Cobol - OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving

Author

OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving

Clark F Morris

2008-01-01, 6:56 pm

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:32:07 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>
>
>Sadly, I have encountered people in the US, even recently, who genuinely
>believe that Negroes are an inferior species and should be tended like
>cattle, as God requires us to take care of them. (Southern Baptist...
>although I'm sure (hopeful) not ALL Southern Baptists can believe this...).
>These are not wicked, evil people. (In fact some of them were kind, decent,
>and generous.) They are a product of their environment and we should just be
>thankful that environment is being eroded by education.

While there are many in the US with various religious beliefs or lack
thereof who still believe that in their gut, the popularity of Oprah
Winfrey in the South and the presence of black churches in the
Southern Baptist Convention says times are a changing.
>
>(In my opinion, it still has a way to go, but I am encouraged by the legal
>dismissal of "Intelligent Design" and such cases... I have no problem with
>people believing whatever they want to, until they get commands from God to
>suppress the search for knowledge and understanding and to believe that the
>"unchosen" are inferior and should be treated as such...)

I interpret "Intelligent Design" to mean design by a sentient entity
that may or may not be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and / or
benevolent. I further believe that there are severe problems with
using evolution to account for all of the various species. I also
believe that the creation story and much of Genesis has some fatal
contradictions. I believe that enshrining evolution as the best
explanation is every bit as narrow minded as forcing "Intelligent
Design" as the only explanation. Both explanations require
assumptions which may have absolutely no basis in fact.
>
>Pete.

tlmfru

2008-01-08, 3:55 am

Richard <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:40e02849-5e7d-43df-b50a-813ababa8253@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> That is correct. It appears that many dinosaurs were warm blooded at
> least to some degree. The evidence is that some had many details that
> are in birds today. Certainly most dinosaurs laid eggs, as birds still
> do.
>
> Some fish also are warm blooded, such as Tuna, in that they can
> generate heat and regulate this.
>
> Some types of snakes lay eggs, some have live young. I don't know of
> any dinosaurs that didn't lay eggs but it is possible.
>
> What was your point ?
>

The current opinion on duck-billed platypuses is that they are reptiles with
mammalian features. This is decided on the basis of how some nerve passes
through the skull (I'm not making this up!)

PL

Judson McClendon

2008-01-08, 6:56 pm

"Richard" <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
> You miss the point entirely. Changes _are_ evolution.

Not necessarily. The ability to adapt to changing conditions could have
been built in by an intelligent Creator, quite different from any evolutionary
process. We do the same thing in programs that are specifically designed
to accomodate to various conditions. Such design pardigms would be
purposely limited in scope, unlike "evolution", which is uncontrolled and
unlimited, by definiton. E.g. a "horse type" creature might adapt into
Clydesdales, poneys and donkeys, but never into a dog or giraffe.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Judson McClendon

2008-01-08, 6:56 pm

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>So, what you are saying is that if your god is inconsistent in
>behaviour then he could not be the creator of the universe? For
>inconsistency of behaviour compare and contrast the attitudes of your
>god to be found in the Old Testament as cf the New Testament.

I do not see "inconsistencies" there. I see "further and more detailed
revelation" there. The Bible itself calls the sacrifice of Jesus the
"New Covenant". It could hardly be new if it were identical in every
respect, now could it? The Bible declares "Here is a New Thing", and
you find fault because it is not identical to the "Old Thing". Pardon
me, but such "arguments" border on blind and stupid. :-(

Based on our discussions, Alistair, and correct me if I'm wrong, but my
impression is that you haven't spent that much time studying the Bible,
and certainly not with an open mind. What would you say if someone who
had studied say, calculus, as much as you have studied the Bible, with
a similar attitude toward it, then concluded "calculus is full of
contradictions and inconsistencies, and obviously wrong." I suspect you
would put about as much weight to their statement as I do yours here,
and rightfully so. ;-)

You constantly misquote and misrepresent what I post here, making it
clear to anyone who cares to check, that your attitude is far removed
from an open, unbiased mind. E.g. you kept insisting on bringing up
Christianity and the Bible in the GW threads, when I wasn't basing any
of my arguments on those things. That is "cheap shot" strategy, hardly
a strategy one should take who is confident in posessing good evidence
and logic to support their position. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Judson McClendon

2008-01-08, 6:56 pm

"Richard" <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Then what caused your alleged 'god' thingy.

