Now this is interesting - OT

In article <454b5d27$0$97223$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreen ews.net>,
"Gravity" <gravity@example.net> wrote:

> "science works", not "science proves". science is not a god, it's
> not a philosophy, it's not the answers you seek.

Well, again, there is the idea that it works because it's *true*, that
that's simply the best explanation of science's practical value. Sounds
trivial, but it's really pretty deep (it, not me; I got it from Richard
Boyd). But anyway, my favorite religious anti-science slogan:

"Science is just another religion!"

I'm working on substituting The Blank Stare for The Futile Argument when
I hear this one in real life.

Mark

In article <454b5e7c$0$97277$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreen ews.net>,
"Gravity" <gravity@example.net> wrote:

> the Genesis word "day" may not mean 24 hours, since that's tied to
> our solar system.

When I was a lad at Trinity Lutheran Evangelical Chapel and School and
Torture Chamber in the Bronx, I asked Principal Lawrence Oliver Wuench,
how God could have created day and night *before* He created the sun,
since, well, you know.

Mr. Wuench explained that before there was the sun, the daylight was
just sort of lying around loose, like a kind of fog. Continuing to
argue at that point would have been an invitation for a paddling.

Mr. Wuench also proved to us that evolution was impossible by writing
down the names of 10 vital organs (heart, brain, etc.) on slips of
paper, numbering them from 1 to 10, and putting them in a box. He then
went around the class and had us blindly pick out slips of paper, one
by one. We did this several times, and not once did we pick out all 10
in numeric order. That was it, that was the proof.

Mark

cal wrote:
> <crysalis7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162512129.883552.250150@h54g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > Ivan Marsh wrote:
> >> You have the right to believe whatever crazy nonsense you want... why do
> >> you feel you have the right to force other people to live by your
> >> beliefs?
> >
> > Actually, Ivan, I don't. Have you ever heard me tell anyone what to
> > believe?
>
> he was probably referring to people who would like to make the rules of
> their religion the law of the land, so that it governs everyone's personal
> choices whether they share the belief or not.

But I don't do that. And I resent the stereotype that says all
christians are like that. I do not believe we should replace the
teaching of evolutionary theory with another theory. I believe
creation theory, evolutionary theory, and Panspermian theory should all
be given a voice, so kids can weigh the ideas for themselves. What I
object to is the complete dismissal of one over the other. It's a
replay of the scopes monkey trial all over again.

Everyone who votes is trying to to control society. Every time we make
a law protecting or insuring one person's rights, we are limiting
someone else's behavior. Our laws are based on moral judgements, what
is right and what is wrong. These have to come from somewhere, and
whether they spring from the Bible, the Koran, the Ghita, or just
somone's idea of what's right, if enough people agree to make it law,
then it becomes law. But for some reason, a Christian doesn't have the
same rights to influence the proccess as anyone else, religious or not,
and that's just wrong. We are all equal.

Bobbie

<crysalis7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162572506.461874.291770@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> cal wrote:
>> <crysalis7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162512129.883552.250150@h54g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> >
>> > Ivan Marsh wrote:
>> >> You have the right to believe whatever crazy nonsense you want... why
>> >> do you feel you have the right to force other people to live by your
>> >> beliefs?
>> >
>> > Actually, Ivan, I don't. Have you ever heard me tell anyone what to
>> > believe?
>>
>> he was probably referring to people who would like to make the rules of
>> their religion the law of the land, so that it governs everyone's
>> personal choices whether they share the belief or not.
>
> But I don't do that. And I resent the stereotype that says all
> christians are like that. I do not believe we should replace the
> teaching of evolutionary theory with another theory. I believe
> creation theory, evolutionary theory, and Panspermian theory should all
> be given a voice, so kids can weigh the ideas for themselves. What I
> object to is the complete dismissal of one over the other. It's a
> replay of the scopes monkey trial all over again.

it is indeed. not all over again, regrettably, but still. the execrable
thing has never ended, and you can imagine the dismay of people like me who
studied it in high school history decades ago as a hangover from the dark
ages settled decades before.

