. Petroleum and other elements that gassify under those temps will go. Still probably not much expressed as a percent of total mass though. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> The Earth will be a cinder and life would have ceased to exist on it >>> long before. And what effect would the explosion that results in a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that gassify under those temps will go. Still probably not much > expressed as a percent of total mass though. The UN and shills like Gore will be saying there goes our cash cow buggy man, no more 'planetary'...opps, global warming carbon tax scam > >>> The Earth will be a cinder and life would have ceased to exist on it > >>> long before. And what effect would the explosion that results in a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The UN and shills like Gore will be saying there goes our cash cow buggy > man, no more 'planetary'...opps, global warming carbon tax scam Oh look, CB has no concept of something happening billions of years into the future. Fits in with his belief that Satan controls the weather. >> > Water and organics will be driven off. Petroleum and other elements >> > that gassify under those temps will go. Still probably not much [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Oh look, CB has no concept of something happening billions of years into the >future. Fits in with his belief that Satan controls the weather. There's no such thing as billions of years. God's only a little over 5000 himself. Swill SignatureMoney isn't always dollars, but dollars are always money. Picture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>Oh look, CB has no concept of something happening billions of years into the >>future. Fits in with his belief that Satan controls the weather. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Swill It all started, as I recall, on a Tuesday morning around 7:45 AM during a hot summer day. The God that many folks speak of today left immediately after the 6 days of work and entrusted Mother Earth to man and woman for care and nurturing. Unfortunately, the learning process to accomplish the fete has been extremely slow and often without long lasting results. DCI >>>Oh look, CB has no concept of something happening billions of years into the >>>future. Fits in with his belief that Satan controls the weather. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >to accomplish the fete has been extremely slow and often without long >lasting results. I thought it was a Thursday lunchtime in a pub . . . Swill SignatureMoney isn't always dollars, but dollars are always money. Picture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:47:58 -0400, Governor Swill ><governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >to accomplish the fete has been extremely slow and often without long >lasting results. Last Tuesdayism? ;) RT >>On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:47:58 -0400, Governor Swill >><governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >RT Ah! I see you done extensive reading, too! Yes! Tuesdayism, the pseudo scientific based religion, adheres to a belief that all things in the galaxies began on early Tuesday morning. Offshoots of this belief system claim others days in the week save for Sundays, a time when the collection plate is passed around. Enjoy. DCI >>>It all started, as I recall, on a Tuesday morning around 7:45 AM >>>during a hot summer day. The God that many folks speak of today left [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >system claim others days in the week save for Sundays, a time when the >collection plate is passed around. I believe everything started at lunchtime on a Thursday in the pub. Swill SignatureMoney isn't always dollars, but dollars are always money. Picture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >>On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:47:58 -0400, Governor Swill > >><governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Ah! I see you done extensive reading, too! Yes! Tuesdayism, the pseudo "Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?" > scientific based religion, adheres to a belief that all things in the > galaxies began on early Tuesday morning. Offshoots of this belief [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > DCI > >>>Oh look, CB has no concept of something happening billions of years into the > >>>future. Fits in with his belief that Satan controls the weather. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I thought it was a Thursday lunchtime in a pub . . . That would make more sense... > > > > > Bye bye for everyone. The planet will be destroyed. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > on the source. Plenty hot to fry and the proximity of the envelope means > a kingsize dose of radiation. And solar wind. Or any other kind of emission. My post concerned whether the Earth can survive. It can. Whether people can survive on it is a different story. People, if there were any left, which is extremely unlikely, would have to move to the outer planets if not the Kuiper belt. >> Surface temp of a red giant is in the 300 to 3500K range, or below, depends >> on the source. Plenty hot to fry and the proximity of the envelope means [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >any left, which is extremely unlikely, would have to move to the outer >planets if not the Kuiper belt. I'll bet moons around the gas giants will become habitable. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >> Surface temp of a red giant is in the 300 to 3500K range, or below, > >> depends [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I'll bet moons around the gas giants will become habitable. I think those will be too hot as well. > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:50:29 -0600, Hugh Gibbons > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I'll bet moons around the gas giants will become habitable. I bet right now you don't know your doughy a.s from your pimply face. > > > > > > Bye bye for everyone. The planet will be destroyed. > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > any left, which is extremely unlikely, would have to move to the outer > planets if not the Kuiper belt. Deceleration of an orbiting body as per your earlier post would result in a spiral inwards. That means increasing heat, radiation, and gravitational forces. Not pretty. RT >> > > > Bye bye for everyone. The planet will be destroyed. >> > > > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > a kingsize dose of radiation. And solar wind. Or any other kind of > emission. Yet Dimi-godz like AlGore think Earth climate is changing because of capitalism, chiefly America and her combustion engine. > "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Yet Dimi-godz like AlGore think Earth climate is changing because of > capitalism, chiefly America and her combustion engine. Oh look, CB has no concept of something happening billions of years into the future. Fits in with his belief that Satan controls the weather. RT >> The sun will go nova in a few billion years. Bye bye world. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Bye bye for you, I 'plan' on being a long way from here The good news is that if the Rapture comes before the end of the world, the rest of is will finally get some peace. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> The sun will go nova in a few billion years. Bye bye world. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The good news is that if the Rapture comes before the end of the > world, the rest of is will finally get some peace. Who'll be left to enforce moral authority? Without which chaos will ensue. The Super Ego hold the Id in its lockbox. Without discipline, anarchy >> The good news is that if the Rapture comes before the end of the >> world, the rest of is will finally get some peace. > >Who'll be left to enforce moral authority? Without which chaos will ensue. > >The Super Ego hold the Id in its lockbox. Without discipline, anarchy And yet Revelation tells us that after the Rapture, Earth will have a thousand years of peace. See, even God says I'm right! You know, before you come in here thumping that thing at people who were raised on it, you might do a bit of reading from it yourself. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> The good news is that if the Rapture comes before the end of the >>> world, the rest of is will finally get some peace. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And yet Revelation tells us that after the Rapture, Earth will have a > thousand years of peace. See, even God says I'm right! There's a bit you left out. The Rapture saves those who have commited their lives to Jesus, are saved, born again in the Spirit of our King. They/we are spared of the seven year tribulation in which all Hell breaks loose. You forget that Michael, the archangel and his crew come down from Heaven to help America and the Revived Roman Empire thump Islamo-fascist kin horns and their Anti-Christ, sending them down to meet Mohammad, Saddamn and his sons in Hell. The good guys win, ushering in the 1000 year peace. > You know, before you come in here thumping that thing at people who > were raised on it, you might do a bit of reading from it yourself. What thumping? The thumping of tin horn Babylonian kings? CB SignatureThere are only two kinds of Dim Libs: poor planners and propagandists who purchase their ignorant votes > >>> The good news is that if the Rapture comes before the end of the > >>> world, the rest of is will finally get some peace. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > their Anti-Christ, sending them down to meet Mohammad, Saddamn and his sons > in Hell. The good guys win, ushering in the 1000 year peace. You're completely wrong. The virtuous were taken up in 2000, and the seven years between Bush's inauguration and his Impeachment are the Tribulation. 1000 years of peace start in January of 2008. >The virtuous were taken up in 2000, and the >seven years between Bush's inauguration and his Impeachment are the >Tribulation. 1000 years of peace start in January of 2008. That made my day. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >>> The good news is that if the Rapture comes before the end of the > >>> world, the rest of is will finally get some peace. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You forget that Michael, the archangel and his crew come down from Heaven to > help America and the Revived Roman Empire thump Islamo-fascist kin horns and AHAHAHHAAH - what crap. Iraq powerless after GW1. > their Anti-Christ, sending them down to meet Mohammad, Saddamn and his sons > in Hell. The good guys win, ushering in the 1000 year peace. Saddam, who was supported by you republicons? > > You know, before you come in here thumping that thing at people who > > were raised on it, you might do a bit of reading from it yourself. > > What thumping? The thumping of tin horn Babylonian kings? Babylon hasn't existed for hundreds and hundreds of years, you ignorant bigot. RT >>>The Super Ego hold the Id in its lockbox. Without discipline, anarchy >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >lives to Jesus, are saved, born again in the Spirit of our King. They/we are >spared of the seven year tribulation in which all Hell breaks loose. It'll be worth it. But you go ahead and go with your family and don't worry about the rest. >You forget that Michael, the archangel and his crew come down from Heaven to >help America and the Revived Roman Empire thump Islamo-fascist kin horns and >their Anti-Christ, sending them down to meet Mohammad, Saddamn and his sons >in Hell. The good guys win, ushering in the 1000 year peace. Aw, now, that's just the mushrooms talking. >> You know, before you come in here thumping that thing at people who >> were raised on it, you might do a bit of reading from it yourself. > >What thumping? The thumping of tin horn Babylonian kings? *yawn* buh bye! Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>>The Super Ego hold the Id in its lockbox. Without discipline, anarchy >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > buh bye! Yeah, run Swill, run to your momma > Swill > >>> The sun will go nova in a few billion years. Bye bye world. > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The Super Ego hold the Id in its lockbox. Without discipline, anarchy All cultures have made laws for themselves. Boogeymen and superstition not necessary. RT > > "Hugh Gibbons" <hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote in message > > My world, the one God created has no end. The one you're living 'is' a dead > > end > > The sun will go nova in a few billion years. Bye bye world. I'm pretty certain this will not affect me or any other human being in any way. >> > "Hugh Gibbons" <hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote in message >> > My world, the one God created has no end. The one you're living 'is' a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm pretty certain this will not affect me or any other human being > in any way. Richey 'is' thinking immediate gratification, even though he pretends to look beyond what Heaven's light may penetrate within his shallow thinking > >> > "Hugh Gibbons" <hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote in message > >> > My world, the one God created has no end. The one you're living 'is' a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Richey 'is' thinking immediate gratification, even though he pretends to > look beyond what Heaven's light may penetrate within his shallow thinking CB doesn't know what a nova is... RT > > > "Hugh Gibbons" <hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote in message > > > My world, the one God created has no end. The one you're living 'is' a dead [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm pretty certain this will not affect me or any other human being > in any way. But it would any humans living then. RT > > > > "Hugh Gibbons" <hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote in message > > > > My world, the one God created has no end. The one you're living 'is' a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > RT If any of our descendants still exist in a billion years, they will not be human beings. >If any of our descendants still exist in a billion years, they will not >be human beings. Not as we are today but still recognizable as sentient beings. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> If any of our descendants still exist in a billion years, they will >> not be human beings. > > Not as we are today but still recognizable as sentient beings. > > Swill Well, some of our descendants anyway... :) > >If any of our descendants still exist in a billion years, they will not > >be human beings. > > Not as we are today but still recognizable as sentient beings. What makes you think your descendants in a billion years will be sentient? >> >If any of our descendants still exist in a billion years, they will not >> >be human beings. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >What makes you think your descendants in a billion years will be >sentient? *pondering* That's a very good question. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> >If any of our descendants still exist in a billion years, they will not >>> >be human beings. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That's a very good question. Because you don't want to admit that man was make in the likeness of God > Swill >>>>> If any of our descendants still exist in a billion years, they >>>>> will not be human beings. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Because you don't want to admit that man was make in the likeness of > God Can you prove that man was made in the likeness of God? >Can you prove that man was made in the likeness of God? Can you prove he wasn't? Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> Can you prove that man was made in the likeness of God? > > Can you prove he wasn't? > > Swill Again, not my burden of proof. I did not make the claim that he wasn't. Can you or CB prove the claim that CB made, or not? I simple yes or no answer is all that is required. >>> Can you prove that man was made in the likeness of God? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Can you or CB prove the claim that CB made, or not? I simple yes or no >answer is all that is required. Sure it's your burden. You're the one contesting 5000 or so years of Earth's history. ;-) Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >>> Can you prove that man was made in the likeness of God? > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sure it's your burden. You're the one contesting 5000 or so years of > Earth's history. ;-) Not history. Religion. Of course, the Greeks and most other religions also postulated that man was made in the image of gods. Science says man is a kind of ape. How do you factor that in? >> Sure it's your burden. You're the one contesting 5000 or so years of >> Earth's history. ;-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Science says man is a kind of ape. How do you factor that in? God refining his design? "Geez, these are some hairy bastards . . ." Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> Sure it's your burden. You're the one contesting 5000 or so years of >>> Earth's history. ;-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > God refining his design? Who? >>>> Can you prove that man was made in the likeness of God? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sure it's your burden. Not even remotely. You know that as well as I do. >> Can you prove that man was made in the likeness of God? > > Can you prove he wasn't? Illogical and stupid question. It is invalid for you to demand that someone disprove your assertion. If you assert that man is made in the likeness of god, *and* if you expect anyone to believe you, then you must present evidence to support the assertion. The absence of someone disproving your assertion does *not* mean that your assertion is therefore presumed true. >>> Can you prove that man was made in the likeness of God? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >of someone disproving your assertion does *not* mean >that your assertion is therefore presumed true. 1) One stupid question deserves another. 2) It's not *my* assertion. 3) Before supporting the assertion, the definition and parameters of "his own image" should be established. They have not been to my satisfaction. 4) It's a philosophical question, a Mystery. It is as logical to follow Andy's question with it's opposite number as it is to have asked his question in the first place. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>> Can you prove that man was made in the likeness of God? >>> Can you prove he wasn't? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 1) One stupid question deserves another. The first question wasn't stupid. Yours was. > 2) It's not *my* assertion. The stupid and illogical question you posed is consistent with the position of those making the assertion. > 3) Before supporting the assertion, the definition and parameters of > "his own image" should be established. They have not been to my > satisfaction. Ha ha ha ha ha! Nice weaseling! > 4) It's a philosophical question, a Mystery. It is as logical to > follow Andy's question with it's opposite number No, that's not true. The stupid and illogical question you posed is inherently fallacious, an example of a classical logical fallacy. No matter what the original assertion, asking someone who asks for the person making it - or a sympathizer like you - to prove the falsity of it is invalid. > as it is to have > asked his question in the first place. No. Someone makes the positive assertion, without support, about "god". Someone else asks the first person to support his assertion, or in other words to prove its truth. It is completely invalid to demand of this second someone to prove the falsity of the initial assertion - it is wholly the burden of the first person to prove the truth of it. The key point is that the absence of proof of the falsity of the assertion is *NOT* any evidence for the truth of it. >>>> Can you prove that man was made in the likeness of God? >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > 1) One stupid question deserves another. Why was it stupid to ask someone to prove their assertion? >Why was it stupid to ask someone to prove their assertion? Because the assertion can't be proven and neither can it's opposite. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> Why was it stupid to ask someone to prove their assertion? > > Because the assertion can't be proven Then the people making it should make it. > and neither can it's opposite. ITS, not "it's". Who's making the opposite? No one; you're seeing something that isn't there. Asking someone to prove or support his positive assertion does /not/ mean the person demanding proof is asserting the falsity of the assertion. He merely is asking, reasonably, that the person making the assertion provide support for it. >> Why was it stupid to ask someone to prove their assertion? > > Because the assertion can't be proven Then the people making it should not make it. > and neither can it's opposite. ITS, not "it's". Who's making the opposite? No one; you're seeing something that isn't there. Asking someone to prove or support his positive assertion does /not/ mean the person demanding proof is asserting the falsity of the assertion. He merely is asking, reasonably, that the person making the assertion provide support for it. >> Why was it stupid to ask someone to prove their assertion? > > Because the assertion can't be proven and neither can it's opposite. There was no opposite assertion made. Why would you boldy make assertion as absolute truth that you cannot prove and then balk at being asked to prove it? Is this common for religionists? > >> Why was it stupid to ask someone to prove their assertion? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > absolute truth that you cannot prove and then balk at being asked to prove > it? Is this common for religionists? Actually, I observe that it's common for people to harbor the false belief that they can. >> Governor Swill typed this: >> >> Why was it stupid to ask someone to prove their assertion? >> > Because the assertion can't be proven and neither can it's opposite. >> There was no opposite assertion made. Certainly there was. By demanding proof that he exists, you imply a belief that he does not. In any case, my point is that neither side of this particular argument can ever be proven to the satisfaction of extreme adherents on either side. >> Why would you boldy make assertion as >> absolute truth that you cannot prove and then balk at being asked to prove >> it? Is this common for religionists? Of course it is. That's why neither side of the argument can be proven. Religionists cannot accept that there might not be a God and they aren't going to convince you that there is. >Actually, I observe that it's common for people to harbor the false >belief that they can. *nods* Thus does politics make for strange bedfellows. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> Governor Swill typed this: >>>>> Why was it stupid to ask someone to prove their assertion? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Certainly there was. No. > By demanding proof that he exists, you imply a > belief that he does not. False. >>> Why would you boldy make assertion as >>> absolute truth that you cannot prove and then balk at being asked to prove >>> it? Is this common for religionists? > > Of course it is. For your breed of religionists, perhaps; maybe for all. >For your breed of religionists, perhaps; maybe for all. Some call me a religionist, some call me an atheist. I must be doing something right. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> For your breed of religionists, perhaps; maybe for all. > > Some call me a religionist, some call me an atheist. > > I must be doing something right. You're just taking a piss. >>> Governor Swill typed this: >>>>> Why was it stupid to ask someone to prove their assertion? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Certainly there was. No, there wasn't. There was a call to prove his assertion. There was no opposite assertion made, no matter how many mental convolutions you try to take us through. >>>> There was no opposite assertion made. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >opposite assertion made, no matter how many mental convolutions you try to >take us through. Made by me. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>>> There was no opposite assertion made. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Made by me. So, if you made the opposite assertion, the burden of proof is on you. >>> No, there wasn't. There was a call to prove his assertion. There >>> was no opposite assertion made, no matter how many mental [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >So, if you made the opposite assertion, the burden of proof is on you. Not taking your vitamins? You're still missing the point. It isn't about whether or not there's a God, it's about being able to prove or disprove it and nobody can do either. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>> No, there wasn't. There was a call to prove his assertion. There >>>> was no opposite assertion made, no matter how many mental [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It isn't about whether or not there's a God, it's about being able to > prove or disprove it and nobody can do either. 1. People who assert there is a god have the burden of proof of supporting the assertion. 2. People who demand of the first group that they support their assertion are not denying the truth of the assertion, nor are they making an opposite assertion. They are asking the first group to meet their burden of proof. I think you're too stupid for this. >>>>> Can you prove that man was made in the likeness of God? >>>> Can you prove he wasn't? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why was it stupid to ask someone to prove their assertion? The obvious and obviously correct answer is, it isn't stupid to make that request. >>>>>> Can you prove that man was made in the likeness of God? >>>>> Can you prove he wasn't? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The obvious and obviously correct answer is, it isn't > stupid to make that request. Of course it's not. We used to have people come to our door to "witness" to us. Two words would turn them away. "Prove it." If you don't want to provide the evidence, then don't make the assertion. > In News 13b87i48sn5t...@corp.supernews.com,, Rudy Canoza at > rudy-can...@excite.com, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Of course it's not. We used to have people come to our door to "witness" > to us. Two words would turn them away. "Prove it." And that does not, of course, mean that you were asserting that their crapola was false. It merely means that you were asking them, entirely reasonably, to support their claims - the claims they expected you to take on blind faith. I take nothing on blind faith. No one should take anything on blind faith. > >Can you prove that man was made in the likeness of God? > > Can you prove he wasn't? > > Swill It's one of those things you either accept on faith or not at all. Many believe it is the other way around. > > "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Can you prove that man was made in the likeness of God? No one can outside of parlor tricks. Take the Hebrew letters for Jehovah, aka YHVH, the letters yod, heh, and vau Stack them vertically y h v h Cute, eh? > >>> >If any of our descendants still exist in a billion years, they will not > >>> >be human beings. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Because you don't want to admit that man was make in the likeness of God What's to admit. Some of use don't presume to know things we cannot know. >> My world, the one God created has no end. The one you're living 'is' a dead >> end > >The sun will go nova in a few billion years. Bye bye world. Actually, the sun is projected to become a red giant and then a white dwarf. It lacks the mass to become a supernova or black hole. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >> My world, the one God created has no end. The one you're living 'is' a dead > >> end [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Actually, the sun is projected to become a red giant and then a white > dwarf. It lacks the mass to become a supernova or black hole. ACtually, I said nova, not supernova. They are different. http://science.hq.nasa.gov/universe/science/stars.html I was skipping ahead a bit. Sounds more exciting than "red giant". RT >> Actually, the sun is projected to become a red giant and then a white >> dwarf. It lacks the mass to become a supernova or black hole. > >ACtually, I said nova, not supernova. They are different. Yep. I overlooked that too. > http://science.hq.nasa.gov/universe/science/stars.html > >I was skipping ahead a bit. Sounds more exciting than "red giant". heh Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message > >>> Hugh Gibbons at hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > appearance of a Peacock who raises great noises and teaches cunning in > astronomy,... Oh please - what a crock of superstitious crap. And here's you falling for it. > Andrealphus, demon. You know how God plans to end Evil? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The end is coming for you >> I have much respect for CB. > >Then you're as big an idiot as he is. But his sword is rigid. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> I have much respect for CB. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Swill Rigid swords snap the easiest. Metallurgy being what it was in the 12th century and all. >> > In News 469a72fb$0$31212$4c368faf@roadrunner.com,, CB at >> > CB@PrayForMe.com, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I guess CB doesn't mean to include himself in the vast majority who > do not hate. He also said he does not moralize and then proceeds to do so. That "good time religion" has really screwed up his mind. >>> > In News 469a72fb$0$31212$4c368faf@roadrunner.com,, CB at >>> > CB@PrayForMe.com, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > He also said he does not moralize and then proceeds to do so. That "good > time religion" has really screwed up his mind. Have you got an example of me moralizing? > >> Why is it that your legion smell like rotting fish? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > He also said he does not moralize and then proceeds to do so. That "good > time religion" has really screwed up his mind. I think he needs Prolixin. >> >> Why is it that your legion smell like rotting fish? >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I think he needs Prolixin. I think you need a Lobotomy >>>>> Why is it that your legion smell like rotting fish? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I think you need a Lobotomy I think you've already had a Lobotomy. >> I think you need a Lobotomy > >I think you've already had a Lobotomy. Word of mouth is the best advertising. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> I think you need a Lobotomy >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Swill LOL! Well, I'll keep his endorsement in mind. >>> >> Why is it that your legion smell like rotting fish? >>> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I think you need a Lobotomy During the inquisition Christians delighted in the use of torture. In early American history Christians burned and tortured suspected witches. At least by suggesting he have a Lobotomy you stayed within the realms of being a Christian. >>>> >> Why is it that your legion smell like rotting fish? >>>> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > At least by suggesting he have a Lobotomy you stayed within the realms of > being a Christian. Your next in line I see > >> >> Why is it that your legion smell like rotting fish? > >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I think you need a Lobotomy Why? So I can be more like you? > >I have found that "generally" the more religious a person is the prone to > >hate. > > Then quit finding these people. There is the vast majority of persons > who live by religious principles who don't hate. Maybe. Got stats that have been subjected to peer review? >>I have found that "generally" the more religious a person is the prone to >>hate. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > DCI I don't have to find them. They are right here. They hate gays because homosexuality is a sin. BTW, can you name a war or conflict where two athesists went after each other because they were atheists? > BTW, can you name a war or conflict where two athesists went after each > other because they were atheists? I guess they could fight over which god was more nonexistent. > >> What Atheists Can't Answer > >> By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007; [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Interesting. How do YOU choose what is right? Education? Instinct? Are > you superior to all people that have a different belief system? Both instinct and education play their parts in determining all kinds of human behavior. > In News 1184463200.693358.151...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,, sdr at > sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > because they know it is right. Child like theists will never understand > that explanation. And where does the basics come from? Is there a foundation, or will you ignore this like all dopey Darwin athiests? >> In News 1184463200.693358.151...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,, sdr >> at sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > And where does the basics come from? Do you need "basics" to know that it is wrong to murder someone? I suppose that if it was somehow, as unlikely as it is, proven t00% that God does not exist, all Christians will go on a murdering rampage? I mean, again, right? > Is there a foundation, Common sense and empathy, which are both sorely lacking in Theists. >>> In News 1184463200.693358.151...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,, sdr >>> at sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Common sense and empathy, which are both sorely lacking in Theists. Theists don't want to acjnowledge it, but all secies have a basic sense of "morals" built into their genes. Look at the coopperation emperor penguins employ to raise thir young. Do they have a theology telling them to share body heat? This sense of cooperation can be highly developed, as in the higher apes, or little more than maternal instinct, as in crocodiles. But it is indisputably there. Larry >>>> In News 1184463200.693358.151...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,, sdr >>>> at sdrodr...@sdrodrian.com, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Larry I agree. > Theists don't want to acjnowledge it, but all secies have a basic sense of > "morals" built into their genes. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > little more than maternal instinct, as in crocodiles. But it is indisputably > there. I don't think we can be sure that a cooperative instinct is the same thing as morality, though it might be. Certainly, humans display quite a lot of culturally-induced variation in what they think of as moral. >> Theists don't want to acjnowledge it, but all secies have a basic sense >> of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > thing as morality, though it might be. Certainly, humans display quite > a lot of culturally-induced variation in what they think of as moral. Zeitgeist. And you are correct. At one time slavery was considered moral. Now it is not and it is not because god sent word - in fact the bible (if it is the word of god) mentions how to treat, buy and sell slaves. >> Theists don't want to acjnowledge it, but all secies have a basic sense >> of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > thing as morality, though it might be. Certainly, humans display quite > a lot of culturally-induced variation in what they think of as moral. It 'is' man's nature to be bad. One only has to observe children who have no authority figure to guide them. Bootz hinted at that fact on his show by illustrating how college graduates who've never worked before expect their employers to cater to them rather than to serve their employer. Boortz's point was that after high school kids should work for a few years so they understand how hard life will be without higher Education. Without that 'enlightenment' kids will think life will be handed to them and whine "no fair" when it's not. It's the me generation that's grown up without much discipline. It's like Hillary and Obama avoiding FoxNews. How the Hell can we expect a Dim/Lib President to take of Islamo-fascism when they can't even handle tough questions from Rush, Hannity or O'Rielly? SignatureCB America needs Michael Savage to be her Media General http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html > >> Theists don't want to acjnowledge it, but all secies have a basic sense > >> of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It 'is' man's nature to be bad. One only has to observe children who have no > authority figure to guide them. It is children's nature to lack moral training. That is not the same as being bad, which implies defiance of morality. > Bootz hinted at that fact on his show by illustrating how college graduates > who've never worked before expect their employers to cater to them rather > than to serve their employer. That is not bad, merely ignorant. > It's like Hillary and Obama avoiding FoxNews. How the Hell can we expect a > Dim/Lib President to take of Islamo-fascism when they can't even handle > tough questions from Rush, Hannity or O'Rielly? Not the same thing. Rush, Hannity and O'Really have long track records of misrepresenting facts, and falsely characterizing the statements and opinions of ... everybody. Real journalists don't do that. > >> Theists don't want to acjnowledge it, but all secies have a basic sense > >> of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It 'is' man's nature to be bad. One only has to observe children who have no > authority figure to guide them. What hogwash. > Bootz hinted at that fact on his show by illustrating how college graduates What "fact"? > who've never worked before expect their employers to cater to them rather > than to serve their employer. Boortz's point was that after high school kids > should work for a few years so they understand how hard life will be without > higher Education. Without that 'enlightenment' kids will think life will be > handed to them and whine "no fair" when it's not. It's the me generation > that's grown up without much discipline. Boortz sounds like someone who couldn't afford college. > It's like Hillary and Obama avoiding FoxNews. How the Hell can we expect a > Dim/Lib President to take of Islamo-fascism when they can't even handle > tough questions from Rush, Hannity or O'Rielly? Faux News went to court to be able to lie about the news. IN Florida. You knew that, right? RT >> It 'is' man's nature to be bad. One only has to observe children who have no >> authority figure to guide them. >What hogwash. Children are animals. But most of them grow up to become humans. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > What Atheists Can't Answer > By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007; [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between > good and bad instincts? A good instinct of mine is not to put my hand on a hot stove or step in front of a moving train. Yet for the life of me I don't remember Jesus ever telling me not to. Of course if I had not LEARNED that instinct I would either have a fried hand or not be writing this right now. Man-made religion had nothing to do with it. >> What Atheists Can't Answer >> By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007; [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Man-made religion had nothing to do with it. How do homosexual men justify a lifestyle that reeks of feces? Common sence would tell ya its nasty butt it doesn't stop them. Does lust blind the morally weak to the point of indangering their health? "The Band Played On" - The story of how HIV/AIDS spread through the Homo community and Politically Correct politicians like former Mayor Diane Feinstein let it happen. SignatureCB America needs Michael Savage to be her Media General http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html >>> What Atheists Can't Answer >>> By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007; [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > How do homosexual men justify a lifestyle that reeks of feces? Why do you spend so much time thinking about it? And just how do you know it reeks of feces? BTW, it is not limited to homosexual men. > Common sence would tell ya its nasty butt it doesn't stop them. I wonder how many women say that about performing oral sex. > Does lust blind the morally weak to the point of indangering their health? Who said it is morally wrong? You? And who are you to say it is morally wrong? And if you bring up the bible include other offenses that are considered morally wrong to the point of deserving exercution including: cursing your parents, committing adultary, and working on the sabath among others. At least you proved one point of mine i.e. there is a positive correlation between degree of religiosity and the tendency to hate. >>>> What Atheists Can't Answer >>>> By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007; [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > At least you proved one point of mine i.e. there is a positive correlation > between degree of religiosity and the tendency to hate. The act of Homosexuality is the sin. I'm not here to moralize the virtues of the act, that's up to whom ever it applies to. That person will have to answer to The 'Power' that be. For my self I know the moral implications of sin. >>>>> What Atheists Can't Answer >>>>> By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007; [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > For my self I know the moral implications of sin. Yet you say you are not here to moralize. I don't even know if there is a cure against moralizing which is a sickeness common to the American Taliban. And rest assured, neither you or me will be surprised the second after death. >>>>>> What Atheists Can't Answer >>>>>> By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007; [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > cure against moralizing which is a sickeness common to the American > Taliban. John Walker Lindh? > And rest assured, neither you or me will be surprised the second after > death. I heard dat >>>>>>> What Atheists Can't Answer >>>>>>> By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007; [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > John Walker Lindh? Falwell, Robertson and their ilk. > >>>> What Atheists Can't Answer > >>>> By Michael Gerson Friday, July 13, 2007; [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > For my self I know the moral implications of sin. No superstition please. RT >For my self I know the moral implications of sin. Translation: The survival implications of certain behaviors. Nothin' beats good, clean living. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>For my self I know the moral implications of sin. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Swill But he continues to claim he does not moralize. >>>For my self I know the moral implications of sin. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >But he continues to claim he does not moralize. He's also a troll who's about as useless as they come. He says one thing in one post and the opposite in another. I do this sometimes to in a devil's advocate sort of way but don't espouse such debating points as my personal views. This is to elicit more detail about other's positions but also to show that there is always another way to look at things that could provide some enlightenment. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html If God sees evil and injustice but cannot do anything about it, he/she is not omipotent. If God sees evil and injustice but choses not do to anything about it, he/she is manevolent. If god does not see evil and injustice he/she is not omiscient. > If God sees evil and injustice but cannot do anything about it, he/she is > not omipotent. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If god does not see evil and injustice he/she is not omiscient. There goes the freedom of free choice >> If God sees evil and injustice but cannot do anything about it, he/she is >> not omipotent. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There goes the freedom of free choice Only if you believe misery and pain is a result of free choice. > >> If God sees evil and injustice but cannot do anything about it, he/she is > >> not omipotent. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Only if you believe misery and pain is a result of free choice. Most of it is - just not necessarily that of the victim. Cheers Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org >>> If God sees evil and injustice but cannot do anything about it, he/she >>> is not omipotent. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Only if you believe misery and pain is a result of free choice. Blame Adam and Eve for choosing to eat from the Tree of Life which opened their eyes of the choice to sin or not to sin. Before that 'choice' was made Enlightenment (choice) was only the Deceiver's wet dream for mankind. Adam and Eve had everything. It was all perfect, there was no wrong. Man was perfect so the choice to sin wasn't there to tempt. Only through Liberalization or God's word came the Enlightenment of a choice to sin. >>>> If God sees evil and injustice but cannot do anything about it, he/she >>>> is not omipotent. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > was perfect so the choice to sin wasn't there to tempt. Only through > Liberalization or God's word came the Enlightenment of a choice to sin. We all know what the wages of sin have brought, pain, misery and death. >>>>> If God sees evil and injustice but cannot do anything about it, he/she >>>>> is not omipotent. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > We all know what the wages of sin have brought, pain, misery and death. Tell it to the kid with Cancer. >>>> If God sees evil and injustice but cannot do anything about it, he/she >>>> is not omipotent. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Blame Adam and Eve for choosing to eat from the Tree of Life which opened > their eyes of the choice to sin or not to sin. LOL. I don't take fairy tales seriously. > >>>> If God sees evil and injustice but cannot do anything about it, he/she > >>>> is not omipotent. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > LOL. I don't take fairy tales seriously. CB als says Satan controls the weather. He really did. RT >> >>>> If God sees evil and injustice but cannot do anything about it, >> >>>> he/she [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > CB als says Satan controls the weather. He really did. He wi'wwy wi'wwy dee'id? > RT > "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message > >> "CB" <CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > He wi'wwy wi'wwy dee'id? Yes, you did. "God doesn't effect the weather, Satan does!!!" " For what is' worth, God isn't to blame for Katrina, Satan is. He's the god of the air and sea." Isn't that blasphemy to call Satan a god? ;) RT >> >>>> If God sees evil and injustice but cannot do anything about it, >> >>>> he/she [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > RT Wouldn't it be interesting when he dies he finds out the satan he hates is really the god he worships? >>> >>>> If God sees evil and injustice but cannot do anything about it, >>> >>>> he/she [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Wouldn't it be interesting when he dies he finds out the satan he hates is > really the god he worships? Let's hope for the best for CB > >>> If God sees evil and injustice but cannot do anything about it, he/she > >>> is not omipotent. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > perfect so the choice to sin wasn't there to tempt. Only through > Liberalization or God's word came the Enlightenment of a choice to sin. No superstition please. RT >> Blame Adam and Eve for choosing to eat from the Tree of Life I knew sooner or later you'd trip up. You're not a Christian, you're a troll. Genesis 2:9 "And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground; trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Genesis 2:17 "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." >> which opened >> their eyes of the choice to sin or not to sin. Before that 'choice' was made >> Enlightenment (choice) was only the Deceiver's wet dream for mankind. So you're saying that ignorance is next to godliness? >> Adam and Eve had everything. It was all perfect, there was no wrong. Man was >> perfect so the choice to sin wasn't there to tempt. Only through >> Liberalization or God's word came the Enlightenment of a choice to sin. If man had really been perfect, he wouldn't have eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Again, it was not the tree of life they ate from in violation of God's injunction. >No superstition please. It's much too late for that. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> Blame Adam and Eve for choosing to eat from the Tree of Life > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > So you're saying that ignorance is next to godliness? So you're saying that rebellion against any and all higher authority is good? >>> Adam and Eve had everything. It was all perfect, there was no wrong. Man >>> was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If man had really been perfect, he wouldn't have eaten the fruit of > the tree of knowledge. God did give us the ability to 'choose' Again, it was not the tree of life they ate > from in violation of God's injunction. So...what was it then? Was it rebellion from Thee Highest Moral Authority? >>No superstition please. > > It's much too late for that. It's never to late to be forgiven > Swill >>>> Blame Adam and Eve for choosing to eat from the Tree of Life >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >So you're saying that rebellion against any and all higher authority is >good? First, you ignored the fact that you were caught in an error. You should thank me for pointing out your mistake and providing you with correct information. Next, I made no comment regarding rebellion. (If you wish to change the subject, see below.) I responded to your post that Adam and Eve sinned by eating from the Tree of Life. That is incorrect. They ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Lastly, if you wish to discus the topic of rebellion against authority, fine. But I suspect your mention of the subject is just another trolling hook set by one who hasn't the sense to hold up their end of an intelligent conversation. Try posting in alt.erotica.barney. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >So you're saying that rebellion against any and all higher authority is >good? No. Certainly rebellion is healthy in a society endeavoring to practice democratic principles but obviously our relationship with God was not intended to be a democratic arrangement. >> If man had really been perfect, he wouldn't have eaten the fruit of >> the tree of knowledge. > >God did give us the ability to 'choose' Then it's *His* fault, isn't it? Assuming He's all knowing, He already knows what all our choices will be. If they do not suit Him, he has only Himself to blame for giving us the gift of Choice particularly since He already knew what those choices would be and made us anyway. > Again, it was not the tree of life they ate >> from in violation of God's injunction. > >So...what was it then? Was it rebellion from Thee Highest Moral Authority? It might be seen as an act of rebellion, yes, but again this should come as no surprise to God who is omnipotent and omniscient. He knew before He made us what choices we'd make. The most common explanation for the 'Apple' allegory that I have heard is that it represents the, or a sexual act. This explains why Eve and all women were punished by the sufferings of pregnancy and the agonies of childbirth. If her sin had been literally eating a piece of fruit, would it not have made more sense to punish her by making digestion uncomfortable and elimination an agony? The Bible teaches us that God made man in his own image. Physically? Mentally, emotionally or spiritually? In what way or ways are we therefore the same as God. In what way or ways are we different? >>>No superstition please. >> It's much too late for that. >It's never to late to be forgiven You misunderstand my comment. God is not something to be derided as we slowly discover that the OT is not *literally* true. Many Christians have the ability to ignore facts in evidence. They operate on Faith. The trouble is, Faith once taught us that the earth was the center of the universe, that mental illness was demonic possession, that disease was retribution from God or a curse by Lucifer. Then we learned about astronomy, began sciences on human behavior and discovered bacteria. To me, science enhances my awe of God. It's much more impressive to know the size and age of His universe than to dismiss it as something unknowable and go back to my plow. Faith is a gift of great importance in everyday life unless it leads to certainty from superstition. In this case 'superstition' can be defined as baseless beliefs. One believes one's crop failed because the neighbor is a witch. The proof of this is that one night very late when everybody should be asleep, one happened to wake and find a disliked neighbor walking near the fence and moving his hands mysteriously. But the Tree of Knowledge has taught us that the Church's Faith is intent on enslaving humans in a state of poverty and ignorance for it's own aggrandizement. The Church is not God and I do not believe it accurately represents His will any longer. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>So you're saying that rebellion against any and all higher authority is >>good? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > particularly since He already knew what those choices would be and > made us anyway. Fault? You find fault in Perfection? So that give you some kind of warped comfort? Knowing God knows the outcome of your life, poor choice or wise you call that a fault? >> Again, it was not the tree of life they ate >>> from in violation of God's injunction. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > come as no surprise to God who is omnipotent and omniscient. He knew > before He made us what choices we'd make. ...and that makes you mad. How dare God know us so well! > The most common explanation for the 'Apple' allegory that I have heard > is that it represents the, or a sexual act. It's 'enlightenment', temptation and conscience knowledge of the difference between good choice and poor This explains why Eve and > all women were punished by the sufferings of pregnancy and the agonies > of childbirth. If her sin had been literally eating a piece of fruit, > would it not have made more sense to punish her by making digestion > uncomfortable and elimination an agony? Heh...your enlightenment questions the motives of the Creator. That's ok, it's your inalienable right to be free and your right to choose. > The Bible teaches us that God made man in his own image. Physically? > Mentally, emotionally or spiritually? In what way or ways are we > therefore the same as God. In what way or ways are we different? We know right from wrong. "He is like one of Us", knowing good from Evil. >>>>No superstition please. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > center of the universe, that mental illness was demonic possession, > that disease was retribution from God or a curse by Lucifer. You must be really easy to manipulate then. With sound Biblical teaching one may know both right from wrong and the wisdom of deduction. You've heard the saying, what comes around, goes around. Isn't there some truth to that? I believe that only through God's grace goes I. If His grace should leave or even waver, bad things happen. Then we > learned about astronomy, began sciences on human behavior and > discovered bacteria. Didn't God say go out and subdue the world? > To me, science enhances my awe of God. Me too It's much more impressive to > know the size and age of His universe than to dismiss it as something > unknowable and go back to my plow. What church teaches us to remain in the dark? > Faith is a gift of great importance in everyday life unless it leads > to certainty from superstition. In this case 'superstition' can be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > disliked neighbor walking near the fence and moving his hands > mysteriously. A good Bible based church helps protect us from cult mentalities. One whose faith is based on wide consciences (mainstream). > But the Tree of Knowledge has taught us that the Church's Faith is > intent on enslaving humans in a state of poverty and ignorance for > it's own aggrandizement. Heh...what church do you belong to? > The Church is not God and I do not believe it accurately represents > His will any longer. Run for your life! Get outta there. Go church shopping until you find one that's rooted in traditional teaching. http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=John+14&vnum=yes&version=nrsvae >> Then it's *His* fault, isn't it? Assuming He's all knowing, He >> already knows what all our choices will be. If they do not suit Him, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >comfort? Knowing God knows the outcome of your life, poor choice or wise you >call that a fault? If we're perfect, then what's all the complaining about? If we're perfect, then what's the surprise at our taste for forbidden fruit? If we're perfect, maybe we're *supposed* to be having wars, poverty, starvation and injustice. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>So...what was it then? Was it rebellion from Thee Highest Moral Authority? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >...and that makes you mad. How dare God know us so well! Hmmm... Non sequitur. Why would that make me angry? More to the point, why do you think it would make me angry? Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> The most common explanation for the 'Apple' allegory that I have heard >> is that it represents the, or a sexual act. > >It's 'enlightenment', temptation and conscience knowledge of the difference >between good choice and poor There you go again, going off half cocked after realizing you had nothing coherent to say after all. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> all women were punished by the sufferings of pregnancy and the agonies >> of childbirth. If her sin had been literally eating a piece of fruit, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Heh...your enlightenment questions the motives of the Creator. That's ok, >it's your inalienable right to be free and your right to choose. My enlightenment questions the motives of humans who would pretend to know His motives. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> The Bible teaches us that God made man in his own image. Physically? >> Mentally, emotionally or spiritually? In what way or ways are we >> therefore the same as God. In what way or ways are we different? > >We know right from wrong. "He is like one of Us", knowing good from Evil. So the only thing we share with God is a similar concept of good and evil? I note you capitalize "evil" but not "good". Interesting slip, that. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> The Bible teaches us that God made man in his own image. Physically? >>> Mentally, emotionally or spiritually? In what way or ways are we [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > evil? I note you capitalize "evil" but not "good". Interesting slip, > that. Opps, will you ever forgive me? > Swill >> So the only thing we share with God is a similar concept of good and >> evil? I note you capitalize "evil" but not "good". Interesting slip, >> that. > >Opps, will you ever forgive me? I notice you skipped the rest of the discussion. Got nothing constructive to say? No disputes? No comments on the various and sundry 'mistakes' I planted that a really good Bible thumper would've caught in a heartbeat? Troll. And not even a very good one. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> You misunderstand my comment. God is not something to be derided as >> we slowly discover that the OT is not *literally* true. Many [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >You must be really easy to manipulate then. Ah, a desperation ploy. Again, you make no sense. How do you come to the conclusion that *I* am easily manipulated because generations of humans past have substituted Church decreed "knowledge" for factual and demonstrable knowledge. Or is that concept more than you can understand? > With sound Biblical teaching one >may know both right from wrong and the wisdom of deduction. > >You've heard the saying, what comes around, goes around. Isn't there some >truth to that? I believe that only through God's grace goes I. If His grace >should leave or even waver, bad things happen. Why certainly there's truth to that. The concept is much older than Christianity. Hindus have been calling it "karma" for thousands of years. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >> You misunderstand my comment. God is not something to be derided as > >> we slowly discover that the OT is not *literally* true. Many [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Christianity. Hindus have been calling it "karma" for thousands of > years. Karma has had a mixed reception in christianity... >> Why certainly there's truth to that. The concept is much older than >> Christianity. Hindus have been calling it "karma" for thousands of >> years. > >Karma has had a mixed reception in christianity... We must be 'born again' in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> Then we >> learned about astronomy, began sciences on human behavior and >> discovered bacteria. > >Didn't God say go out and subdue the world? Depends on where you read from and which translation. I was brought up to believe that God gave mastery over the earth to man. Why is it then, that when man practices this mastery, people all over the place start complaining about first one thing and then another? Environmentalists whine that we're destroying His creation. Christians whine that we're subverting the truth of faith by finding out how God's universe actually works. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> It's much more impressive to >> know the size and age of His universe than to dismiss it as something >> unknowable and go back to my plow. > >What church teaches us to remain in the dark? Christian ones up until the Renaissance. These days there seems to be a determination to go back to the dark. Moslem churches in some countries seem to want their people to remain ignorant and enslaved as well. And right up into the 17th century, the Orthodox church was fighting the encroachment of European ways into Russian society because of the threat knowledge posed to Church authority. Swil SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> It's much more impressive to >>> know the size and age of His universe than to dismiss it as something [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > fighting the encroachment of European ways into Russian society > because of the threat knowledge posed to Church authority. That's why it's important to shop around for a church that holds to Conservative, traditional beliefs. You seem to know what's right and wrong. Go out and use that knowledge in finding the Right church...but remember, while God 'is' Perfection, man is not. I accept that and go on. Some people demand perfection in man and see imperfection in God. > Swil > >>> It's much more impressive to > >>> know the size and age of His universe than to dismiss it as something [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That's why it's important to shop around for a church that holds to > Conservative, traditional beliefs. Ah, cafeteria christianity. > You seem to know what's right and wrong. Go out and use that knowledge in > finding the Right church...but remember, while God 'is' Perfection, man is > not. I accept that and go on. Some people demand perfection in man and see > imperfection in God. So this perfect "god" make imperfect things? RT >So this perfect "god" make imperfect things? God *is* perfect. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >That's why it's important to shop around for a church that holds to >Conservative, traditional beliefs. No, it's why it's important to shop around for a church as eager to explore truth as any scientist. >You seem to know what's right and wrong. Go out and use that knowledge in >finding the Right church I've already found the right church. Where do you get off slagging my church? >...but remember, while God 'is' Perfection, man is >not. I accept that and go on. That's not what you said earlier and that's why the facts of God's universe are more important than our beliefs about His person. > Some people demand perfection in man and see >imperfection in God. Some know the perfection of God and bemoan the imperfection of humans who, not understanding Him, substitute fantasies for Him and yet believe they are doing His will. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >> It's much more impressive to > >> know the size and age of His universe than to dismiss it as something [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > a determination to go back to the dark. Moslem churches in some > countries seem to want their people to remain ignorant and enslaved as See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/science/17book.html?ref=science Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World > well. And right up into the 17th century, the Orthodox church was > fighting the encroachment of European ways into Russian society > because of the threat knowledge posed to Church authority. Actually, the christian ones are still at it. Witness opposition to stem cell work and evolution. RT >> Faith is a gift of great importance in everyday life unless it leads >> to certainty from superstition. In this case 'superstition' can be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >A good Bible based church helps protect us from cult mentalities. One whose >faith is based on wide consciences (mainstream). "A good Bible based church" is as subject to disagreement and translation debates every bit as much as a church that accepts a broad array of beliefs among their parishioners. Come to think of it though, all Churches are based on their particular scripture whether it's the Bible, the Koran or the Torah. FWIW, history demonstrates that most often, the churches which claim to be based on scripture rather than consensus have been the radical, fundamentalist ones. The Puritans come to mind as does The Church of God in the US. The latter is most usually where I hear "bible based" intoned as if all other Christian religions are operating on some other scripture not included in the OT or NT. I've noticed that the more a particular sect intones that it's beliefs are based on "what the Bible says, not what you're told it means" the more likely they are to dictate to you what that is. A disagreement I had with the Church occurred when I realized that Church doctrine over the millennia had developed not from what Jesus said or what the Twelve wrote, those parts are generally taken as history and background, but on what Paul (a Roman businessman) said was so. Let's hear it for Paul the Roman, the L Ron Hubbard of the Roman period! Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> Faith is a gift of great importance in everyday life unless it leads >>> to certainty from superstition. In this case 'superstition' can be [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Swill LOL! All too true. >> But the Tree of Knowledge has taught us that the Church's Faith is >> intent on enslaving humans in a state of poverty and ignorance for >> it's own aggrandizement. > >Heh...what church do you belong to? I don't. Anymore. I got rather tired of attending different churhes and getting different stories. In the end it seems, one is left to one's Bible to determine how one should live. Clearly reading the Bible and making up one' own mind is a more "Bible based" method of practicing a religion than attending a church that tells you what it means and infers that you are too ignorant to understand it on your own. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> But the Tree of Knowledge has taught us that the Church's Faith is >>> intent on enslaving humans in a state of poverty and ignorance for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > means and infers that you are too ignorant to understand it on your > own. Being an island onto one's self is how cults are born. > Swill >> I don't. Anymore. I got rather tired of attending different churhes >> and getting different stories. In the end it seems, one is left to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Being an island onto one's self is how cults are born. I'm not an island. I have a circle of people with whom I share many religious beliefs. We each are different and understand that life is better when one's relationship with God is a personal rather than a formal one. We meet and we talk and it's always pleasant fellowship. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> I don't. Anymore. I got rather tired of attending different churhes >>> and getting different stories. In the end it seems, one is left to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > better when one's relationship with God is a personal rather than a > formal one. We meet and we talk and it's always pleasant fellowship. Good > Swill >>> I don't. Anymore. I got rather tired of attending different churhes >>> and getting different stories. In the end it seems, one is left to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Swill Sounds like reaffirmation rather than critical examination. How much can you be learning when everyone in your group essentially agrees with each other. >> I'm not an island. I have a circle of people with whom I share many >> religious beliefs. We each are different and understand that life is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >you be learning when everyone in your group essentially agrees with each >other. Of course there is affirmation! But we also have differences because we have different studies and bring those views to the table. Toby is a spiritual, homey guy, deeply into religion who was ordained two years ago. Dee is a pragmatic dreamer who likes working with and doing things for people. Scott has said often that science is his religion. He doesn't care about mythology or worshipping a deity, he looks for God in the cosmos and the quark. My thing is politics, though that's not where I look for God. :-) But we all have that personal connection to Him. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> I'm not an island. I have a circle of people with whom I share many >>> religious beliefs. We each are different and understand that life is [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > though that's not where I look for God. :-) But we all have that > personal connection to Him. Heh, pretty shallow. I've got a connection with the ocean, that doesn't make me a fish, although I'm in deep SignatureCB After all, "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" http://www.hustleandflow.com/ #Foe >> Of course there is affirmation! But we also have differences because >> we have different studies and bring those views to the table. Toby is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Heh, pretty shallow. Thank you for your judgment. Yet another reason to detest modern Christian beliefs. "Judge not lest ye be judged. Unless you really want to." >I've got a connection with the ocean, that doesn't make me a fish, although >I'm in deep Kraken! Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> Of course there is affirmation! But we also have differences because >>> we have different studies and bring those views to the table. Toby is [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Christian beliefs. "Judge not lest ye be judged. Unless you really > want to." I didn't condemn you, I merely made an observation that 'Post Hoc' associations don't make you anything. Just as I loving the sea doesn't make me a fish. Does carrying a Bible around or quoting scripture make me a child of God? Nope. What does is my personal relationship with Jesus, my belief He Is the Son of God, He suffered and died for my sins on the cross and rose on the third day so all sinners my find eternal life in the hope of resurrection. For that I am humble and struggle to do His will. What you interpreted as judgment 'is' guilt and projected hatred. >>I've got a connection with the ocean, that doesn't make me a fish, >>although >>I'm in deep > > Kraken! Goo goo? > Swill No doubt >> The Church is not God and I do not believe it accurately represents >> His will any longer. > >Run for your life! Get outta there. Go church shopping until you find one >that's rooted in traditional teaching. I've found dozens and they all disagree on a surprisingly wide array of points. I'll just read the red letters if you don't mind. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > Heh...your enlightenment questions the motives of the Creator. That's ok, > it's your inalienable right to be free and your right to choose. If you never question them, how are you to understand them. If you never understand them, how can you know His will? If you do not know his will, how can you do it? > > You misunderstand my comment. God is not something to be derided as > > we slowly discover that the OT is not *literally* true. Many [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > truth to that? I believe that only through God's grace goes I. If His grace > should leave or even waver, bad things happen. Bad things will happen to you anyway. You're slated to die. In all likelihood, it will be from a debilitating and horrific illness that will strip from you all semblance of dignity. (This it the reality for most people in modern societies.) If you don't die soon, you're slated to suffer the loss of those you love before you die. Your life will entail suffering, no matter whether you are good or bad, regardless of your relationship with God. All you can hope for from God is that you may bear it with greater hope and perseverance than you might have without your faith. >Your life will entail suffering, no matter whether you are good or bad, >regardless of your relationship with God. All you can hope for from God >is that you may bear it with greater hope and perseverance than you >might have without your faith. *standing ovation* If Clinton could say that and mean it, I'd vote for her. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >Your life will entail suffering, no matter whether you are good or bad, > >regardless of your relationship with God. All you can hope for from God [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > *standing ovation* If Clinton could say that and mean it, I'd vote > for her. She'll never say it, because it's the truth that everyone is afraid of. > >So you're saying that rebellion against any and all higher authority is > >good? > > No. Certainly rebellion is healthy in a society endeavoring to > practice democratic principles but obviously our relationship with God > was not intended to be a democratic arrangement. Indeed. God is the sovereign and we are the subjects. Tjhere are two choices - obey God or be tormented with fire and brimstone in Hell. > >> If man had really been perfect, he wouldn't have eaten the fruit of > >> the tree of knowledge. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > particularly since He already knew what those choices would be and > made us anyway. This assume that sin actually bothers Him. The very fact that sin exists shows that God tolerates sin in SOME quarters. > > Again, it was not the tree of life they ate > >> from in violation of God's injunction. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > come as no surprise to God who is omnipotent and omniscient. He knew > before He made us what choices we'd make. Yes, He did. > The most common explanation for the 'Apple' allegory that I have heard > is that it represents the, or a sexual act. This explains why Eve and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Mentally, emotionally or spiritually? In what way or ways are we > therefore the same as God. In what way or ways are we different? We have our own understanding and will. Michael >> >So you're saying that rebellion against any and all higher authority is >> >good? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Tjhere are two choices - obey God or be tormented with fire and > brimstone in Hell. I'm of the believe that Hell fire extinguishes souls. God is merciful that way. He isn't a tormenter. I think man's reflection of him self, his cruelty interpreted 'eternal damnation' that way >> >> If man had really been perfect, he wouldn't have eaten the fruit of >> >> the tree of knowledge. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The very fact that sin exists shows that God tolerates sin in SOME > quarters. He tolerates no sin. If he did he would be there for all of us. As it 'is', the wages of sin is death, where's the tolerance in that? >> > Again, it was not the tree of life they ate >> >> from in violation of God's injunction. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Michael > >> >So you're saying that rebellion against any and all higher authority is > >> >good? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I'm of the believe that Hell fire extinguishes souls. God is merciful that > way. He isn't a tormenter. Revelations 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. > I think man's reflection of him self, his cruelty interpreted 'eternal > damnation' that way [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > He tolerates no sin. If he did he would be there for all of us. As it 'is', > the wages of sin is death, where's the tolerance in that? He tolerates sin in the lake of fire. Michael >> >> >So you're saying that rebellion against any and all higher authority >> >> >is [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> way. He isn't a tormenter. > Revelations 20:10 Tell it to those that are tormented in his name. > >> "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Tell it to those that are tormented in his name. Indeed. This does bring up a very good question. If it is justified for God to cast sinners into eternal torment (note that His station as Lord of Lords and King of Kings justifies whatever He does), then would it be justified for governments to cast criminals into torment for any period of time? Michael >> >> "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > to cast sinners into eternal torment (note that His station as Lord of > Lords and King of Kings justifies whatever He does), then god is malevolent and not benevolent.. >then god is malevolent and not benevolent.. He is both. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>then god is malevolent and not benevolent.. > > He is both. > > Swill > -- So you worship the common conception of Satan. >>>then god is malevolent and not benevolent.. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >So you worship the common conception of Satan. Satan is the semi divine polar opposite to God per Christian theology. Picture it, a warm summer day and two old gents are sitting in the shade taking in a puppet show. One old man says, "I like that puppet on the right." The other responds, "I like the puppet on the left." Just then, a precocious little boy crawls from the curtain beneath the stage and says, "Hey! There's one guy holding both puppets!" Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>>then god is malevolent and not benevolent.. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Satan is the semi divine polar opposite to God per Christian theology. Wouldn't you be surprise and he pissed if he were the only true god. > "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>then god is malevolent and not benevolent.. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Wouldn't you be surprise and he pissed if he were the only true god. Don't get all gnostic on us ;) >> Satan is the semi divine polar opposite to God per Christian theology. > >Wouldn't you be surprise and he pissed if he were the only true god. Job: A Comedy of Justice by Heinlein. Fascinating take on good vs evil. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >> "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > then god is malevolent and not benevolent.. That is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is the threat of eternal torment in the lake of fire. Michael >> >> "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Michael Neither you nor I will be surprised the second after death because we will both be DEAD. The only thing I regret is not being able to observe the complete and utter surprise on your part because we will be DEAD. >Neither you nor I will be surprised the second after death because we will >both be DEAD. The only thing I regret is not being able to observe the >complete and utter surprise on your part because we will be DEAD. *rimshot* Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > > >So you're saying that rebellion against any and all higher authority is > > >good? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Tjhere are two choices - obey God or be tormented with fire and > brimstone in Hell. Why is that? > > >> If man had really been perfect, he wouldn't have eaten the fruit of > > >> the tree of knowledge. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > The very fact that sin exists shows that God tolerates sin in SOME > quarters. He seems to tolerate it universally. Only humans attempt to punish it in the here and now. >>>> So you're saying that rebellion against any and all higher >>>> authority is good? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Why is that? Because in the minds of the primitive, the big, bad, boogieman in the sky says so. > In News hugh_gibbons-488471.18241022072...@newsgroups.comcast.net,, Hugh > Gibbons at hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Because in the minds of the primitive, the big, bad, boogieman in the sky > says so. God is not a boogieman; He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. Michael >> In News hugh_gibbons-488471.18241022072...@newsgroups.comcast.net,, >> Hugh Gibbons at hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> the sky says so. > God is not a boogieman; Christians treat him as one. Lookout! Be Good! God will get you for that! Or as CB put it, "obey God or be tormented with fire and brimstone in Hell." You might think that even the religionists would know how primitive and weak that sounds after all these centuries. > He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. And yet, you cannot even prove he exists. >> He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. > >And yet, you cannot even prove he exists. And you cannot prove he doesn't. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. >> >> And yet, you cannot even prove he exists. > > And you cannot prove he doesn't. Not my burden of proof. I'm not the one running about claiming an absolute moral authority. >>>> He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Not my burden of proof. I'm not the one running about claiming an absolute >moral authority. Neither am I. I'm just pointing out that neither of those points can be proven. In order to argue that God doesn't exist, you'd have to presume that he could. But if you don't start with his existence in the first place, there's nothing to prove. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>>> He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Neither am I. I'm just pointing out that neither of those points can > be proven. And as I've stated, it's not my burden of proof. All things being equal, I would be perfectly happy to allow people to worship and live as they see fit, within the confines of the law. Christians, and other religionists, seem to think they have some divine duty to make sure that you believe as they do. Ergo, it is there burden of proof to prove that their religion has a basis in fact. >>>>>> He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > seem to think they have some divine duty to make sure that you believe as > they do. Exactly. I respect the Amish because they keep their belief to themselves and they essentially worship 24/7. Parents allow children some experimentation with the world so that when a child makes HIS or HER DECISION to join the church he or she will have some knowledge about what is being rejected in the membership commitment. Christians remind me of the line from a Jimmy Buffet song "There is a fine line between Saturday night and Sunday Morning." And they, including a number who have posted in this newsgroup, prefer to show everybody how much they believe: Matthew 6:5 And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full Matthew 6:6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. How wonderful if all Christians would follow this guidance from the holy book they prefer to cite so often. >>>>>>> He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > How wonderful if all Christians would follow this guidance from the holy > book they prefer to cite so often. How wonderful it would be if Secular Humanists would keep their poor choices to them selves. We wouldn't be in such a mess today with bastard children having no role models, discipline would still be in place instilling shame, consequence and scholastic results. Secular Humanism has replaced Christian teaching, outlawed spanking and where has it gotten us? Psycho babbling quack doctors drugging children instead of recommending discipline and healthy diets. Secular Humanism is the worship of self > >>>>>>> He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > having no role models, discipline would still be in place instilling shame, > consequence and scholastic results. Not paying attention to the news? All that money from the church going to their victims? All those republicons caught doing nasties? Tsk. > Secular Humanism has replaced Christian teaching, outlawed spanking and CB wants to beat children. You must be a Catholic or something. > where has it gotten us? Psycho babbling quack doctors drugging children > instead of recommending discipline and healthy diets. > > Secular Humanism is the worship of self No, it's not worship at all. RT >> >>>>>>> He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. >> >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > CB wants to beat children. You must be a Catholic or something. Catholic leaders don't like to beat children. They prefer the children beat them. >>>>>>>> He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > bastard children having no role models, discipline would still be in > place instilling shame, consequence and scholastic results. Wouldn't it be wonderful if you did the same. > > "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message > >> "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Wouldn't it be wonderful if you did the same. GOOD ONE! >>>>>>>> He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > children having no role models, discipline would still be in place > instilling shame, consequence and scholastic results. Three of the four most religious families on my block have the worst and most ill mannered kids - bar none. AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be no religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of the violence and genocide in the world today. > AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be no > religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of the violence > and genocide in the world today. There was Pol Pot. >> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be no >> religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of the >> violence >> and genocide in the world today. > > There was Pol Pot. You are right. I give you Muslims killing non-Muslims in the middle east. I give you Muslims killing Muslims of a different sect because they are of a different sect. I give you Muslims killing non-Muslims in the Philippines. I give you Darfur. I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians trying to convert them to Christianity. I give you the crusades. I give you the inquisition. I give you Hindus killing Buddhists killing Muslims in India. I give you Muslims fighting against non-Muslims in the Philippines. >>> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be no >>> religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I give you Hindus killing Buddhists killing Muslims in India. > I give you Muslims fighting against non-Muslims in the Philippines. I forgot Catholics and Protestants killing each other for years in Ireland. >>>> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be no >>>> religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of the >>>> violence >>>> and genocide in the world today. >> I give you Muslims killing non-Muslims in the middle east. >> I give you Muslims killing Muslims of a different sect because they are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I forgot Catholics and Protestants killing each other for years in Ireland. And the centuries of European religious wars and conflicts that preceded the nineteenth century. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be no >>> religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I give you Muslims killing non-Muslims in the Philippines. > I give you Darfur. Muslims killing Christians > I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians trying to > convert them to Christianity. More like old world Europeans > I give you the crusades. Christians pushing back Muslims 'convert or die' > I give you the inquisition. > I give you Hindus killing Buddhists killing Muslims in India. > I give you Muslims fighting against non-Muslims in the Philippines. >>>> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be >>>> no religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Muslims killing Christians Christians killing Muslims ...Yugoslovia >> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians >> trying to convert them to Christianity. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> I give you Hindus killing Buddhists killing Muslims in India. >> I give you Muslims fighting against non-Muslims in the Philippines. > >>>> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be > >>>> no religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Christians killing Muslims ...Yugoslovia Iraq. > >> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians > >> trying to convert them to Christianity. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >> I give you Hindus killing Buddhists killing Muslims in India. > >> I give you Muslims fighting against non-Muslims in the Philippines. >> >>>> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be >> >>>> no religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Iraq. What about Iraq you stupid ignoramus? Let me enlighten you with facts... ... Turkey's world war one massacres resulted in the death of 750,000. During Saddam's wars with the Kurds hundreds of Assyrian villages were destroyed their inhabitants were rendered homeless, driven out of their historic homeland, and scattered as refugees in large cities or the neighboring countries. dozens of ancient churches some dating to the early centuries of Christianity were bombed and turned into rubble. The teaching of the Syriac language was prohibited and Assyrians were forced to give their children Arabic names in an effort to undermine their true identity. Those who wished to hold governmental jobs had to sign ethnicity correction papers which declared them arabs. The fall of Saddam which was hoped to bring peace to Iraq has unleashed religious violence against the Christian community in Iraq. Unless special attention is given to their plight by the US and the Iraqi government this ancient people will continue to suffer grievously as they have in the past. ... http://www.christiansofiraq.com/ >> >> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians >> >> trying to convert them to Christianity. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> I give you Hindus killing Buddhists killing Muslims in India. >> >> I give you Muslims fighting against non-Muslims in the Philippines. > "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message > >> > "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > What about Iraq you stupid ignoramus? Chimpoleon's invasion. Lancet report. > Let me enlighten you with facts... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > declared them arabs. > The fall of Saddam which was hoped to bring peace to Iraq has unleashed HAHAHAH - don't you follow the news? > religious violence against the Christian community in Iraq. Unless special > attention is given to their plight by the US and the Iraqi government this > ancient people will continue to suffer grievously as they have in the past. > ... > http://www.christiansofiraq.com/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/03_march/26/iraq.shtml Following a Freedom of Information request, BBC World Service Newshour has learnt that a senior British Government official advised ministers to show "caution" about publicly criticising a report published last October in the Lancet, which estimated that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war in Iraq. ... The Chief Scientific Adviser to the British Ministry of Defence described the methods used by the Lancet survey as "close to best practice" adding that the "study design is robust." A statistician at the Department of International Development said the method used in the survey was "tried and tested" and, if anything, could lead to an underestimate of the number of deaths. ... >>>>> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be >>>>> no religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Christians killing Muslims ...Yugoslovia You got it backwards. Read the last sentence in this parragraph, loser... ... After two days of Bosnia's declaration of independence, April 7, 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina's independence had been officially recognized by the United States and by most European countries. On May 22, 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina was admitted as a full member of the United Nations. But an arms embargo, imposed on all of the former Yugoslavia by the UN (in 1991, at the request of the Belgrade government, and since then maintained at the insistence of the US and its Western European allies), has in effect barred the internationally recognized Bosnian government from acquiring the means to exercise its right to self-defense, guaranteed under the UN Charter. Terrorists/Muslims from Islamic countries got access to Bosnia to help the Bosnian Muslims in their Jihad. http://www.geocities.com/famsflasfjddsafj/4.html ... ___ It was a slaughter of white Christians by nomadic 'wild a.s' Islamo-fascists. Bill Clinton and Madeline Halfbright played a critical role in the killing. ___ ... In March 1998, trouble flared again in Kosovo. The Serbia's region's majority Muslim Albanians declared Jihad against Serbia becauseKosovo is a Serbian region that was never part of Albania and Kosovo is for this reason, without a government and thus, only via war could Kosovo have an Islamic government. http://www.geocities.com/famsflasfjddsafj/4.html >>> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians >>> trying to convert them to Christianity. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> I give you Hindus killing Buddhists killing Muslims in India. >>> I give you Muslims fighting against non-Muslims in the Philippines. Islamo-fascists seem to be at the root of most wars > >> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians > >> trying to convert them to Christianity. > > > > More like old world Europeans Nope, only new world white people, mostly Christians. > >> I give you the crusades. > > > > Christians pushing back Muslims 'convert or die' Was it necessary to massacre the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 1099? >> >> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians >> >> trying to convert them to Christianity. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Was it necessary to massacre the inhabitants of Jerusalem > in 1099? By whom? >>>>> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians >>>>> trying to convert them to Christianity. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > By whom? Christian Crusaders, with the full knowledge and sanction of the Pope. >>>>>> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians >>>>>> trying to convert them to Christianity. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Christian Crusaders, with the full knowledge and sanction of the Pope. Ya gotta do something to control Evil's minion in Babylon. It'll get far worse before Babylon cries out to the mountains to fall on them for fear of American (Eagle) Justice. >>>>>>> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians >>>>>>> trying to convert them to Christianity. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Ya gotta do something to control Evil's minion in Babylon. Fanatic. The "Holy Crusaders" murdered 10's of thousands of men, women, and children. The price for their control was too high. >>>>>>>> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians >>>>>>>> trying to convert them to Christianity. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Fanatic. The "Holy Crusaders" murdered 10's of thousands of men, women, > and children. The price for their control was too high. What's the alternative for driving back nomadic 'wild a.s' terrorists? Cut-n-Run? Surrender? Negotiation...yeah...that'll work, just like every other time, right? >>>>>>>>> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by >>>>>>>>> Christians trying to convert them to Christianity. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Negotiation...yeah...that'll work, just like every other time, right? Surely, not jr bush's strategy. >>> Ya gotta do something to control Evil's minion in Babylon. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Negotiation...yeah...that'll work, just like every other time, right? Ah.... So it's not religion, it's xenophobia that you have! Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>> Ya gotta do something to control Evil's minion in Babylon. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Swill I have often found that the more religion a person is, the greater their xenophobia. It seems to run pretty much hand-in-hand. >>> Negotiation...yeah...that'll work, just like every other time, right? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I have often found that the more religion a person is, the greater their >xenophobia. It seems to run pretty much hand-in-hand. Hadn't really thought about it but I've made that observation as well. Could make an interesting study. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>> Negotiation...yeah...that'll work, just like every other time, >>>> right? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Swill Yes it would. >From http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/godis.htm God is. Christians don't have to prove anything to atheists and scoffers. Many Christians get shaken up by the latest big words and fancy ideas coming from dead souls called atheists and scoffers. This ought not to be. Romans chapter 1 tells us that they KNOW God is. Yes, yes, some of them have lied to themselves so many times that they begin to believe there is no God--BUT--things like guilt, hurt, hatred, despondency, need, and emptiness still plague these people. Their emotions, desires and actions cannot be adequately explained through their evolutionary world view. It's hard on 'em to figure it all out. Psychiatrists are making a killing. Let's look at Romans chapter 1: 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Now see there? The Bible tells us all about the scoffer and the atheist. They KNOW He is real. So next time somebody gets in your face about YOUR God, there is no need to be shaken in mind. Just give them the reason for the hope that lieth within you--Christ crucified and risen. If they don't want to hear it, just shake the dust off of your feet and move on. There is somebody that wants to hear. A couple of things to think about... [1] The atheist comes to you with a presupposition that there is no God. In so doing, he goes against the grain of the majority of mankind from the very beginning of time. People have been worshipping God for thousands of years and the maverick atheist says God ain't real--is not the burden of proof on him to show that past, present and future multitudes are wrong? [2] Given that God simply is (He's the I am) why argue an already established fact? Evolutionists are just as wrong as the day is long but they start from the position that evolution is true and that God has nothing to do with creation. They do not argue this. Why then do we Christians feel that we must prove God's existence to evil men? That is ridiculous when you think about it. Don't let scoffers get you on the ropes. The Bible says, "The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous is as bold as a lion." I love that verse. Give 'em the old time gospel. >> From http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/godis.htm > > God is. Prove it. > Christians don't have to prove anything to atheists and scoffers. They do if they want us to believe in their God, or wish to craft secular law because "God said so". For someone pretending that "God is" and that you don't have to prove such, you spend a lot of time here trying to convince us that your fairytale is fact. Why is that? "The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins has answers to all your "proofs" but...you do not have a sufficiently open mind to explore and benefit from opinions that oppose your faith. >> From http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/godis.htm > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > but the righteous is as bold as a lion." I love that verse. Give 'em > the old time gospel. I haven't read this one yet, but the reviews sound interesting. http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807/ref=pd_bbs _sr_1/103-6641636-4008666?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185834649&sr=1-1 > "The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins > has answers to all your "proofs" [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] >> pursueth, but the righteous is as bold as a lion." I love that >> verse. Give 'em the old time gospel. It's a lengthy scholarly presentation about religion. The title tells the story. For lighter reading with plenty of vehemence try "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens > I haven't read this one yet, but the reviews sound interesting. > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >>> pursueth, but the righteous is as bold as a lion." I love that >>> verse. Give 'em the old time gospel. > It's a lengthy scholarly presentation about religion. > The title tells the story. > > For lighter reading with plenty of vehemence > try "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens Thanks! >> I haven't read this one yet, but the reviews sound interesting. >> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] >>>> "The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous is as >>>> bold as a lion." I love that verse. Give 'em the old time gospel. >"The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins >has answers to all your "proofs" > >but...you do not have a sufficiently >open mind to explore and benefit >from opinions that oppose your faith. Translation: "I don't know. I just do what I'm told." Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >>> Negotiation...yeah...that'll work, just like every other time, right? > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Hadn't really thought about it but I've made that observation as well. > Could make an interesting study. I think it might depend on the religion. Adherents of religions that are based in America seem to me to be more xenophobic than those of religions that are of foreign origin. >>>>> Negotiation...yeah...that'll work, just like every other time, >>>>> right? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that are based in America seem to me to be more xenophobic than > those of religions that are of foreign origin. I think that is because that adherants of religions, particularly among the religious right, are far more fanatical, on average than adherants in Europe. That has been my observation anyway. >>>>> Ya gotta do something to control Evil's minion in Babylon. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I have often found that the more religion a person is, the greater their > xenophobia. It seems to run pretty much hand-in-hand. The less one know about world history and Biblical history the less one is capable of anticipating future history. I have found the more ignornant one 'is' of the Bible, therefore old world History, the more likely one is willing to eccept an alternative. >>>>>> Ya gotta do something to control Evil's minion in Babylon. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > The less one know about world history and Biblical history the less > one is capable of anticipating future history. History yes, your "Biblical history" is absolute gibberish. > I have found the more ignornant one 'is' of the Bible, therefore old > world History, the more likely one is willing to eccept an > alternative. But you are a proven fanatic, thus what you have "found" is vastly tainted by your religious fanaticism. >>>>>> Ya gotta do something to control Evil's minion in Babylon. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I have found the more ignornant one 'is' of the Bible, therefore old world > History, the more likely one is willing to eccept an alternative. Try the History Channel......they did a great series on the origins of you myth >> I have found the more ignornant one 'is' of the Bible, therefore old world >> History, the more likely one is willing to eccept an alternative. > >Try the History Channel......they did a great series on the origins of you >myth HC often airs such things. They do a lot of archeological programming that focuses on Biblical people, places and events. Especially in the winter between Christmas and Easter. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >>>>> Ya gotta do something to control Evil's minion in Babylon. > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I have found the more ignornant one 'is' of the Bible, therefore old world > History, the more likely one is willing to eccept an alternative. I have found the more one is steeped in the bible the more steeped they are in superstitious nonsense and divorced from reality. For example, you claim Satan is a god that controls the weather... RT >> >>>>> Ya gotta do something to control Evil's minion in Babylon. >> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > claim > Satan is a god that controls the weather... More precisely, the more one is ignorant of Biblical history the more one steeps him self into alternative cults like atheism. Without grace from God there becomes a void in which Evil 'will' fill. > RT > "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message > >> "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > More precisely, the more one is ignorant of Biblical history the more one > steeps him self into alternative cults like atheism. Atheism a cult?? HAHAHAHAHAHAH Explain -> > Without grace from God there becomes a void in which Evil 'will' fill. Sure hasn't stopped christians from being evil. Heh. RT > More precisely, the more one is ignorant of Biblical history the more one > steeps him self into alternative cults like atheism. I see two glaring misrepresentations in this post: 1. The Bible is not history. 2. Atheism is a not a cult. It is the lack of any. >> More precisely, the more one is ignorant of Biblical history the more one >> steeps him self into alternative cults like atheism. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >1. The Bible is not history. >2. Atheism is a not a cult. It is the lack of any. Sly dog. Swill SignatureMoney isn't always dollars, but dollars are always money. Picture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > > More precisely, the more one is ignorant of Biblical history the more one > > steeps him self into alternative cults like atheism. > > I see two glaring misrepresentations in this post: > > 1. The Bible is not history. Well, to be fair, it has ... some history. But then: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/19991029/aponline013030_000.htm Questions Raised in Bible's Accuracy Friday, Oct. 29, 1999; 1:30 a.m. EDT JERUSALEM There was no exodus from Egypt, Joshua didn't bring down the walls of Jericho, and Solomon's kingdom was a small, tribal dynasty, an Israeli archaeologist says in a new article. Colleagues and critics accepted some of Zeev Herzog's evidence, and questioned some of it - but warned that by targeting the accuracy of the Bible the research undermines the national myths that are the basis of Jewish claims to the land of Israel. Archaeological findings do not support and in many cases directly contradict Biblical stories describing the birth of the Jewish people, Herzog of Tel Aviv University wrote in Thursday's Haaretz daily. ... > 2. Atheism is a not a cult. It is the lack of any. >>>>>>>>> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by >>>>>>>>> Christians trying to convert them to Christianity. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > What's the alternative for driving back nomadic 'wild a.s' terrorists? > Cut-n-Run? Surrender? In case you have no knowledge of the time or history, there were no nomadic, 'wild a.s' terrorists. The Holy Crusaders marched TO the Middle East and murdered people, not the other way around. > In case you have no knowledge of the time or history, there were no nomadic, > 'wild a.s' terrorists. The Holy Crusaders marched TO the Middle East and > murdered people, not the other way around. Very much a fact. And the Muslims of that era tended to spread civilization wherever they went. >> In case you have no knowledge of the time or history, there were no nomadic, >> 'wild a.s' terrorists. The Holy Crusaders marched TO the Middle East and >> murdered people, not the other way around. > >Very much a fact. And the Muslims of that era tended to spread >civilization wherever they went. They kept the old Greek knowledge and contributed mightily to our modern sciences. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >> In case you have no knowledge of the time or history, there were no > >> nomadic, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > They kept the old Greek knowledge and contributed mightily to our > modern sciences. Some of it. They were a bit selective. Not as destructive of ancient knowledge as Christians, I think. >> >Very much a fact. And the Muslims of that era tended to spread >> >civilization wherever they went. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Some of it. They were a bit selective. Not as destructive of ancient >knowledge as Christians, I think. I don't recall ancient Christians being particularly destructive of technological knowledge. It was the Romans, after all, who burned the library at Alexandria, accidental as that might have been. And it was the Catholic Church which hired Jewish scribes in Spain to translate Arabic libraries in Iberia into Latin. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>> Very much a fact. And the Muslims of that era tended to spread >>>> civilization wherever they went. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Swill Which 98% of Europe couldn't read. >> I don't recall ancient Christians being particularly destructive of >> technological knowledge. It was the Romans, after all, who burned the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Which 98% of Europe couldn't read. Um, dude, 98% of Europe couldn't read *any* language. Those who got the opportunity to learn to read, like as not learned to speak and write several languages at once and one of them was usually Latin. It was even used conversationally. When testing a new quill, Elizabeth I wrote her brother's name in Latin, Edwardus. That said, the Reformation, erupting with the advent of the printing press, meant that lots of Bibles were getting about and most of those were not in Latin. The language practically vanished from common and even State use during the 17th century. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> I don't recall ancient Christians being particularly destructive of >>> technological knowledge. It was the Romans, after all, who burned [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Um, dude, 98% of Europe couldn't read *any* language. No, about 85% of Europe couldn't read any language. The average was brought up by countries like Germany and Belgium who actually had a higher literacy rate than the average European. > Those who got > the opportunity to learn to read, like as not learned to speak and > write several languages at once and one of them was usually Latin. It > was even used conversationally. When testing a new quill, Elizabeth I > wrote her brother's name in Latin, Edwardus. Latin was considered the "property" of the Church, and was generally reserved for the clergy, and aristocracy and was not typically offered to the few commoners that could otherwise read and write their own language. > That said, the Reformation, erupting with the advent of the printing > press, meant that lots of Bibles were getting about and most of those > were not in Latin. The language practically vanished from common and > even State use during the 17th century. I think that the first non-latin Bible was the "Bishop's Bible", which predated the KJV and was generally considered (in later years) to be the absolute worst of the Biblical translations. Many historians believed that this was purposefully done so that the Church had "the absolute truth". >No, about 85% of Europe couldn't read any language. The average was >brought up by countries like Germany and Belgium who actually had a higher >literacy rate than the average European. This was brought about particularly during the Reformation when Bibles began being translated and assembled in languages other than Latin. >> Those who got >> the opportunity to learn to read, like as not learned to speak and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >reserved for the clergy, and aristocracy and was not typically offered to >the few commoners that could otherwise read and write their own language. Very few people who could read had no knowledge of Latin. Bear in mind that reading in and of itself tended to be reserved to those same groups you mention. Not that there weren't merchants who needed reading and writing skills to conduct business and did so in a native language. Even so, most of the readers and writers had at least workable Latin up through the 16th century. Keep in mind also that the Church allowed Bibles only in Latin and services were conducted in Latin. This means that even commoners understood some of it even if they couldn't read or write it. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> In case you have no knowledge of the time or history, there were no >> nomadic, 'wild a.s' terrorists. The Holy Crusaders marched TO the >> Middle East and murdered people, not the other way around. > > Very much a fact. And the Muslims of that era tended to spread > civilization wherever they went. As did the Christians... If you could call that civilization. > >>>>>>>> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians > >>>>>>>> trying to convert them to Christianity. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > What's the alternative for driving back nomadic 'wild a.s' terrorists? > Cut-n-Run? Surrender? When are you enlisting? > Negotiation...yeah...that'll work, just like every other time, right? Why don't you ask Gates who is preparing plans for withdrawal. RT >>> Christian Crusaders, with the full knowledge and sanction of the >>> Pope. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Fanatic. The "Holy Crusaders" murdered 10's of thousands of men, women, and >children. The price for their control was too high. And in the end they lost, the Muslims drove them out of the Holy Land. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>> Christian Crusaders, with the full knowledge and sanction of the >>>> Pope. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Swill Exactly. History does repeat itself. >Ya gotta do something to control Evil's minion in Babylon. It'll get far >worse before Babylon cries out to the mountains to fall on them for fear of >American (Eagle) Justice. You really ought not spew that crap at people who aren't as ignorant as you think. Obadiah 1: 2 "See, I will make you small among the nations; you will be utterly despised. 3 The pride of your heart has deceived you, you who live in the clefts of the rocks [a] and make your home on the heights, you who say to yourself, 'Who can bring me down to the ground?' 4 Though you soar like the eagle and make your nest among the stars, from there I will bring you down," declares the LORD. http://www.biblegateway.com/ NIV Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>Ya gotta do something to control Evil's minion in Babylon. It'll get far >>worse before Babylon cries out to the mountains to fall on them for fear [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > http://www.biblegateway.com/ > NIV Jeremiah 48 42 And Moab shall be destroyed from being a people, because he hath magnified himself against the LORD. 43 Fear, and the pit, and the snare, shall be upon thee, O inhabitant of Moab, saith the LORD. Jeremiah 49 27 And I will kindle a fire in the wall of Damascus, and it shall consume the palaces of Benhadad. http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html > "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message. > >> "Hugh Gibbons" <hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > worse before Babylon cries out to the mountains to fall on them for fear of > American (Eagle) Justice. Babylon hasn't existed for hundreds and hundreds of years, you ignorant bigot. RT >> "Andrealphus" <NOTAREALEMAIL_1@FAM.NET> wrote in message. >>>> "Hugh Gibbons" <hugh_gibbons@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > RT I once said that CB was living in the 9th Century CE. I guess he's actually living in a time far earlier than that. The guy is a nut! > >> >> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians > >> >> trying to convert them to Christianity. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > By whom? Christians >>>> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be no >>>> religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Muslims killing Christians Or, in other words, a religious based conflict. Thanks for proving my point. >> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians trying >> to convert them to Christianity. > > More like old world Europeans What the hell is an "old world European" other than an attempt by the American Taliban to pin a degrading label on a whole continent? >> I give you the crusades. > > Christians pushing back Muslims 'convert or die' Again, thanks for proving my point. >>>>> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be no >>>>> religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > What the hell is an "old world European" other than an attempt by the > American Taliban to pin a degrading label on a whole continent? Just as you stoke with a wide brush? >>> I give you the crusades. >> >> Christians pushing back Muslims 'convert or die' > > Again, thanks for proving my point. Yeah, it always seems to be Muslim on Christian but you don't seem to get it or admit it, why is that? >> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians trying to >> convert them to Christianity. > >More like old world Europeans Who were Christians. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians trying >>> to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Who were Christians. My peeps escaped that kinda stuff > Swill >>>> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians trying >>>> to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >My peeps escaped that kinda stuff *laughs and points* Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >>> I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians trying > >>> to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > My peeps escaped that kinda stuff Now you're sayig marshmallow candies are christian? RT >> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be no >> religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of the violence >> and genocide in the world today. > >There was Pol Pot. a) He said "most". b) It was Christian America that helped him to power and avoided getting in his way. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>>>>>>> He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of the > violence and genocide in the world today. How easly you forget your political cousins in commiland HOW MANY DID COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER? http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM Millions you dumbass >>>>>>>>>> He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Millions you dumbass And many were Jews because they were Jews. They also killed Muslims in the Balkans because they were Muslims. The Chinese killed Buddhists because they were Buddhists. I give you Muslims killing non-Muslims in the middle east. I give you Muslims killing Muslims of a different sect because they are of a different sect in the Philippines. I give you Darfur. I give you the Millions of American Indians killed by Christians trying to convert them to Christianity. I give you the crusades. I give you the inquisition. I give you Hindus killing Buddhists killing Muslims in India. I give you Muslims fighting against non-Muslims in the Philippines. >> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be no >> religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Millions you dumbass http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Secular+Humanism&sa=X&oi=glo ssary_definition&ct=title So Christians are incapable of killing millions in the name of philosophy? Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be no >>> religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So Christians are incapable of killing millions in the name of > philosophy? I never said that. I do however say where ever Muslims move as 'nomads' (see Genesis III / wild a.s) into other lands, violence follows > Swill >I never said that. I do however say where ever Muslims move as 'nomads' (see >Genesis III / wild a.s) into other lands, violence follows Which is another thing too many people haven't figured out yet. The state borders drawn on the sand don't reflect the fact that Iraq and most other me countries are tribal in origin, their current borders reflecting a European sensibility. Scarce resources and harsh climates foster mobile societies and breed harsh religions? Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >I never said that. I do however say where ever Muslims move as 'nomads' (see > >Genesis III / wild a.s) into other lands, violence follows [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Scarce resources and harsh climates foster mobile societies and breed > harsh religions? They reinforce clan type organization. RT > >>> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be no > >>> religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I never said that. I do however say where ever Muslims move as 'nomads' (see > Genesis III / wild a.s) into other lands, violence follows http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/03_march/26/iraq.shtml Following a Freedom of Information request, BBC World Service Newshour has learnt that a senior British Government official advised ministers to show "caution" about publicly criticising a report published last October in the Lancet, which estimated that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war in Iraq. ... The Chief Scientific Adviser to the British Ministry of Defence described the methods used by the Lancet survey as "close to best practice" adding that the "study design is robust." A statistician at the Department of International Development said the method used in the survey was "tried and tested" and, if anything, could lead to an underestimate of the number of deaths. ... That was done when christians invaded, er, went, to Iraq. RT >> >>> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there be no >> >>> religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates most of the [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > That was done when christians invaded, er, went, to Iraq. Saddamn should have cooperated and Iran shouldn't have sent assassins in. >Saddamn should have cooperated and Iran shouldn't have sent assassins in. Tell us, exactly what Saddam could have done to stop Bush's invasion? Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>Saddamn should have cooperated and Iran shouldn't have sent assassins in. > > Tell us, exactly what Saddam could have done to stop Bush's invasion? Been transparent, cooperative and invite Tony, Billy and George over for tea > Swill >>> Saddamn should have cooperated and Iran shouldn't have sent >>> assassins in. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> Picture of the day >> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html In the end he did....inspection wide open. Personal palaces were subject to inspection without notice. Saddam was try to save himself. bush,jr had won...then he trhew it all away by invading Iraq. bush,jr is an arrogant fool. >>>> Saddamn should have cooperated and Iran shouldn't have sent >>>> assassins in. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > bush,jr is an arrogant fool. Tell it to the UN, you revisionist! Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions: more - http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html >>>>> Saddamn should have cooperated and Iran shouldn't have sent >>>>> assassins in. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > violated each of the following resolutions: > more - http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html Saddam was trying to save himself. bush,jr had won...then he trhew it all away by invading and occupying Iraq. bush,jr is an arrogant fool. Newspapers of the day told the story. UN Inspectors told the story. True believers like you accept White House lies uncritically. >> bush,jr had won...then he trhew >> it all away by invading Iraq. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >more - http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html True colors. Israel is in violation of more UN resolutions than any other nation. Why didn't we invade them? The fact of the matter is that there were other reasons for invading Iraq that had nothing whatsoever to do with the public pronouncements of the administration. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>>> Saddamn should have cooperated and Iran shouldn't have sent >>>>> assassins in. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security > Council Resolutions Israel has vilolated 37 (At last count), should we attack them now? > >>>>> Saddamn should have cooperated and Iran shouldn't have sent > >>>>> assassins in. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Israel has vilolated 37 (At last count), should we attack them now? http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/1002resolutions.pdf >> > Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security >> > Council Resolutions >> >> Israel has vilolated 37 (At last count), should we attack them now? > > http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/1002resolutions.pdf Let's invade Turkey and Morocco too. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>> Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations >>>> Security Council Resolutions [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Swill Yep! Let's roll! > >> > Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security > >> > Council Resolutions [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Let's invade Turkey and Morocco too. Pip pip! Jolly Good! > > >> > Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security > > >> > Council Resolutions [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Pip pip! Jolly Good! Screw that! Who wants Turkey or Morocco? If we're going to invade someplace, I want it to be someplace nice. How about Italy or France? They say with global warming, the wine in France may get even better. >> > >> > Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations >> > >> > Security [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > someplace, I want it to be someplace nice. How about Italy or France? > They say with global warming, the wine in France may get even better. Have you ever had to deal with the natives? The N. Koreans make more sense. Jim E >> > >> > Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security >> > >> > Council Resolutions [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >someplace, I want it to be someplace nice. How about Italy or France? >They say with global warming, the wine in France may get even better. They don't have enough violations to justify it. We could do it just for fun though. You go establish a beach head, we'll be along shortly. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>>>>> Saddamn should have cooperated and Iran shouldn't have sent >>>>>>> assassins in. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/1002resolutions.pdf Whew! We should attack Israel now! LOL! >>>>>> AND you forgot to mention the upside of secularism since there >>>>>> be no religious based terrorism which pretty much eliminates [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Saddamn should have cooperated and Iran shouldn't have sent assassins > in. Saddam knew he was in deep sh.t and co-operated to the best of his ability in order to save his a.s from lunatic bush,jr. Inspectors had returned and were allowed unfettered unanounced inspecttions of any site they chose including Saddam's personal palaces. He had no airforce. His army was wrecked in Gulf war I. He had been neutered. He knew it jr bush knew it. Arrogant bush,jr attacked and got us into a horrible mess. Why do you keep making up your sh.t? You've been told these things a hundred times The one thing Saddam didn't do was go back on the dollar. Swill >> Saddamn should have cooperated and Iran shouldn't have sent assassins >> in. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >your sh.t? You've been told >these things a hundred times SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message > >> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Saddamn should have cooperated and Iran shouldn't have sent assassins in. Saddam did and it's Saudi Arabia sending in assassins. RT > "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message > > "CB" <CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Millions you dumbass http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/rumsfeld-hussein.jpg >> "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message >> > "CB" <CB@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/rumsfeld-hussein.jpg Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? > Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? Yes he was. He didn't kill people over ideology. He killed them in disputes over resources and land. Those are popular reasons for wars among religious and secularists alike. >> Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Those are popular reasons for wars among religious and secularists > alike. >> Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Those are popular reasons for wars among religious and secularists > alike. Oh I think Saddamn just killed for the pleasure. He even gave his sons pistols for their b-day once and took them down to the jail for target practice. >>> Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > He even gave his sons pistols for their b-day once and took them down > to the jail for target practice. And this has been proven where exactly? >>>> Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And this has been proven where exactly? It was in a news story a few years ago >>>>> Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > It was in a news story a few years ago And the information came from where exactly? Bush's "intelligence community" ? >>>>>> Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And the information came from where exactly? Bush's "intelligence > community" ? It wasn't on the Clinton Nut Network, that's for sure...dude > >>>>>> Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > It wasn't on the Clinton Nut Network, that's for sure...dude So it didn't have enough credibility for CNN to report it? >>>>>>> Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > It wasn't on the Clinton Nut Network, that's for sure...dude Because it was bullshit. Just like the WMD's in 2003. > >>>>>> Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > It wasn't on the Clinton Nut Network, that's for sure...dude What network WAS is on, then? Cite -> >>>>>>>> Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > What network WAS is on, then? Cite -> These fanatics are all the same. He couldn't give an honest answer, so he immediately falls to insulting Clinton. Classic idiocy. > > Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Those are popular reasons for wars among religious and secularists > alike. Along with power. RT > > > Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > RT How is that not the same thing as control of resources and land? >> > Yes he was. He didn't kill people over ideology. He killed >> > them in disputes over resources and land. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >How is that not the same thing as control of resources and land? Taking the land is one thing. Finding a way to control it without actually taking it is somewhat different. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > > > > Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > How is that not the same thing as control of resources and land? Consider things like political power... RT > > > > > Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? > > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > RT How is that not the same as control of resources and land? > > > > > > Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > How is that not the same as control of resources and land? Control of *people*. Politics, policy, agenda, etc RT > "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message > >> "grinder" <seagle@earthlink.invalid> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > Saddamn 'was' a secularist, wasn't he? How about that other guy in the picture? RT >>>>>>>> He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > choices to them selves. We wouldn't be in such a mess today with > bastard children having no role models, Most born of Christian parents. > discipline would still be in > place instilling shame, consequence and scholastic results. Lowest over all test scores within the Bible Belt. > Secular Humanism has replaced Christian teaching, Which has been a good thing. That new math really stumped you, huh? > outlawed spanking Ah, a child beater. Why am I not surprised? > and where has it gotten us? Psycho babbling quack doctors drugging > children instead of recommending discipline and healthy diets. Every doctor I've ever met has recommended a healthy diet. Just because your Christian parents let their kids get obese doesn't mean it the fault of the secular humanists. > Secular Humanism is the worship of self Absolute rubbish. >> Secular Humanism is the worship of self > >Absolute rubbish. Actually that is one definition I've found for the term. I don't agree with it myself, but apparently it is in use as such. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Secular+Humanism&sa=X&oi=glo ssary_definition&ct=title Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> How wonderful if all Christians would follow this guidance from the holy >> book they prefer to cite so often. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >having no role models, discipline would still be in place instilling shame, >consequence and scholastic results. Those things don't come from Secular Humanists. SH believe in the same values Christians do, but don't believe in a personal God or the mythology that surrounds and is integral to most religions. They prefer a pragmatic approach and understand such things as, "if you screw around you'll get a disease or make a baby." Those illegitimate babies come from people playing games with each other. There is the classic, often given excuse of parents who devalue education to their kids and teach them that nothing is more important than money and it doesn't matter how you get it. This is not a SH position. Many years ago a friend's son was struggling a bit with geography. Having done will in that subject and social studies when I was in school, I offered to help. Her reply was to angrily ask, "What the f.ck does it matter to my son where Colorado is? He doesn't need to know that!" >Secular Humanism has replaced Christian teaching, outlawed spanking and >where has it gotten us? SH has not outlawed spanking or replaced Christian teaching. Spanking has stopped because of babbling psycho quack doctors who tell us it'll spoil your child. Because of a few abusers who truly enjoy beating children up, the rest of us are denied an effective means of training children and the schools have lost their most effective tool for disciplining them. When I was a kid, if you got paddled at school, you didn't want your parents to find out because their correct assumption would be that you deserved it and so you might get another paddling at home. These days parents march up to the school and start raising merry hell if a kid gets a three day suspension for carrying a knife into the building. As for Christian teaching, that has been effectively banned from public schools ever since the nineteenth century. Christian teaching only existed in the first place because books were rare but everybody had a Bible. Therefore reading had to be taught out of Bibles if it was to be taught at all. Once sufficient wealth was attained to allow it, schools were able to teach without using religious materials. > Psycho babbling quack doctors drugging children >instead of recommending discipline and healthy diets. I agree the American diet is less healthy than it should be, but again, it's not because of the shrinking power of religion over our lives. >Secular Humanism is the worship of self Secular Humanism is no such thing. It's a recognition that we are here and now and live with commonly agreed upon ethical behaviors. The only thing that separates SH from Xtians is that Xtians go to church and worship God. SH's simply make a point of living according to the moral teachings of history including those of Jesus. For example, it's been Christians who are most likely to support war for personal gain, not Secular Humanists. Iraq is a case in point. Christians supported it very broadly because they saw in it the fulfillment of prophecy in Revelation. People with moral values and no religion (Secular Humanists) are the ones who have been dubious of Bush's policy. That makes Christians both murderers and aggressors. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> How wonderful if all Christians would follow this guidance from the holy >>> book they prefer to cite so often. [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > was to be taught at all. Once sufficient wealth was attained to allow > it, schools were able to teach without using religious materials. It's late and I'm tired but I'll say this without going to find proof, which you'll not doubt want, Education in America was first taught by Christian institutions. Most all schools in America started out as Christian. >> Psycho babbling quack doctors drugging children >>instead of recommending discipline and healthy diets. > > I agree the American diet is less healthy than it should be, but > again, it's not because of the shrinking power of religion over our > lives. Your body is a temple although I smoke a great cigar once a day. If you like cigars order the sampler on... http://www.coronacigar.com/pc_Avo_Lounge_Cigar_A_Corona_Cigar_Co_Exclusive_pid39 4.html It's the best I have ever smoked! >>Secular Humanism is the worship of self > > Secular Humanism is no such thing. It's a recognition that we are > here and now and live with commonly agreed upon ethical behaviors. What came first, God, Ethos or the Ego? God > The only thing that separates SH from Xtians is that Xtians go to > church and worship God. SH's simply make a point of living according > to the moral teachings of history including those of Jesus. How's that working for you? > For example, it's been Christians who are most likely to support war > for personal gain, not Secular Humanists. It's Muslim Islamo-fascists that have started most wars Iraq is a case in point. > Christians supported it very broadly because they saw in it the > fulfillment of prophecy in Revelation. People with moral values and > no religion (Secular Humanists) are the ones who have been dubious of > Bush's policy. That makes Christians both murderers and aggressors. I can't take it anymore, I'm outta here. You're dilusional. It's the kook in Iran who wants to resurrect the 12th imam from his watery grave he fell into 1200 years ago. A fact that 'is' never recognized by the Secular. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes it's his destiny to create world chaos for the anti-Christ...I mean the 12th imam to be resurrected. Through murder (see Hitler's Brown Shirts) and terror the Kook thinks he can take over the world. Of course you blame Bush, right? > Swill >> Secular Humanism is no such thing. It's a recognition that we are >> here and now and live with commonly agreed upon ethical behaviors. > >What came first, God, Ethos or the Ego? > >God Ditto. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> The only thing that separates SH from Xtians is that Xtians go to >> church and worship God. SH's simply make a point of living according >> to the moral teachings of history including those of Jesus. > >How's that working for you? Very well, thank you. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >It's Muslim Islamo-fascists that have started most wars *laughs and points* Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >It's the kook in Iran who wants to resurrect the 12th imam from his watery >grave he fell into 1200 years ago. A fact that 'is' never recognized by the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Hitler's Brown Shirts) and terror the Kook thinks he can take over the >world. Iran's voters did to Ahmadinejad what America's voters did to Bush. Mahmoud has withdrawn from his passionate rhetoric. >Of course you blame Bush, right? Only for the mistakes he's made. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message > > [...] [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How's that working for you? A lot better than hypocrite christians. > > For example, it's been Christians who are most likely to support war > > for personal gain, not Secular Humanists. > > It's Muslim Islamo-fascists that have started most wars "Muslim Islamo-fascists" started WW1 and 2? The Korean War? The Boer War? etc ? > Iraq is a case in point. > > Christians supported it very broadly because they saw in it the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I can't take it anymore, I'm outta here. You're dilusional. Says the guy who claims "Muslim Islamo-fascists" started most wars. Says the guy who claims Satan controls the weather. > It's the kook in Iran who wants to resurrect the 12th imam from his watery > grave he fell into 1200 years ago. A fact that 'is' never recognized by the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Picture of the day > > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> It's Muslim Islamo-fascists that have started most wars > >"Muslim Islamo-fascists" started WW1 and 2? The Korean War? The Boer War? >etc ? The Seven Years War, Thirty Years War, Hundred Years, War, War of the Austrian Succession? Spanish Succession? WW I and II? How about the War of Jenkin's Ear, the Napoleonic wars, the wars between Protestants and Catholics that washed Europe like the tides for three centuries? Did the Islamofacists cause Genghis Khan to conquer most of Asia? The Barbarians to bring Rome to it's knees? Did they cause every war ever fought even before Mohammed was born? How about Vietnam, Korea, and the list of little bits like Grenada and Panama? How about the Hebrew conquest of the Promised Land after the Exodus? I could go on, anybody could go on, but after a while, showing you up for the idiot you are gets boring. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> It's Muslim Islamo-fascists that have started most wars >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > anybody could go on, but after a while, showing you up for the idiot > you are gets boring. Wow > Swill http://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2006/1099/print/ >Matthew 6:5 And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites, for they love >to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by >others. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full >Matthew 6:6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to >your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in >secret, will reward you. >How wonderful if all Christians would follow this guidance from the holy >book they prefer to cite so often. The Bible has something for everyone. That's it's appeal. You can prove just about anything with it. Somewhere there's a scripture to both support and oppose practically any personal, moral, ethical, political or theosophical position. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>Matthew 6:5 And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites, for they >>love [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > The Bible has something for everyone. That's it's appeal. You can > prove just about anything with it. Except God and His Son does not exist Somewhere there's a scripture to > both support and oppose practically any personal, moral, ethical, > political or theosophical position. How about the right to abortion? Isn't that like what Muslims did to Christian babies described Psalm 137? ... 8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- 9 he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20137;&version=31; Liberalism 'is' to abortion as Islam-fascism 'is' to Humanity > Swill > >>Matthew 6:5 And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites, for they > >>love [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Isn't that like what Muslims did to Christian babies described Psalm 137? There were no muslims back then. Nor christians. You never pass up a chance to show your ignorance, do you? The text in the psalm clearly expresses a desire by the writer to kill babies. > ... > 8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Liberalism 'is' to abortion as Islam-fascism 'is' to Humanity >> >>Matthew 6:5 And when you pray, don't be like the hypocrites, for they >> >>love [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > desire > by the writer to kill babies. God's wrath on Babylon has just only just began ... Ver. 9. Against the stones. That elM signifies a rock, is undubitable, from the concurrent testimony of all the best Hebrew lexicographers. Hence it follows, because there is no rock, nor mountain, nor hill, either in tim city or in the province of ancient Babylonia, that the locality against which the malediction of this Psalm is hurled cannot be the metropolis of the ancient Assyrian empire, but must be apocalyptic Babylon, or Papal Rome, built upon seven hills, one of which is the celebrated Tarpeian Rock. But the eighth verse emphatically declares that the retributive justice of God will visit upon apocalyptic Babylon the same infliction which Assyrian Babylon, and also Pagan Rome, inflicted upon Jerusalem. As therefore Nebuchadnezzar as well as Titus "burnt the house of the Lord, and tim king's house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great man's house burnt he with fire" (2Ki 25:9), so "the ten horns shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire; and she shall be utterly burned with fire" (Re 17:16 18:8). When the Canaanites had filled up the measure of their iniquity, Israel received a divine commission to exterminate the guilty nation. When Papal Rome shall have filled up the measure of her iniquity, then "a mighty angel will take up a stone, like a great millstone, and will cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down": "For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double" (Re 18:5-6). Then shall issue the divine proclamation: "Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her" (Re 18:20). -John Noble Coleman, in "The Book of Psalms, with Notes, "1863. ... http://grace-for-today.com/chstp137.htm >> ... >> 8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Liberalism 'is' to abortion as Islam-fascism 'is' to Humanity > "Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message > >> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > God's wrath on Babylon has just only just began Babylon hasn't existed for hundreds and hundreds of years, you ignorant bigot. > And as I've stated, it's not my burden of proof. All things being equal, I > would be perfectly happy to allow people to worship and live as they see > fit, within the confines of the law. Christians, and other religionists, > seem to think they have some divine duty to make sure that you believe as > they do. Not so. There are quite a number of religious groups that do not proselytize. Those that do are more well-known and have greater numbers of adherents, for obvious reasons. >> And as I've stated, it's not my burden of proof. All things being >> equal, I would be perfectly happy to allow people to worship and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Not so. There are quite a number of religious groups that do not > proselytize. But most do. >And as I've stated, it's not my burden of proof. Proof denies faith and without faith there is no God. "...and God vanishes in a puff of logic." > All things being equal, I >would be perfectly happy to allow people to worship and live as they see >fit, within the confines of the law. "Would that each had his own and all were content." "There is but one true faith and one Christ Jesus. The rest is a dispute about trifles." -- Elizabeth I > Christians, and other religionists, >seem to think they have some divine duty to make sure that you believe as >they do. Ergo, it is there burden of proof to prove that their religion has >a basis in fact. The Conquest mentality expressed through religion. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> And as I've stated, it's not my burden of proof. > > Proof denies faith and without faith there is no God. "...and God > vanishes in a puff of logic." And that's a bad thing because.... ? >> All things being equal, I >> would be perfectly happy to allow people to worship and live as they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "There is but one true faith and one Christ Jesus. The rest is a > dispute about trifles." -- Elizabeth I And some 500 years in her grave queen is relevant because? >> Christians, and other religionists, >> seem to think they have some divine duty to make sure that you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Swill And? >>> And as I've stated, it's not my burden of proof. >> >> Proof denies faith and without faith there is no God. "...and God >> vanishes in a puff of logic." > >And that's a bad thing because.... ? Seems to be a bad thing if the smoke is toxic. DCI >>>> And as I've stated, it's not my burden of proof. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > DCI You think that logic equates to smoke? >>>>> And as I've stated, it's not my burden of proof. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >You think that logic equates to smoke? Logic seems to me: taking a set of knowns and trying to reach an explanable conclusion - that is the essence of theory - until more knowns are found. Religious zealots seem often to claim they have all the knowns and their conclusions are not subject to any modifications. DCI >>>>>> And as I've stated, it's not my burden of proof. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > knowns are found. Religious zealots seem often to claim they have all > the knowns and their conclusions are not subject to any modifications. It's also not subject to logic. Relgion starts with a conclusion, no proof required. Even if you presented the average religionist with proof positive, one way or the other, it would probably not change their conclusion. Logic is the beginning of knowledge, not its end, to quote Mr. Spock. Logic doesn't seek conclusions, only the next known, and then the next, and then the next. The only possible conclusion that logic will come to is when we know everything, which is not likely in the near future. >> Logic seems to me: taking a set of knowns and trying to reach an >> explanable conclusion - that is the essence of theory - until more [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >next, and then the next. The only possible conclusion that logic will come >to is when we know everything, which is not likely in the near future. Damn, guy, I was hoping for the ultimate conclusion this coming Tuesday, this, just before the mail arrives. DCI >>> Logic seems to me: taking a set of knowns and trying to reach an >>> explanable conclusion - that is the essence of theory - until more [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > DCI Nope, unfortunately that's not the way it works. :) The kicker is that even if we had the ultimate conclusion, half the people would reject it and both halves would seek to kill the other. Humans being the way they are. >>>> And as I've stated, it's not my burden of proof. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > DCI O.K. A puff of incense. >> Proof denies faith and without faith there is no God. "...and God >> vanishes in a puff of logic." >And that's a bad thing because.... ? Did I say it was a bad thing? >> "Would that each had his own and all were content." >> >> "There is but one true faith and one Christ Jesus. The rest is a >> dispute about trifles." -- Elizabeth I > >And some 500 years in her grave queen is relevant because? 400. 400 years in her grave and yes, all three sentences are relevant today. >> The Conquest mentality expressed through religion. >And? What? Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> Proof denies faith and without faith there is no God. "...and God >>> vanishes in a puff of logic." [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 400. 400 years in her grave and yes, all three sentences are relevant > today. Why? Queen Elizabeth I says that the rest if a dispute about trifles. If that is true, then why have the Christians spent a large part of their history killing each other, and others? All of those people died of trifles? >>>> "Would that each had his own and all were content." >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >history killing each other, and others? All of those people died of >trifles? That's exactly the point. The religious wars and inquisitions of Renaissance Europe were about doctrinal disputes though the real issue was Church secular power. Nobody disputed Jesus as Lord and Savior. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>>> "Would that each had his own and all were content." >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Swill What is "church secular power"? >> That's exactly the point. The religious wars and inquisitions of >> Renaissance Europe were about doctrinal disputes though the real issue [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >What is "church secular power"? Church control of governments. The same sort of power now exercised by so many Muslim clerics. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> That's exactly the point. The religious wars and inquisitions of >>> Renaissance Europe were about doctrinal disputes though the real [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Church control of governments. That would be a Theocracy, there would be no secular power. > The same sort of power now exercised > by so many Muslim clerics. Yes, we typically call those Theocracys. You can't really mix Church and State too much and maintain that one is secular. >>>> That's exactly the point. The religious wars and inquisitions of >>>> Renaissance Europe were about doctrinal disputes though the real [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Yes, we typically call those Theocracys. You can't really mix Church and >State too much and maintain that one is secular. Jesus, help these people! "Secular power" exists. Churches exist. Churches can exert control of secular affairs without necessarily becoming entirely a theocracy (witness modern America). And yes, a theocracy is when the Church exercises primary control of secular power. Therefore "Church control of governments" indicates a state wherein the Church does not dictate but does have influence over government. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>>> That's exactly the point. The religious wars and inquisitions of >>>>> Renaissance Europe were about doctrinal disputes though the real [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > "Secular power" exists. Churches exist. Churches can exert control > of secular affairs without necessarily becoming entirely a theocracy Anytime Churches extert control of secular affairs, you move into a theocracy. > (witness modern America). And yes, a theocracy is when the Church > exercises primary control of secular power. Yes, unfortunately we have that problem here in the U.S. > Therefore "Church control of governments" indicates a state wherein > the Church does not dictate but does have influence over government. Influence is dictate, where religion is concerned. >> "Secular power" exists. Churches exist. Churches can exert control >> of secular affairs without necessarily becoming entirely a theocracy [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Therefore "Church control of governments" indicates a state wherein >> the Church does not dictate but does have influence over government. >Influence is dictate, where religion is concerned. Not necessarily. During the Religious wars of the late Renaissance, France refused to join the Catholic League and supported England. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> "Secular power" exists. Churches exist. Churches can exert control >>> of secular affairs without necessarily becoming entirely a theocracy [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Swill Thus, France ended Catholic Influence and began to move away from Theocracy. Unfortunately, they would later fall under Puritan control. The point is that you're making religion of that time sound like they were trying to gently influence Western Governments when in fact they had been simply dictating and followed. The Great Plague of the 14th Century severely erroded the people's trust in the Church, but it stll took several hundred years to begin to seperate Church from State and end the theocracies. >Thus, France ended Catholic Influence and began to move away from Theocracy. >Unfortunately, they would later fall under Puritan control. France? Puritans? > The point is >that you're making religion of that time sound like they were trying to >gently influence Western Governments when in fact they had been simply >dictating and followed. Might want to read more broadly on the subject. The Renaissance was the time the Church suffered successful rebellion. They lost northern and central Europe and Britain to the reformers. > The Great Plague of the 14th Century severely >erroded the people's trust in the Church, but it stll took several hundred >years to begin to seperate Church from State and end the theocracies. About two hundred. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> Thus, France ended Catholic Influence and began to move away from >> Theocracy. Unfortunately, they would later fall under Puritan >> control. > > France? Puritans? Same group, different name. >> The point is >> that you're making religion of that time sound like they were trying [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the time the Church suffered successful rebellion. They lost northern > and central Europe and Britain to the reformers. Who formed there own theocracy. >> The Great Plague of the 14th Century severely >> erroded the people's trust in the Church, but it stll took several >> hundred years to begin to seperate Church from State and end the >> theocracies. > > About two hundred. About four hundred to complete. >>> Thus, France ended Catholic Influence and began to move away from >>> Theocracy. Unfortunately, they would later fall under Puritan [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Same group, different name. What name? >> Might want to read more broadly on the subject. The Renaissance was >> the time the Church suffered successful rebellion. They lost northern >> and central Europe and Britain to the reformers. > >Who formed there own theocracy. Nada. They were too small, disorganized and argumentative to form any theocracies. That's why the Constitution got written. All these different beliefs had to be accommodated by a government entirely separated from the church. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >Thus, France ended Catholic Influence and began to move away from Theocracy. > >Unfortunately, they would later fall under Puritan control. > > France? Puritans? Never happened. France was always majority Catholic until the last century when they went majority agnostic or atheist. Puritans took over in England. > > The point is > >that you're making religion of that time sound like they were trying to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Swill >> >Thus, France ended Catholic Influence and began to move away from Theocracy. >> >Unfortunately, they would later fall under Puritan control. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >century when they went majority agnostic or atheist. Puritans took >over in England. He might be referring to the Huguenots. They were French Protestants but hardly Puritans. Henry IV of France was a Huguenot who changed his religion in order to get the throne (and the Protestant Elizabeth I of England helped put him there). This helps explain the lack of Catholic fervor in France during the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. The French were able to put their doctrinal beliefs aside and make religion neutral political decisions on the Continent. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >> >Thus, France ended Catholic Influence and began to move away from > >> >Theocracy. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The French were able to put their doctrinal beliefs aside and make > religion neutral political decisions on the Continent. You're mistaken if you think there was peace between Huguenots and Catholics in the 17th century. There were several massacres and wars in the 16th century. In 1685, Protestantism became illegal in France and remained so through most of the 18th century. Huge numbers of Protestants fled France to escape the persecution. >> >> France? Puritans? >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >and remained so through most of the 18th century. Huge numbers of >Protestants fled France to escape the persecution. The context was national politics. A very different thing. France and England frequently co-operated against Spain and the Pope. For that matter, when the Pope pronounced his Bull against Elizabeth in the 1560s, France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire refused to allow it's publication on account of political realities with Protestant states in central Europe and the British Isles. Internally, France remained Catholic. The "massacres" of the 16th century was basically the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre. France suffered several outbreaks of religious/civil war until Henry IV, a Huguenot deemed "Paris worth a mass" and changed his religion to get the French crown. Religion was not the primary political component of French foreign policy at least from the moment King Phillip II of Spain married Queen Mary II of England. In fact, during Mary's reign, the French ambassador offered to take Elizabeth to France for the purpose of an audience with the King of France with an eye towards getting French support in a coup against the younger sister on the older's throne. My point wasn't that France wasn't Catholic, it was that the French were far less concerned about religion than secular politics than say, Spain. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >>> "Secular power" exists. Churches exist. Churches can exert control > >>> of secular affairs without necessarily becoming entirely a theocracy [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > erroded the people's trust in the Church, but it stll took several hundred > years to begin to seperate Church from State and end the theocracies. Not so much as all that. Protestantism started in the 15th century. >> Thus, France ended Catholic Influence and began to move away from Theocracy. >> Unfortunately, they would later fall under Puritan control. The point is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Not so much as all that. Protestantism started in the 15th century. The religious map of Europe was basically drawn by the mid 17th century though religious wars were fought right up until France conquered Spain. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> In News hugh_gibbons-488471.18241022072...@newsgroups.comcast.net,, >> Hugh Gibbons at hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net, typed this: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> the sky says so. > God is not a boogieman; Christians treat him as one. Lookout! Be Good! God will get you for that! Or as CB put it, "obey God or be tormented with fire and brimstone in Hell." You might think that even the religionists would know how primitive and weak that sounds after all these centuries. > He is Lord of Lords and King of Kings. And yet, you cannot even prove he exists. >Christians treat him as one. Lookout! Be Good! God will get you for that! >Or as CB put it, "obey God or be tormented with fire and brimstone in Hell." > >You might think that even the religionists would know how primitive and weak >that sounds after all these centuries. It's ancient wisdom. Bunch of us would've burned in Hell if the Cold War had gone hot. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> Christians treat him as one. Lookout! Be Good! God will get you >> for that! Or as CB put it, "obey God or be tormented with fire and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's ancient wisdom. It's hogwash. >>> Christians treat him as one. Lookout! Be Good! God will get you >>> for that! Or as CB put it, "obey God or be tormented with fire and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >It's hogwash. No it's not. It's allegorical mythology. It's collected and preserved human wisdom spanning millennia that can teach us lessons about ourselves *if* we don't get all caught up with the Literal Truth Brigade. The OT is a treasure trove of human social drama. Innocence and debauchery, love and hate, loyalty and treason, heavenly glories and blind, raging violence. Sounds like humans to me. The Bible, the Tora, the Koran, the eastern scriptures I know too little about all contain the learning of the ancients if properly viewed. Unsurprisingly, they find much common ground. Also unsurprisingly, they show repetitive patterns in human behavior. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." We've discarded valuable knowledge of our human past by making religions out of it. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>> Christians treat him as one. Lookout! Be Good! God will get you >>>> for that! Or as CB put it, "obey God or be tormented with fire and [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >Swill Interesting summation! DCI >>>> Christians treat him as one. Lookout! Be Good! God will get you >>>> for that! Or as CB put it, "obey God or be tormented with fire and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > No it's not. Yes, it is. >>>> It's ancient wisdom. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Yes, it is. No. It is not hogwash. It is valuable information about human personal and social behavior that has become shrouded in religious mythology and thereby rendered inaccessible. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>>> It's ancient wisdom. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Swill Nice way to say, "It's hogwash." Is this "valuable information" any different than the "valuable information' one can obtain without the religious mythos clouding the issue? Is there some deep, abiding knowledge that one cannot otherwise obtain? >> No. It is not hogwash. It is valuable information about human >> personal and social behavior that has become shrouded in religious [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >religious mythos clouding the issue? Is there some deep, abiding knowledge >that one cannot otherwise obtain? It what you say is true, why does it cost so much to obtain valuable information from the churches? DCI >>> No. It is not hogwash. It is valuable information about human >>> personal and social behavior that has become shrouded in religious [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > DCI It depends on whether or not you agree that such information should be obtained through thought and logic, or a fear mongering, primitive religion. >>>> No. It is not hogwash. It is valuable information about human >>>> personal and social behavior that has become shrouded in religious [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >It depends on whether or not you agree that such information should be >obtained through thought and logic, or a fear mongering, primitive religion. Research, analyses, documentation, testing, validation, then thought and logic, these are my preferences. Pontificating BS and ritzy vestments don't get it in my book(s). So methinks we agree on the premise? DCI >>>>> No. It is not hogwash. It is valuable information about human >>>>> personal and social behavior that has become shrouded in religious [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > DCI Sounds like it. I have to laugh at a man in a long, ornate evening gown and pointy hat who hasn't had sex in decades trying to tell me when, where, and how I may have sex. LOL! >> Research, analyses, documentation, testing, validation, then thought >> and logic, these are my preferences. Pontificating BS and ritzy [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >and pointy hat who hasn't had sex in decades trying to tell me when, where, >and how I may have sex. LOL! Think of it this way, if he has better place for it, check him out. But he might use a stop watch due to the increase in clientele. On the matter of how, we've already heard about the tragic events of alter boys. DCI >> No. It is not hogwash. It is valuable information about human >> personal and social behavior that has become shrouded in religious >> mythology and thereby rendered inaccessible. >Nice way to say, "It's hogwash." Is this "valuable information" any >different than the "valuable information' one can obtain without the >religious mythos clouding the issue? Is there some deep, abiding knowledge >that one cannot otherwise obtain? It's simply history. When the mythos is separated from it, what you have left is history. And in that history is a lot about human behavior that can be seen today. There are many such ancient records from cultures across the globe and they carry remarkably similar themes. In great part, these histories are set as moral parables. "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> No. It is not hogwash. It is valuable information about human >>> personal and social behavior that has become shrouded in religious [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Swill All we need is the history. THe religious mythos is just hogwash. >>>> No. It is not hogwash. It is valuable information about human >>>> personal and social behavior that has become shrouded in religious [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >All we need is the history. THe religious mythos is just hogwash. Which is what I've been pointing out. The mythology has rendered vast archives of ancient records of human behavior unusable in today's world. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>>> No. It is not hogwash. It is valuable information about human >>>>> personal and social behavior that has become shrouded in religious [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Swill Ah, okay. I thought you were saying something different. On Jul 22, 5:24 pm, Hugh Gibbons <hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net> wrote: > In article <1185142297.221894.142...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Why is that? God said so. God has decreed that the names of those who die in their sins will not be entered into the Book of Life, and God has decreed that those whose names are not in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire, where they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. > > > >> If man had really been perfect, he wouldn't have eaten the fruit of > > > >> the tree of knowledge. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > He seems to tolerate it universally. Only humans attempt to punish it > in the here and now. God does not tolerate sin in Heaven. Michael > On Jul 22, 5:24 pm, Hugh Gibbons <hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > cast into the lake of fire, where they will be tormented day and night > forever and ever. Under most circumstances someone would be considered insane if they hear voices from an imaginary friend. Yet they are immune from critical questioning if the voice is from "god." > > On Jul 22, 5:24 pm, Hugh Gibbons <hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > voices from an imaginary friend. Yet they are immune from critical > questioning if the voice is from "god." I read that straight from Revelations in the Bible. Michael >> > On Jul 22, 5:24 pm, Hugh Gibbons <hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net> >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Michael What would the bible be without the insane ramblings of fiction writers who hear voices. >What would the bible be without the insane ramblings of fiction writers who >hear voices. What utter nonsense. You should be ashamed of displaying such gross ignorance in public. How would you, as a shepherd who'd never seen a written word or even bothered to wash his hands because he hadn't heard of bacteria either, explain to your son what the stars are? Science isn't disproving God, it's simply stripping away the mythology that obscures Him. These sorts of stories collect and meld and turn into broadly accepted truths tacitly understood to be myths. These stories attempted to explain the unexplainable. The cliche of the coincidental eclipse comes to mind. People tend to take disaster personally and it's got to be someone else's fault so they blame gods or demons or something. So they have a few bad harvests and finally some leader convinces them that they're being punished for something or other by some deity or other and tells them they need to stop doing naughty things they already know they aren't supposed to be doing. So the people start being all obedient for a while and the drought breaks and they think they've been forgiven by a god. Or maybe we're being tortured by a demon from another tribe and we have to go kill them all and take their land. Nonsense. There was simply a drought or a hungry chief who saw rich plunder for his tribe. Now we can see it for what it is and not ascribe it to "the mysterious ways His wonders to perform". Religion. If you don't know about it, don't think about it. The Hebrew creation myth is a rare example of monotheistic religion. From it have sprung two more. I'm sure God laughs at us a lot just as any parent would laugh at a learning child. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>What would the bible be without the insane ramblings of fiction writers >>who >>hear voices. > > What utter nonsense. You should be ashamed of displaying such gross > ignorance in public. Nonsense? In order to write genassis the writers either had to make up the story (fiction) or they heard voices who told them the story. > I'm sure God laughs at us a lot just as any parent would laugh at a > learning child. > > Swill So god watches what is happening in Darfur and laughs. >> What utter nonsense. You should be ashamed of displaying such gross >> ignorance in public. > >Nonsense? In order to write genassis the writers either had to make up the >story (fiction) or they heard voices who told them the story. Or it was the distillation of thousands of years of explanations dirty, illiterate humans gave their kids for what the world was about. How does a shepherd who's never seen a written word explain to his kids what stars are? The Star of Bethlehem has been discovered to have been a supernova that occurred roughly 2000 years ago. Should prove interesting to see how precisely astronomers can estimate the dates. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >Or it was the distillation of thousands of years of explanations >dirty, illiterate humans gave their kids for what the world was about. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Swill A book, "History: Fiction or Science? - Chronology 1" (one of 7 volumes) by Anatoly T. Fomenko, published: Delamere Resources in 2003, addresses some of the issues related to your observation. It's a deep but compelling documentation relating mostly to Scaligerian chronology and the foibles related to the historical claims of the Catholic Church and dating methods via mathematical statistics. One outline cite: http://www.bookmasters.com/marktplc/rr01098.htm Enjoy DCI > >> What utter nonsense. You should be ashamed of displaying such gross > >> ignorance in public. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that occurred roughly 2000 years ago. Should prove interesting to see > how precisely astronomers can estimate the dates. What happened to the planetary conjunction story? RT >> The Star of Bethlehem has been discovered to have been a supernova >> that occurred roughly 2000 years ago. Should prove interesting to see >> how precisely astronomers can estimate the dates. > >What happened to the planetary conjunction story? Never heard that one. I suppose I should say more correctly that astronomers have found a star (no, I don't recall which one) that erupted as a supernova about 2000 years ago. A supernova is extremely bright in the sky and hard to miss especially if your living in an arid climate and a rural setting centuries before electricity and light pollution. Ancient Chinese records also record such an event at about the same time as Jesus' birth. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > >> The Star of Bethlehem has been discovered to have been a supernova > >> that occurred roughly 2000 years ago. Should prove interesting to see [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Chinese records also record such an event at about the same time as > Jesus' birth. See, for example, http://www.astronomynotes.com/history/bethlehem.star.html ... There were two astronomical events involving conjunctions of planets around the time of Jesus' birth---the triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces in 7 B.C.E. and the near-conjunction of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn in Pisces in February 6 B.C.E. ... or wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_Bethlehem >> >What happened to the planetary conjunction story? >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 7 B.C.E. and the near-conjunction of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn in Pisces in > February 6 B.C.E. Interesting reading. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> >What happened to the planetary conjunction story? >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Interesting reading. That is you're conclusion? > Swill >>>See, for example, >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >That is you're conclusion? No, that's my comment. My conclusion is that there was an astronomical event around the time of His birth that would account for the Star of Bethlehem. The conjunction explanation has at least as good a shot at being the Star as the nova one. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>>>See, for example, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the Star of Bethlehem. The conjunction explanation has at least as > good a shot at being the Star as the nova one. Case solved > Swill > > "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > On Jul 22, 5:24 pm, Hugh Gibbons <hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > voices from an imaginary friend. Yet they are immune from critical > > questioning if the voice is from "god." > I read that straight from Revelations in the Bible. "The doctrines that flowed from lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them; and for this obvious reason, that nonsense can never be explained." - Thomas Jefferson "No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it on its legs again in the name of Jesus." - George Bernard Shaw Evidently Jefferson and Shaw are in Michael Ejercito's lake of fire and are tormented day and night forever. >> > "Michael Ejercito" <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > > On Jul 22, 5:24 pm, Hugh Gibbons <hugh_gibb...@dontsendmeemail.net> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Evidently Jefferson and Shaw are in Michael Ejercito's lake of fire and > are tormented day and night forever. Think the ACLU will sue? >> Evidently Jefferson and Shaw are in Michael Ejercito's lake of fire and >> are tormented day and night forever. > >Think the ACLU will sue? ACLU?! They own the lake! DCI On Jul 23, 2:57 pm, Desmond and Molly Jones <d...@spamspamspamspam.org> wrote: > In article <1185208962.172181.9...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Michael Ejercito at mejer...@hotmail.com says... [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Evidently Jefferson and Shaw are in Michael Ejercito's lake of fire and > are tormented day and night forever. It is not MY lake of fire; the lake of fire belongs to God Almighty! Michael > On Jul 23, 2:57 pm, Desmond and Molly Jones > <d...@spamspamspamspam.org> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Michael LOL. Whatever floats your boat. >> God said so. God has decreed that the names of those who die in >> their sins will not be entered into the Book of Life, and God has [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >voices from an imaginary friend. Yet they are immune from critical >questioning if the voice is from "god." Including the ones being told to take a sniper's rifle to a rooftop. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >> The very fact that sin exists shows that God tolerates sin in SOME >> quarters. > >He seems to tolerate it universally. Only humans attempt to punish it >in the here and now. He "tolerates" it because He gave us free will so I suspect God does more observing than doing and that is as it should be. Look at the bright side, those who don't go up in the rapture will get a thousand years of peace. How's that for irony? Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > > If God sees evil and injustice but cannot do anything about it, he/she is > > not omipotent. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There goes the freedom of free choice Has nothing to do with what he posted. RT >> > If god does not see evil and injustice he/she is not omiscient. >> >> There goes the freedom of free choice > >Has nothing to do with what he posted. I didn't get it either. Swill ...who still doesn't get it. SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html >>> > If god does not see evil and injustice he/she is not omiscient. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Swill > ...who still doesn't get it. That seems to be the problem with all of us. Poor choices result in a lifetime of pain and hurt. For Homos it becomes deadly If you're going to troll, at least try to follow the topic. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > If you're going to troll, at least try to follow the topic. > > Swill Truth hurts too >> If you're going to troll, at least try to follow the topic. >> >> Swill > >Truth hurts too It would be helpful to make sense. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html > > If you're going to troll, at least try to follow the topic. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Truth hurts too You can always tell when CB is stumped. RT >>> If you're going to troll, at least try to follow the topic. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > RT Which is most all the time. > >>> > If god does not see evil and injustice he/she is not omiscient. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That seems to be the problem with all of us. Poor choices result in a > lifetime of pain and hurt. For Homos it becomes deadly And heteros never contract STDs.... RT >> That seems to be the problem with all of us. Poor choices result in a >> lifetime of pain and hurt. For Homos it becomes deadly > >And heteros never contract STDs.... God invented STDs to punish women for having sex with men they aren't married to. Swill SignaturePicture of the day http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.