Nothing. First Cause could not have had "a beginning" or it/He would
not be First Cause.

>
> You just claimed a 'fact' in the previous sentence.

Nothing wrong with citing facts, when they are facts. :-) I didn't make
it up, it's a well known fact of physics.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Judson McClendon

2008-01-08, 6:56 pm

"Richard" <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> So your argument is: everything has to have a cause except where it is
> inconvenient to _your_ argument.

What part of "logical necessity" do you fail to grasp? ;-)
If everything in the universe must be caused by something, that precludes
a beginning, in that context. Therefore, either the universe had no beginning
or it was created by something outside the causality of the universe. There
are no other logically valid alternatives. :-)

>
> But you then said that 'First Cause' does not need a cause. Therefore
> 'everything needs a cause' is not a 'fact'.
>
> Don't confuse philosophy with reality.

Thanks, I'll be sure not to ever do that. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Charles Hottel

2008-01-08, 9:56 pm

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:r8Mgj.43576$Mu4.6530@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> What's with the "Judson's angels?"
>
>
> Some people interpret Revelation 12:4 to mean that Satan subverted one
> third of the angels to revolt against God.
> --
> Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
>
>

Hey! They are CHARLIE'S angels!

Robert

2008-01-09, 3:55 am

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 23:15:04 -0600, "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:

>The current opinion on duck-billed platypuses is that they are reptiles with
>mammalian features. This is decided on the basis of how some nerve passes
>through the skull (I'm not making this up!)

There is a whole lot of DNA research on monotremes i.e. platypus and echidna (4 species).
They are unique in having 10 sex chromosomes (9 for echidna). No other animals have more
than 4, the vast majority have 2. Only plants have numbers close to 10.

Mammals have an XY system in which the male determines the sex of offspring. Birds have a
ZW system in which the female determines the sex. Platypuses are like mammals in that the
male determines the sex, XYXYXYXY being male and XXXXXXXXXX being female. However, at the
other end of 4 out of 5 X chromosomes are bird-like Z sex-determining genes, and
distributed up and down the chromosomes are more bird genes than mammal genes.

Reptiles use X/Y, Z/W and a third system that is temperature sensitive. On close
examination, reptilian sex genes are different from mammals and birds. Monotremes do not
have any reptile-like sex genes. Their X genes also do not look like those of therians
(marsupials, rodents), which is where they are usually classified. For more on this see:
http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/11/R243

Another research report says platypus genes look close to those of a marsupials (opossum,
kangaroo), but not to rodents.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ar...ubmedid=9720117

The reason for so much interest is that monotremes are like living fossils. They have
evolved much slower than other animals, thus give a glimple of what mammal and bird genes
looked like during the early Jurassic, 160 million years ago, rather than the late
Jurrassic, 140 MYA, when marsupials appeared.

HeyBub

2008-01-09, 7:55 am

Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Some people interpret Revelation 12:4 to mean that Satan subverted one
> third of the angels to revolt against God.

Interesting. To the Jew, Satan is a good guy.

"Satan" (literally, "the accuser") appears only four times in the Hebrew
scriptures. Once in a Psalm (where he sits on the right hand of God), once
in 1st Kings where he delivers a message from God to David, and throughout
the Book of Job (I forget the 4th). In Job, while Satan torments and does
nasty to the main character, Satan's actions are directed by God and Satan
does nothing without permission.

The Christian, on the other hand, has found rascals throughout the Old
Testament and denominated many of them as Satan by another name. To the
Christian, the serpent in the Garden of Eden is Satan in a snake-suit. To
the Jew, the serpent is a serpent.

Oh well.

Judson McClendon

2008-01-09, 6:56 pm

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> You brought up angels earlier in this group.
>
>
> Which means that god and his minions outnumber satan and his minions
> by 2:1. How powerful is a god who, in outnumbering the opposition by
> 2:1, is unable to bring about a successful conclusion to the celestial
> struggle?