> Everyone who votes is trying to to control society. Every time we make
> a law protecting or insuring one person's rights, we are limiting
> someone else's behavior.

to me this one breaks in a completely straightforward way. conduct the
teaching of faith-derived knowledge in your church or private religious
school of choice, and the teaching of scientific theory in publicly-funded
non-religious schools.

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 12:27:28 -0500, "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

>
>"Bacon" <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>> I want more on conspiracies and aliens...she's cheerful even in
>> threads that always turn ugly...

>Thanks you :-) Oooooh, I love conspiracies and aliens. Do you have any new
>ones for me?

American scientists created AIDS in a laboratory as a weapon to be
used on enemies of the United States, and they began testing it on
unsuspecting populations in Africa and Haiti, where they lost control
of the experiment.

If the government has no knowledge of aliens, then why does Title 14,
Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, implemented on July
16, 1969, make it illegal for U.S. citizens to have any contact with
extraterrestrials or their vehicles?

On Nov 3, 3:32 pm, Bacon <rbkf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 12:27:28 -0500, "Rhiannon" <rhia...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Bacon" <rbkf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> I want more on conspiracies and aliens...she's cheerful even in
> >> threads that always turn ugly...
> >Thanks you :-) Oooooh, I love conspiracies and aliens. Do you have any new
> >ones for me?American scientists created AIDS in a laboratory as a weapon to be
> used on enemies of the United States, and they began testing it on
> unsuspecting populations in Africa and Haiti, where they lost control
> of the experiment.
>
> If the government has no knowledge of aliens, then why does Title 14,
> Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, implemented on July
> 16, 1969, make it illegal for U.S. citizens to have any contact with
> extraterrestrials or their vehicles?

Ok this peeked my interest LOL, give me web sites!!!

"Bacon" <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kk9nk29b28m4kl7egt11ltiogak4aqk2pc@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 12:27:28 -0500, "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bacon" <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >> I want more on conspiracies and aliens...she's cheerful even in
> >> threads that always turn ugly...
>
> >Thanks you :-) Oooooh, I love conspiracies and aliens. Do you have any
new
> >ones for me?
>
> American scientists created AIDS in a laboratory as a weapon to be
> used on enemies of the United States, and they began testing it on
> unsuspecting populations in Africa and Haiti, where they lost control
> of the experiment.
>
> If the government has no knowledge of aliens, then why does Title 14,
> Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, implemented on July
> 16, 1969, make it illegal for U.S. citizens to have any contact with
> extraterrestrials or their vehicles?


just incase

On 3 Nov 2006 12:43:44 -0800, "Jane" <jarsenal66@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>On Nov 3, 3:32 pm, Bacon <rbkf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 12:27:28 -0500, "Rhiannon" <rhia...@sympatico.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >"Bacon" <rbkf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> I want more on conspiracies and aliens...she's cheerful even in
>> >> threads that always turn ugly...
>> >Thanks you :-) Oooooh, I love conspiracies and aliens. Do you have any new
>> >ones for me?American scientists created AIDS in a laboratory as a weapon to be
>> used on enemies of the United States, and they began testing it on
>> unsuspecting populations in Africa and Haiti, where they lost control
>> of the experiment.
>>
>> If the government has no knowledge of aliens, then why does Title 14,
>> Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, implemented on July
>> 16, 1969, make it illegal for U.S. citizens to have any contact with
>> extraterrestrials or their vehicles?
>
>Ok this peeked my interest LOL, give me web sites!!!

Snopes2.com is always fun...the whole story is here:
http://www.snopes.com/legal/et.htm#etlaw

On Nov 3, 3:51 pm, Bacon <rbkf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 3 Nov 2006 12:43:44 -0800, "Jane" <jarsena...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 3, 3:32 pm, Bacon <rbkf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 12:27:28 -0500, "Rhiannon" <rhia...@sympatico.ca>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >"Bacon" <rbkf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >> I want more on conspiracies and aliens...she's cheerful even in
> >> >> threads that always turn ugly...
> >> >Thanks you :-) Oooooh, I love conspiracies and aliens. Do you have any new
> >> >ones for me?American scientists created AIDS in a laboratory as a weapon to be
> >> used on enemies of the United States, and they began testing it on
> >> unsuspecting populations in Africa and Haiti, where they lost control
> >> of the experiment.
>
> >> If the government has no knowledge of aliens, then why does Title 14,
> >> Section 1211 of the Code of Federal Regulations, implemented on July
> >> 16, 1969, make it illegal for U.S. citizens to have any contact with
> >> extraterrestrials or their vehicles?
>
> >Ok this peeked my interest LOL, give me web sites!!!