How wise is a human who presumes to know what/when/how a God Who
created the universe, would decide to put an end to the struggle?

How about "There's a process going on that isn't yet complete?"

What makes you think the God who created all the angels in the first place
couldn't create a google times more if He wanted?

What makes you think God would even need angelic support to dispose
of an intransigent created being?

Once again, you create a "straw man" and take joy in poking holes in it. ;-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Judson McClendon

2008-01-09, 6:56 pm

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> The references to the bible and christianity refer to GWB claiming
> that god, in a drunken moment, saved GWB and gave him direction in his
> life. Well GWB is one of the biggest GW sceptics. My point is that
> christians have an in-built desire to repudiate GW and everything that
> you have written on the matter is poroof of that assertion.

Three points:

1) I know it's hard to tell from there, but I'm not GWB. ;-)

2) I have never used any argument from the Bible or Christianity or any
related source against GW. All my objections, therefore all my arguments,
against GW are based on the science, or lack thereof, logic and common
sense.

3) You cheerfully ignore the fact that I already said to you in an email
that, not only do I *not* object to GW on a Biblical basis, but that I can
see how GW, or something like it, might be construed from the Bible. (See
quote below from my email to you of Nov. 11, 2007.)
----------
This issue has nothing to do with religion, as far as I'm concerned, and I'm
puzzled that you keep bringing it up. In my opinion, God might very well let
mankind "stew in his juices" so to speak, if in God's judgment mankind was
sinning by being poor stewards of the earth. I don't have a problem with
that. :-) There is even Scripture to suggest that at some point God is going
to do just that, at least in some regions (Revelation 16:8,9).
----------

So, no matter what GWB or anyone else on the planet does or has done, you
have *absolutely no* reason to suppose (let alone berate and accuse), that
*I* am arguing against GW because of any religeous reason. You have, in
fact, quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.

If you have facts, bring them on. If you have an argument, make it. If you
don't, then don't. But please stop haranguing me for a non existent issue.
It's demonstrably false and intellectually dishonest. Thanks. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Judson McClendon

2008-01-09, 6:56 pm

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>Didn't god create the universe? And everything within it? If he did
>not then Evil must have existed either prior to or come into existence
>at the same time as god. Therefore evil itself is a god and yours is
>not alone.

Wow, you're being obtuse. Did God create your email, too? ;-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Judson McClendon

2008-01-09, 6:56 pm

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>Christianity has often put to death those who claimed to speak with or
>for god. Witness: the maid of Orleans. We may call them mediums (or
>charlatans) but in Docs dayze they were called witches or pagans. As
>there can be no proof as to whether the voice is that of god or Satan
>then I can conclude that all who claim to speak with or for god are
>false prophets.

Judaism also put to death a number of prophets. The Old Testament proof
God gave for verifying a prophet was (paraphrasing) "If anything they
say in My name doen't come true, they're a false prophet; put them to
death." The problem was, the people preferred lies much better than the
truth. Still clearly true today. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Judson McClendon

2008-01-09, 6:56 pm

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Pure logic based upon your founding statement above that god did not
> create evil.

God didn't create your message, either, but Wow! there it is! Did the Big
Bang create your message? You believe the Big Bang created the universe.
Must the Big Bang, therefore, have created everything in it? Is that parallel
too difficult for you to grasp? :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

tlmfru

2008-01-09, 6:56 pm

The Bible itself has examples of this: Joseph, the husband of Mary, was the
son of Jacob (Mark 1:16); also the son of Heli Luke 3:23). And if you
follow the geneaologies back to Abraham, they are wildly different in every
respect, most crucially in the number of generations.

PL

Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:19be4785-722f-449d-a994-f73ca6cd1b85@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
IIRC, I came across mention of ancestors in a wikipedia article.
Various cultures had sequences of ancestors where there were
correspondences between the lines. However, in some the parent-child
relationship had been reversed.

How anyone can believe in the scribblings in the bible, when there is
such evidence as you point out, is beyond me.