>Snopes2.com is always fun...the whole story is >here:http://www.snopes.com/legal/et.htm#etlaw- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted >text -

Thank you!

X-No-Archive: yes

Rhiannon wrote:

> > when you don't like a verse, you can say it's "old law", pre Jesus.
> > If you like a verse, it's "new law" and still applies in 2006.
>
> You're right, and personally I think that's a grave mistake.

What exactly is the mistake? Disregarding the old laws? Didn't Jesus
personally sign off on that policy change? Not to mention the fact that
you'd have to be a serial killer to obey all the laws of the Old
Testament. (There was a very funny scene in an old "West Wing" about
this, I believe it was the very first episode.)

Mark

% wrote:
> "Franz Bestuchev" <franz.bestuchev@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4qungoFp3mk9U1@individual.net...
>> Jester's mummy wrote:
>>> On 1 Nov 2006 18:38:18 -0800, "RGB" <mark022806-asd@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <(((*>X-No-Archive: yes
>>>> <(((*>
>>>> <(((*>crysalis7@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> <(((*>
>>>> <(((*>> I have heard it, and met one of the travelers.
>>>> <(((*>
>>>> <(((*>You met a scientist who went on a jungle expedition and saw a
> dinosaur?
>>> I own this bridge over the East River that I'm trying to sell...
>>>
>>> Tara J. Ballance
>>> Montreal, Canada
>> I don't have a river, but there is a lake west of here that I need to
>> cross. Have anything for that?
>
>
>
> freeze it
>
>

It's never done that

Jester's mummy wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:17:17 -0700, Franz Bestuchev <franz.bestuchev@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> <(((*>Jester's mummy wrote:
>> <(((*>> On 1 Nov 2006 18:38:18 -0800, "RGB" <mark022806-asd@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <(((*>>
>> <(((*>>> <(((*>X-No-Archive: yes
>> <(((*>>> <(((*>
>> <(((*>>> <(((*>crysalis7@yahoo.com wrote:
>> <(((*>>> <(((*>
>> <(((*>>> <(((*>> I have heard it, and met one of the travelers.
>> <(((*>>> <(((*>
>> <(((*>>> <(((*>You met a scientist who went on a jungle expedition and saw a dinosaur?
>> <(((*>>
>> <(((*>> I own this bridge over the East River that I'm trying to sell...
>> <(((*>>
>> <(((*>> Tara J. Ballance
>> <(((*>> Montreal, Canada
>> <(((*>
>> <(((*>I don't have a river, but there is a lake west of here that I need to
>> <(((*>cross. Have anything for that?
>
> If it gets cold enough, you could walk on the water.
>
> Tara J. Ballance
> Montreal, Canada

If it were bigger I could ski on it

cal wrote:
> "Ivan Marsh" <annoyed@you.now> wrote in message
> newsan.2006.11.01.21.13.32.276538@you.now...
>> #13 : Has the sun always shrunk at the same rate for its' entire
>> existence?
>
> http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...shrinking.html
>
> The shrinking-sun argument contains two errors. First, and by far the worst,
> is the assumption that if the sun is shrinking today, as might be detected
> over a period of years, then it has always been shrinking!
> That's a little like watching the tide go out and assuming that the water
> level must have fallen at that rate since the earth began. Therefore,
> working backwards, much of the land must have been flooded mere weeks ago!
> However, careful inspection shows no signs of such a flood, so the earth
> can't be older than a few weeks!
>
> <snip>
>
> To sum up, the shrinking-sun argument rests squarely on a naive extension of
> a rate measured over a relatively short period of time. It's the type of
> blunder one might find in a high school science project.
>
> <snip>
>
> Howard J. Van Till, in Science Held Hostage, also points out that a
> contraction of five feet per hour would be hundreds of times faster than
> anything a legitimate Helmholtz contraction could handle! One might apply
> such a rate to just the outermost layers of the sun, but that probably
> wouldn't yield enough energy to account for the sun's brightness. The sun's
> current brightness, by Helmholtz's own calculations, would be consistent
> with a 25 million-year collapse from an initial solar diameter exceeding the
> earth's orbit (Kaufmann, 1994, p.322). Those "scientific" creationists who
> argue that the sun is powered by the Helmholtz contraction have cut off
> their young-earth noses in order to have something to throw at us
> evolutionists! It's a terrible sacrifice, especially considering that they
> missed their target!
>
> The second error is the unwarranted assumption that the rate of shrinkage
> reported by Eddy and Boornazian is an established fact. Far from it! Their
> conclusion was published as an abstract to further scientific discussion,
> not as a polished paper. Creationists nevertheless pounced upon it as though
> it were the Holy Grail. Before long, serious flaws in its methodology turned
> up and the data has since been discredited; the full text of their study was
> never published. It is instructive to note how creationist authors became
> fixated on that one point even though several studies at the time (or
> shortly thereafter) drew completely different conclusions.
>
>
>

A nova will shut them up, good old Chevy - drop one on the lot

"Franz Bestuchev" <franz.bestuchev@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4r2gojFp6ibiU1@individual.net...
> % wrote:
> > "Franz Bestuchev" <franz.bestuchev@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4qungoFp3mk9U1@individual.net...
> >> Jester's mummy wrote:
> >>> On 1 Nov 2006 18:38:18 -0800, "RGB" <mark022806-asd@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> <(((*>X-No-Archive: yes
> >>>> <(((*>
> >>>> <(((*>crysalis7@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>> <(((*>
> >>>> <(((*>> I have heard it, and met one of the travelers.
> >>>> <(((*>
> >>>> <(((*>You met a scientist who went on a jungle expedition and saw a
> > dinosaur?
> >>> I own this bridge over the East River that I'm trying to sell...
> >>>
> >>> Tara J. Ballance
> >>> Montreal, Canada
> >> I don't have a river, but there is a lake west of here that I need to
> >> cross. Have anything for that?
> >
> >
> >
> > freeze it
> >
> >
>
> It's never done that


not only am i going to the hall of fame , but i firsted

"Franz Bestuchev" <franz.bestuchev@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4r2gqbFp6ibiU2@individual.net...
> Jester's mummy wrote:
> > On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:17:17 -0700, Franz Bestuchev
<franz.bestuchev@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> <(((*>Jester's mummy wrote:
> >> <(((*>> On 1 Nov 2006 18:38:18 -0800, "RGB" <mark022806-asd@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >> <(((*>>
> >> <(((*>>> <(((*>X-No-Archive: yes
> >> <(((*>>> <(((*>
> >> <(((*>>> <(((*>crysalis7@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> <(((*>>> <(((*>
> >> <(((*>>> <(((*>> I have heard it, and met one of the travelers.
> >> <(((*>>> <(((*>
> >> <(((*>>> <(((*>You met a scientist who went on a jungle expedition and
saw a dinosaur?
> >> <(((*>>
> >> <(((*>> I own this bridge over the East River that I'm trying to
sell...
> >> <(((*>>
> >> <(((*>> Tara J. Ballance
> >> <(((*>> Montreal, Canada
> >> <(((*>
> >> <(((*>I don't have a river, but there is a lake west of here that I
need to
> >> <(((*>cross. Have anything for that?
> >
> > If it gets cold enough, you could walk on the water.
> >
> > Tara J. Ballance
> > Montreal, Canada
>
> If it were bigger I could ski on it


or match her nose

On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 07:26:11 -0600, Bacon <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 05:52:03 GMT, CyberDroog
><CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
>
>>Now that theorist is considered an icon, and string
>>theory has been laid to rest for the most part.
>
>What? Gravity, I trusted you...I've been studying string theory and
>now I hear it's out of style. Okay, what should I focus on now to be
>cutting edge?

M Theory. It isn't that string theory was wrong per se, there were just so
many different string theories that it became a mockery of the goal of
finding a single unified theory.