Judson McClendon

2008-01-09, 6:56 pm

"tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
> The Bible itself has examples of this: Joseph, the husband of Mary, was the
> son of Jacob (Mark 1:16); also the son of Heli Luke 3:23). And if you
> follow the geneaologies back to Abraham, they are wildly different in every
> respect, most crucially in the number of generations.

Those accounts are generally understood to be genealogies of Mary and
Joseph, which would, of course, be different. Though Joseph was not
Jesus' physical father, he stood in the position of a father to the household,
and God apparently chose to establish that genealogy as well.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

tlmfru

2008-01-09, 6:56 pm

That's one of the two usual counter-arguments. But how does Joseph get into
Mary's genealogy? And that isn't what the two verses say, anyway.

(IIRC, the other argument is approximately that Jacob and Heli were
brothers; that one of them died - the elder brother - and that the next
brother assumed responsibility for his children, as was the custom. I have
read elsewhere of that custom and have no reason to suspect that the
accounts are wrong. But the Bible doesn't say that Jacob and Heli were
brothers so it's an unwarranted assumption at best. And it seems to me that
when such cases occurred there would have to be some way of referring to the
two different sets of kids, for matters of primogeniture, inheritance,
etc.).

PL

Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:C7bhj.69398$L%6.15737@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "tlmfru" <lacey@mts.net> wrote:
the[color=darkred]
every[color=darkred]
>
> Those accounts are generally understood to be genealogies of Mary and
> Joseph, which would, of course, be different. Though Joseph was not
> Jesus' physical father, he stood in the position of a father to the
household,
> and God apparently chose to establish that genealogy as well.
> --
> Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
>
>

HeyBub

2008-01-10, 6:56 pm

Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Judaism also put to death a number of prophets. The Old Testament
> proof God gave for verifying a prophet was (paraphrasing) "If
> anything they say in My name doen't come true, they're a false
> prophet; put them to death." The problem was, the people preferred
> lies much better than the truth. Still clearly true today. :-)

Uh, no. God said specifically the REVERSE, put 'em to death EVEN IF what
they say comes true.

"If there appears among you a prophet...and he gives you a sign or a
portent... even if that sign or portent that he named... comes true... As
for that prophet... he shall be put to death;... (Deut 13:2 et seq).

It's not what HAPPENS that determines the truth, it's what is SAID that's
dispositive. God doesn't expect us to tell the difference between miracles
and illusion. If miracles were the test of divinity, we'd all be worshiping
in the House of Siegfreud & Roy.

Judson McClendon

2008-01-10, 6:56 pm

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
> Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> Uh, no. God said specifically the REVERSE, put 'em to death EVEN IF what they say comes true.
>
> "If there appears among you a prophet...and he gives you a sign or a portent... even if that sign or portent that he named...
> comes true... As for that prophet... he shall be put to death;... (Deut 13:2 et seq).
>
> It's not what HAPPENS that determines the truth, it's what is SAID that's dispositive. God doesn't expect us to tell the
> difference between miracles and illusion. If miracles were the test of divinity, we'd all be worshiping in the House of Siegfreud
> & Roy.

Wow! By such selective quotation one could "prove" that anyone said anything!
This has nothing to do with a "test of divinity", because divinity isn't the
issue. A person being a true prophet of God is the issue, the criteria I
related was that if any prophecy ever given by a prophet failed, they be put
to death as false. What you selectively quoted above is *not* a contradiction
to that, but another thing altogether. Examine the whole passage:

Deuteronomy 13:1-5:
1"If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives
you a sign or a wonder, 2"and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of
which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods'-which you have
not known-'and let us serve them,' 3"you shall not listen to the words of
that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing
you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with
all your soul. 4"You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and
keep His commandments and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him and hold
fast to Him. 5"But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to
death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your
God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the
house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God
commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst.

This passage is saying that if someone comes along and claims to be a
prophet, but tells you not to follow God, then he is a false prophet, put
him to death, regardless of what appearances are. It would be an oxymoron
if God instructed people to believe a "prophet" who told them not to follow
God. This passage simply clarifies that. This has nothing whatever to do
with putting them to death if they prophesy something that doesn't come
true; it's two entirely different issues. Anyone could claim something will
happen, then it could happen by accident or trickery. Charlatans do that
all the time today. But no charlatan is going to *always* be right, even if
they're saying things that appear to agree with God. That is why God said
they were false if they were *ever* wrong, when claiming to speak for God.
Prophets weren't required to be infallible in their everyday affairs, only
when they claimed to speak for God.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-10, 6:56 pm

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:KfOgj.43640$Mu4.7511@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snipped>[color=darkred]
>
> You constantly misquote and misrepresent what I post here, making it
> clear to anyone who cares to check, that your attitude is far removed
> from an open, unbiased mind. E.g. you kept insisting on bringing up
> Christianity and the Bible in the GW threads, when I wasn't basing any
> of my arguments on those things.

Yes, he did, and it was noted and he stopped doing it.

> That is "cheap shot" strategy, hardly
> a strategy one should take who is confident in posessing good evidence
> and logic to support their position. :-)

It is also "cheap shot" strategy to refer back to a past victory that is no
longer pertinent to the argument at hand.

Get over it.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-10, 6:56 pm

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ef74bc17-4599-4794-afe5-002a3ef8db09@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On 8 Jan, 17:18, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
> "Alistair" <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I do not see "inconsistencies" there. I see "further and more detailed
> revelation" there. The Bible itself calls the sacrifice of Jesus the
> "New Covenant". It could hardly be new if it were identical in every
> respect, now could it? The Bible declares "Here is a New Thing", and
> you find fault because it is not identical to the "Old Thing". Pardon
> me, but such "arguments" border on blind and stupid. :-(

PECD: Alistair, for some reason I cannot fathom, yours and only your, posts
are not rendering one of the levels of chevrons when they are replied to.
This means that it isn't immediately obvious what is "new" and what is
quoted. It's too tedious to go and put chevrons on every quoted line, so I'm
just prefixing my comments with my initials...

My littering friend is diagnosed as being paranoid-schizophrenic.
Analysing the bible would lead me to see your god as just another
paranoid-schizophrenic narcissistic megalomaniac.

BTW, I could spend years in prison in the UK for expressing that
opinion (Blasphemy Laws) but enlightened government elements are
moving to repeal those out-dated laws. :-)

PECD: Ah, the Legions of Satan are never asleep :-)

>
> Based on our discussions, Alistair, and correct me if I'm wrong, but my
> impression is that you haven't spent that much time studying the Bible,
> and certainly not with an open mind. What would you say if someone who
> had studied say, calculus, as much as you have studied the Bible, with
> a similar attitude toward it, then concluded "calculus is full of
> contradictions and inconsistencies, and obviously wrong." I suspect you
> would put about as much weight to their statement as I do yours here,
> and rightfully so. ;-)

Fine by me. Calculus stinks anyway.

PECD: And yet it is very useful for certain types of problem.

>
> You constantly misquote and misrepresent what I post here, making it
> clear to anyone who cares to check, that your attitude is far removed
> from an open, unbiased mind.

My mind began to close in the 1970s. Your mind is equally closed.
Tough on both of us.

PECD: Bravo! One of the most succinct and honest statements I've seen in CLC
for many a long year :-)

E.g. you kept insisting on bringing up
> Christianity and the Bible in the GW threads, when I wasn't basing any
> of my arguments on those things. That is "cheap shot" strategy,

The references to the bible and christianity refer to GWB claiming
that god, in a drunken moment, saved GWB and gave him direction in his
life. Well GWB is one of the biggest GW sceptics. My point is that
christians have an in-built desire to repudiate GW and everything that
you have written on the matter is poroof of that assertion.

PECD: Shakier ground with that one, but a brave attempt :-)

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-10, 6:56 pm

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:mg6hj.44172$Mu4.26775@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> How wise is a human who presumes to know what/when/how a God Who
> created the universe, would decide to put an end to the struggle?
>
> How about "There's a process going on that isn't yet complete?"

A very good response, and a fair one.
>
> What makes you think the God who created all the angels in the first place
> couldn't create a google times more if He wanted?