Many of the string theories are correct - depending on which physical
dimension you are speaking of. The string theories, in a sense, were found
to be various harmonies of the unified M Theory.

Of course music needs melody and rhythm also. The melody of the universe is
God, and the rhythm, of course, is James Brown.

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:33:48 +0100, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:

>"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> I chose my side (creationist) and I stand by it. The
>> only fundamental difference between me and them that I can see, is the
>> degree of respect that I afford them, the fact that I can discuss their side
>> with them without ridiculing their beliefs, which, sadly, is rarely offered
>> in return. The thing of it is, it's no more a stretch of my imagination to
>> believe we were created by God, then it is to believe the world came out of
>> a big bang, or our distant cousins were apes, and either side ends up having
>> to rely on a degree of faith.
>
>Ah, but *when* did this "God" create mankind?

He didn't. At least not yet since we (meaning the process of intelligent
life) haven't created God yet. Once intelligent life evolves to omniscience
and transcends space/time, then God can get around to creating life.

We are already here, of course, because even though we haven't created God
yet, he will transcend space/time and, therefore, can exist in all points
of space/time simultaneously.

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:34:53 +0100, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:

><crysalis7@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The Bible is way more than a book to alot of us. It is the Word of God,
>> and the history of His Plan. For me, it is a great source of comfort,
>> guidance, and perspective when I need it most.
>
>I have only two questions:
>
>1.) Which of the hundred different Bible versions is
> supposed to be the "Word of God"?
>2.) Do you follow Numbers 15:38-39? If not, why not? Does the "Word of God"
> apply only when its convenient?

The typical answer to that, which I find to be perfectly acceptable, is
that she doesn't wear fringes because she is a Christian, not a Jew. Much
of the Old testament was a covenant with Israel, not with the heathen.
Jesus came to condense the rules and command that the word be spread to the
heathen.

x-no-archive: yes


"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:34:53 +0100, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
> wrote:
>
> ><crysalis7@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> The Bible is way more than a book to alot of us. It is the Word of God,
> >> and the history of His Plan. For me, it is a great source of comfort,
> >> guidance, and perspective when I need it most.
> >
> >I have only two questions:
> >
> >1.) Which of the hundred different Bible versions is
> > supposed to be the "Word of God"?
> >2.) Do you follow Numbers 15:38-39? If not, why not? Does the "Word of God"
> > apply only when its convenient?
>
> The typical answer to that, which I find to be perfectly acceptable, is
> that she doesn't wear fringes because she is a Christian, not a Jew.

I would not consider this an acceptable answer from somebody
who claims that the Bible is "Word of God".


Thomas

"RGB" <mark022806-asd@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1162587417.605080.168980@e3g2000cwe.googlegro ups.com...
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Rhiannon wrote:
>
>> > when you don't like a verse, you can say it's "old law", pre Jesus.
>> > If you like a verse, it's "new law" and still applies in 2006.
>>
>> You're right, and personally I think that's a grave mistake.
>
> What exactly is the mistake? Disregarding the old laws? Didn't Jesus
> personally sign off on that policy change? Not to mention the fact that
> you'd have to be a serial killer to obey all the laws of the Old
> Testament. (There was a very funny scene in an old "West Wing" about
> this, I believe it was the very first episode.)
>
> Mark

It's a mistake to disregard *God's* laws in the Old Testament. Jesus signed
off on a lot of church laws, but not God's law. There are 613 laws for the
Jewish people to follow. They were so bogged down and preoccupied by church
law, a lot of them had lost sight of God's message. Part of His role while
Jesus was here was to instill in them that God's law are the only laws, to
be placed before church law, and all else. It's a mistake to think the only
part of the Old Testament that applies is the Ten Commandments, while
ignoring every other book in the Old Testament.

--
Rhi

In article <eiih5i$o1k$1@news.datemas.de>,
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> It's a mistake to disregard *God's* laws in the Old Testament. Jesus signed
> off on a lot of church laws, but not God's law. There are 613 laws for the
> Jewish people to follow. They were so bogged down and preoccupied by church
> law, a lot of them had lost sight of God's message. Part of His role while
> Jesus was here was to instill in them that God's law are the only laws, to
> be placed before church law, and all else. It's a mistake to think the only
> part of the Old Testament that applies is the Ten Commandments, while
> ignoring every other book in the Old Testament.