Back on the slippery slope. When arguing about a Supreme Being there can be
no argument because "God can do anything". It is a single valued logic
system, just like Fatalism and just as impervious to reasoned argument. You
either believe it or you don't. It is impossible to reason for or against
it.
>
> What makes you think God would even need angelic support to dispose
> of an intransigent created being?
>

Same as above.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-10, 6:56 pm

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:3Fqhj.30190$L27.1835@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Wow! By such selective quotation one could "prove" that anyone said
> anything!

Er...given that is the case, doesn't it kind of make the "Authority" being
quoted...pointless?

If I can quote scripture to support my case and you can quote scripture to
refute it, all that says is that we are both on very dodgy ground.

Why is a quote from scripture that contests your case "selective", but a
quote that supports your case is the "Holy Word of God"?

> This has nothing to do with a "test of divinity", because divinity isn't
> the
> issue. A person being a true prophet of God is the issue, the criteria I
> related was that if any prophecy ever given by a prophet failed, they be
> put
> to death as false.

As there has never been a timeframe for these prophecies you cannot carry
out this commandment.

And why are false prophets so terrible anyway?

They're no more loony than the "true" prohets...

>What you selectively quoted above is *not* a contradiction
> to that, but another thing altogether. Examine the whole passage:
>
> Deuteronomy 13:1-5:
> 1"If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives
> you a sign or a wonder, 2"and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of
> which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods'-which you have
> not known-'and let us serve them,' 3"you shall not listen to the words of
> that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing
> you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and
> with
> all your soul.

This Creator of the Universe sounds pretty insecure to me... If He wants
people to love Him so much, why isn't He gentler with them? Nobody likes a
bully...

4"You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and
> keep His commandments and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him and hold
> fast to Him.

Oh sure, a lifetime of "love" based on fear, subservience, dependency, and
obedience... We're all ging to put our hands up for that...:-)

The miracle to me is not that Church attendences are declining, but that
ANYBODY buys this nonsense...

5"But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to
> death,

Yep, no messing with Jehovah... gotta love Him.

>because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your
> God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the
> house of bondage,

The Supreme Being needs to remind us how beholden we are to Him...

>to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God
> commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst.

Anything that doesn't toe the line is "evil". No wonder people worshipped
other, less frightful Gods...

>
> This passage is saying that if someone comes along and claims to be a
> prophet, but tells you not to follow God, then he is a false prophet, put
> him to death, regardless of what appearances are. It would be an oxymoron
> if God instructed people to believe a "prophet" who told them not to
> follow
> God. This passage simply clarifies that. This has nothing whatever to do
> with putting them to death if they prophesy something that doesn't come
> true; it's two entirely different issues. Anyone could claim something
> will
> happen, then it could happen by accident or trickery. Charlatans do that
> all the time today. But no charlatan is going to *always* be right, even
> if
> they're saying things that appear to agree with God. That is why God said
> they were false if they were *ever* wrong, when claiming to speak for God.
> Prophets weren't required to be infallible in their everyday affairs, only
> when they claimed to speak for God.

Speaking for myself (NOT for God...) I predict that it will be a hard row to
hoe getting educated, intelligent people to subscribe to this transparent,
simplistic, and barbaric philosophy. Sure, some will. Others will pretend
to, but by far the majority simply will not...

FOOTNOTE: Normally, out of simple respect, I would refrain from posting the
above. But if someone thinks it is OK to quote long passages of what I
consider at best to be a folk tale, as if it was irrefutable evidence for
their persecution of "false prophets", well, it gets what it deserves.

Here's the deal:

Quit proselytizing your particular religious beliefs here (and especially
extensive passages of your religious texts), and I'll quit pouring scorn on
it.

This is a Usenet forum, not Sunday School.

Pete.

LX-i

2008-01-11, 3:55 am

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> FOOTNOTE: Normally, out of simple respect, I would refrain from posting the
> above. But if someone thinks it is OK to quote long passages of what I
> consider at best to be a folk tale, as if it was irrefutable evidence for
> their persecution of "false prophets", well, it gets what it deserves.
>
> Here's the deal:
>
> Quit proselytizing your particular religious beliefs here (and especially
> extensive passages of your religious texts), and I'll quit pouring scorn on
> it.

I think you're a little touchy on this, old chum... He posted that
passage in response to Jerry's selective quoting that indicated God
ordered *all* prophets put to death.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Judson McClendon

2008-01-11, 6:56 pm

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>You're a drowning camel grasping at straws to explain inconsistencies
>in the basis of your faith. Admit it: the bible is inconsistent and,
>as the word of god, is evidence for his inconsistency too.

I won't admit that, I would be dishonest if I did, and I'll tell you why.
I do not expect you to except what I'm about to write, but it is the only
answer I can give you, and I know as surely as one can know anything that
it's true. Perhaps it will at least help you understand why I believe as
I do, even if you do not.

Unlike yourself Alistair, I have spent considerable time on both sides of
this argument. I was 27 years old when I accepted Jesus. I avidly read
science fiction from a very early age, subscribed to Scientific American
from the time I was 10, studied physics and math at university, and was
thoroughly inculcated in the humanism you espouse. I had never studied
the Bible, and like you, it did not make much sense to me when I read any
of it. It never made sense to me that Christians would connect verses
from different parts of the Bible and put them together to make a point.
It seemed to me that one could do the same thing from a dictionary or
encyclopedia (or any other source) to make any point you like.

What I could not see, what I did not know, and could not realize, is that
the Bible *cannot* be understood *through the intellect alone*, any more
than color can be understood through the intellect alone. Unless a person
has color sense, you can describe color to them until your tongue falls
out, and they *will not get it*. You either can see color, in which case
explanation is unnecessary, or you can't see it, and explanation is
useless. No amount of study would permit even a Newton or an Einstein to
know color, without color vision.

I did not come to Christ because I believed the Bible; I hadn't read much
of it. I asked Jesus into my life because I had a lot of serious problems
in my life at the time, and was desperate for any help I could get. But,
once I did ask Jesus into my life, things began to change, a lot. When a
person accepts Jesus as Savior God, sends His Holy Spirit to live inside
them. This Presence is real and tangible to the Christian. You can clearly
sense the presence of the Holy Spirit. And as promised in the Bible, the
Holy Spirit opens your understanding to the Bible, just like having color
vision opens color to you. I began to have an enormous appetite for the
Bible, and read it avidly every day. I began to see that the Bible really
is one, integrated, completely consistent work. I remember the astonishment
I felt when I first realized that I could now *see* why various Scriptures
could be taken from different places in the Bible to make a single point.
It is because the Bible *is* one whole consistent work, and when the Holy
Spirit gives one the understanding of it, it isn't arbitrary at all.
Studying the Scriptures, I can see things myself, that are the same things
Christians in other parts of the world also see. It is amazing to meet
Christians from different cultures; it's like meeting family or dear old
friends you didn't know you had. Some people, particularly non-believers,
usually only accent the differences; but the commonality of belief and
worldview is astonishing. Like different paintings by the same painter.

Over time, as I studied the Bible and some Christian history, I learned
that there are fewer things in the Bible that are criticized as error by
non-believers today, than in the past. Over time the Bible is increasingly
attested by other sources to be correct, not the reverse. No purely human
book would exhibit this characteristic. If the Bible were purely human,
therefore fallible, then in such a large work, over time the number of
known fallacies would increase, not decrease. For example, until (IIRC)
circa 1930, the only known reference to Sargon II, king of Assyria, was
Isaiah 20:1 "In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king
of Assyria sent him, and he fought against Ashdod and took it...". But
about 1930 they dug up Sargon II's palace, along with his 100,000 volume
library, and now it's thought that Sargon II may have been the greatest
king Assyria ever had. Oh, and in that 100,000 volume library they found
in greater detail the same account as in Isaiah 20:1. Again and again the
Bible has been shown historically correct through further archeological
discoveries. It was once thought that the Gospels presented contradictory
chronologies of Jesus life, but that has been shown to be false, since
chronologies have been developed that are consistent with the Gospel
accounts.

Are there passages in the Bible that are difficult to reconcile? Yes,
there are. There are several reasonable explanations for this. For one
thing, we do not have the original manuscripts, and scribal errors and
changes have definitely been introduced. For another, as shown in the
apparent Gospel chronology problems, our knowledge is incomplete. As we
continue to study the Bible, more and more of the seeming contradictions
are resolved, as one would expect in a genuine divinely inspired book.
In addition, there have been a lot of "jewels" uncovered in the digging
done to resolve the apparent contradictions. So many that theologians
have suggested God may have intentionally permitted those problems just
to promote deeper digging in some areas.