But how do you tell a God law from a church law? I mean, I've got this
man here who hath lain with another man as with a woman, do I stone them
both to death or not? Hurry, these rocks are heavy!

Mark

x-no-archive: yes


"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> It's a mistake to think the only
> part of the Old Testament that applies is the Ten Commandments

There are multiple versions of "Ten Commandments"
in the Bible. Many Christians don't know that, they only know
Exodus 20.


Thomas

Rhiannon wrote:

> It's a mistake to disregard *God's* laws in the Old Testament. Jesus signed
> off on a lot of church laws, but not God's law. There are 613 laws for the
> Jewish people to follow. They were so bogged down and preoccupied by church
> law, a lot of them had lost sight of God's message. Part of His role while
> Jesus was here was to instill in them that God's law are the only laws, to
> be placed before church law, and all else. It's a mistake to think the only
> part of the Old Testament that applies is the Ten Commandments, while
> ignoring every other book in the Old Testament.
>
> --
> Rhi

I like what it sais in the talmud: to paraphrase, "that which you do
not wish on your yourself, you should not wish on your neighbor. That's
the only law. everything else is commentary."


-"Jordy"

"RGB" <RGB-101506@gipgipgip.com> wrote in message
news:mR33h.161551$Mn2.17323@fe02.news.easynews.com ...
> In article <eiih5i$o1k$1@news.datemas.de>,
> "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> It's a mistake to disregard *God's* laws in the Old Testament. Jesus
>> signed
>> off on a lot of church laws, but not God's law. There are 613 laws for
>> the
>> Jewish people to follow. They were so bogged down and preoccupied by
>> church
>> law, a lot of them had lost sight of God's message. Part of His role
>> while
>> Jesus was here was to instill in them that God's law are the only laws,
>> to
>> be placed before church law, and all else. It's a mistake to think the
>> only
>> part of the Old Testament that applies is the Ten Commandments, while
>> ignoring every other book in the Old Testament.
>
> But how do you tell a God law from a church law? I mean, I've got this
> man here who hath lain with another man as with a woman, do I stone them
> both to death or not? Hurry, these rocks are heavy!
>
> Mark

Yes, well, that would be an example of God's law, except that passage does
not instruct anyone to stone them, the passage says "and they shall be
destroyed." Since only God can destroy we are not required to do anything.
And it's important to be clear on the reasons for the destruction, which by
the way, have nothing to do with homosexuality. The Bible is not clear on
the issue of that being a sin and only mentions it in passing and it is not
with condemnation.

--
Rhi

x-no-archive: yes


"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > But how do you tell a God law from a church law? I mean, I've got this
> > man here who hath lain with another man as with a woman, do I stone them
> > both to death or not? Hurry, these rocks are heavy!
>
> Yes, well, that would be an example of God's law, except that passage does
> not instruct anyone to stone them, the passage says "and they shall be
> destroyed." Since only God can destroy we are not required to do anything.
> And it's important to be clear on the reasons for the destruction, which by
> the way, have nothing to do with homosexuality.

How does that happen? We are no longer living in the medieval
ages where the peasants had no access to the Bible and thus
had to believe what the priests told them.

Another example would be Onan, who was punished
for disobedience.

How come that so many "Christians" believe that this or
that is a sin refering to Bible passages which state something
different? Similar for muslims and the Quran.


Thomas

In message <1162423802.001057.177250@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
crysalis7@yahoo.com writes
>
>BoredToTears wrote:
>> Rhiannon wrote:
>> > 17 Evidences Against Evolution
>> > http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/engl...idences.html#6
>> >
>> > Number 13 being the most compelling.
>> >
>> > 13. SUN'S DIAMETER
>> > The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this
>> > rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.
>>
>> Having had a cursory look, ROFLMFAO! 17 is the killer: it's a fucking
>> book!
>
>I am with Rhi. I've been a creationist since the 80's, and despite what
>many may think, the evidences are compelling. My not being as good at
>argument as Alvin doesn't negate the position. There are as many
>eloquent speakers in favor of creation as you could ever count.
>
>The Bible is way more than a book to alot of us. It is the Word of God,
>and the history of His Plan. For me, it is a great source of comfort,
>guidance, and perspective when I need it most.
>
>My opinion is that most, if not all, people believe what they want to
>believe. That's our right. But making fun of someone else's beliefs is
>simple bigotry.

If it's meant to be anything more than an exposition of religious
beliefs, it's making a mockery of my strong belief in rationalism.

--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?

In message <gkamk21abvfijqcdn2cr7ndvp200u98rsl@4ax.com>, Jester's mummy
<cocky2@nest.egg> writes
>
>If it gets cold enough, you could walk on the water.

Yes, but can you turn ice into chilled wine?

--
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?

"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:4r42qaFpmj5hU2@individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes

> "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> It's a mistake to think the only
>> part of the Old Testament that applies is the Ten Commandments
>
> There are multiple versions of "Ten Commandments"
> in the Bible. Many Christians don't know that, they only know
> Exodus 20.
>
> Thomas

If they really are Christians how could they not know that?

--
Rhi

"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:4r4de9FpjsmsU1@individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes

> "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>> > But how do you tell a God law from a church law? I mean, I've got this
>> > man here who hath lain with another man as with a woman, do I stone
>> > them
>> > both to death or not? Hurry, these rocks are heavy!
>>
>> Yes, well, that would be an example of God's law, except that passage
>> does
>> not instruct anyone to stone them, the passage says "and they shall be
>> destroyed." Since only God can destroy we are not required to do
>> anything.
>> And it's important to be clear on the reasons for the destruction, which
>> by
>> the way, have nothing to do with homosexuality.
>
> How does that happen? We are no longer living in the medieval
> ages where the peasants had no access to the Bible and thus
> had to believe what the priests told them.
>
> Another example would be Onan, who was punished
> for disobedience.
>
> How come that so many "Christians" believe that this or
> that is a sin refering to Bible passages which state something
> different? Similar for muslims and the Quran.
>
> Thomas

I'm not sure I understand your questions Thomas, and don't want to assume.

--
Rhi

x-no-archive: yes


"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote in message
> news:4r42qaFpmj5hU2@individual.net...
> > x-no-archive: yes
>
> > "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> It's a mistake to think the only
> >> part of the Old Testament that applies is the Ten Commandments
> >
> > There are multiple versions of "Ten Commandments"
> > in the Bible. Many Christians don't know that, they only know
> > Exodus 20.
>
> If they really are Christians how could they not know that?

Presumably because they never read the whole Bible, much less studied it,
whereas the "Ten Commandments" from Exodus 20 have been
learned, and thus knowing them did not require any initiative.


Thomas

In article <eiiu8e$kq2$1@news.datemas.de>,
"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> > But how do you tell a God law from a church law? I mean, I've got
> > this man here who hath lain with another man as with a woman, do I
> > stone them both to death or not? Hurry, these rocks are heavy!
>
> Yes, well, that would be an example of God's law, except that passage
> does not instruct anyone to stone them, the passage says "and they
> shall be destroyed." Since only God can destroy we are not required
> to do anything. And it's important to be clear on the reasons for the
> destruction, which by the way, have nothing to do with homosexuality.
> The Bible is not clear on the issue of that being a sin and only
> mentions it in passing and it is not with condemnation.

WHAT???

OK, I can't read ancient Hebrew, maybe you can, but here are the two
most popular English translations of Leviticus 20:13 --

King James:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely
be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Revised Standard:

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have
committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their
blood is upon them."

From the context, it's clear that it's people who are doing the putting
to death, not God, the preferred method of stoning being mentioned
several times in connection with other offenses. And calling it an
"abomination" kinda sounds a little bit like a condemnation, at least
to my ear.

What ARE you reading???

Mark

x-no-archive: yes


"Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote in message
> news:4r4de9FpjsmsU1@individual.net...
> > "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >> > But how do you tell a God law from a church law? I mean, I've got this
> >> > man here who hath lain with another man as with a woman, do I stone
> >> > them
> >> > both to death or not? Hurry, these rocks are heavy!
> >>
> >> Yes, well, that would be an example of God's law, except that passage
> >> does
> >> not instruct anyone to stone them, the passage says "and they shall be
> >> destroyed." Since only God can destroy we are not required to do
> >> anything.
> >> And it's important to be clear on the reasons for the destruction, which
> >> by
> >> the way, have nothing to do with homosexuality.
> >
> > How does that happen? We are no longer living in the medieval
> > ages where the peasants had no access to the Bible and thus
> > had to believe what the priests told them.
> >
> > Another example would be Onan, who was punished
> > for disobedience.
> >
> > How come that so many "Christians" believe that this or
> > that is a sin refering to Bible passages which state something
> > different? Similar for muslims and the Quran.
>
> I'm not sure I understand your questions Thomas, and don't want to assume.

When religious people, such as "christians" or "muslims", strongly
dislike certain behavior, say, various sexual activities, they
frequently refer to their religion's "Holy Book" as a reason why
the behavior they dislike should be condemned.

Frequently, but not always, the verses used as an argumentation
actually say something else. Onan was not punished for masturbation.
He was punished for disobedience. "an eye for an eye" is
another fine example. That passage has been used both to
- claim that the Bible opposes abortion (the Bible is silent
on the topic of abortion)
and
- claim that the Bible advocates *ahem* "revenge-justice"
(The Bible *does* advocate revenge, but not in the
"eye for an eye" passage. The "eye for an eye" passage
advocates just compensation determined by a court).

How can it be that allegedly devout Christians do not know
what the Bible actually says, but dare to use their own false
Bible knowledge as an argument? Don't they fear retribution
from their God
- for not knowing the "Word of God"
- for lying about the "Word of God"
- for putting their own preferences above the actual "Word of God"

Same for Allah and the muslims, of course.


Thomas

"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:4r5qp1FpprcqU1@individual.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
> "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote in message
>> news:4r4de9FpjsmsU1@individual.net...
>> > "Rhiannon" <rhianon@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >> > But how do you tell a God law from a church law? I mean, I've got
>> >> > this
>> >> > man here who hath lain with another man as with a woman, do I stone
>> >> > them
>> >> > both to death or not? Hurry, these rocks are heavy!
>> >>
>> >> Yes, well, that would be an example of God's law, except that passage
>> >> does
>> >> not instruct anyone to stone them, the passage says "and they shall be
>> >> destroyed." Since only God can destroy we are not required to do
>> >> anything.
>> >> And it's important to be clear on the reasons for the destruction,
>> >> which
>> >> by
>> >> the way, have nothing to do with homosexuality.
>> >
>> > How does that happen? We are no longer living in the medieval
>> > ages where the peasants had no access to the Bible and thus
>> > had to believe what the priests told them.
>> >
>> > Another example would be Onan, who was punished
>> > for disobedience.
>> >
>> > How come that so many "Christians" believe that this or
>> > that is a sin refering to Bible passages which state something
>> > different? Similar for muslims and the Quran.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand your questions Thomas, and don't want to
>> assume.
>
> When religious people, such as "christians" or "muslims", strongly
> dislike certain behavior, say, various sexual activities, they
> frequently refer to their religion's "Holy Book" as a reason why
> the behavior they dislike should be condemned.
>
> Frequently, but not always, the verses used as an argumentation
> actually say something else. Onan was not punished for masturbation.
> He was punished for disobedience. "an eye for an eye" is
> another fine example. That passage has been used both to
> - claim that the Bible opposes abortion (the Bible is silent
> on the topic of abortion)
> and
> - claim that the Bible advocates *ahem* "revenge-justice"
> (The Bible *does* advocate revenge, but not in the
> "eye for an eye" passage. The "eye for an eye" passage
> advocates just compensation determined by a court).
>
> How can it be that allegedly devout Christians do not know
> what the Bible actually says, but dare to use their own false
> Bible knowledge as an argument? Don't they fear retribution
> from their God
> - for not knowing the "Word of God"
> - for lying about the "Word of God"
> - for putting their own preferences above the actual "Word of God"<