It is also true that the documentary evidence for Biblical events is
vastly greater than for any other events of comparable antiquity. For
example, there is more evidence of Jesus crucifixion and resurrection
than that Julius Caesar ever existed. There are vastly more manuscripts,
and they date from much closer to the actual events, than any other
historical events of comparable antiquity. For example, there are only
(IIRC) nine extant copies of Caesar's "Gallic Wars", and the oldest
dates over 900 years after the events. There are literally tens of
thousands of ancient Biblical manuscripts, and some of the New Testament
manuscripts date from about 30 years after the events.

(Aside: anyone interested in a legal defense of Jesus crucifixion and
resurrection should read a little book "The Testimony of the Evangelists"
by Simon Greenleaf. Check out Greenleaf's credentials while your at it.)

So, the only thing I, or any other Christian, can do to answer critics
such as yourself is tell you what we know from experience. What you do
with that information is up to you. You can either believe it, accept
Christ as your Savior, and you will see and experience what we see
and experience. Millions have chosen that road. Or you can continue to
reject our testimony, and you won't ever see it, or experience what we
do. Many more millions have chosen that road. The choice is yours, and
that's the bottom line. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Judson McClendon

2008-01-11, 6:56 pm

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Here's the deal:
>
> Quit proselytizing your particular religious beliefs here (and especially extensive passages of your religious texts), and I'll
> quit pouring scorn on it.

I said nothing about religion or Christianity except in response to
criticisms already made. I challenge you to produce a post I made
introducing the topic. Alistair and others brought the subjects up
many times, and I resisted getting involved for quite a while because
I don't like religious debate here.

> This is a Usenet forum, not Sunday School.

Fine, then it shouldn't be a "bash Christianity" or "push atheism" forum,
either. I'm quite happy to leave the subject alone. But I won't sit by and
do nothing while my beliefs are continually under public attack. Just don't
keep pushing atheism, then act all offended when someone takes issue.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Howard Brazee

2008-01-11, 6:56 pm

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:59:30 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>What I could not see, what I did not know, and could not realize, is that
>the Bible *cannot* be understood *through the intellect alone*, any more
>than color can be understood through the intellect alone.

Then don't be surprised or offended if intellectual arguments are
criticized for not being adequate.

Judson McClendon

2008-01-11, 6:56 pm

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
> Then don't be surprised or offended if intellectual arguments are
> criticized for not being adequate.

I don't. What frustrates me is being told by a "color blind" person that
my "seeing color" is "illogical" and "invalid" because they can't see it.
Particularly when the "color blind" person could see in color if they
chose to do so. If you don't want to see, fine don't see. Just don't keep
telling me I'm illogical or stupid because I can. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Judson McClendon

2008-01-11, 6:56 pm

"Richard" <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon"
>
>
> While there may be some 'documentary evidence' for many biblical
> events that does not indicate that Jehovah was anything more than a
> local warlord that was deified by his followers, as was the style of
> the time.
>
>
> That is complete crap. There is _vastly_ more evidence for Julius
> Caesar than the purely annecdotal 'crucifixion and resurrection'.
>
> The several tons of manufactured 'pieces of the true cross' are only
> evidence of the gullibility of believers.

For what reason does "pieces of the true cross" strike you as being
"documentary evidence"? I'm talking about manuscripts here, and
you obviously have no clue about the subject, for it is what you're
saying that's "pure crap".
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Judson McClendon

2008-01-11, 6:56 pm

"Richard" <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Your argument here is that you are 'right' because you "see" things
> that we don't. You "see" the pot of gold, we only see the rainbow
> (and know how it is formed).

Richard, if you weren't so blinded by bias, you would have actually
read what I posted. I clearly said I was responding to a challenge by
explaining why I disagreed. I was not arguing the point. Nobody here
is going to be convinced by subjective assessments.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-11, 6:56 pm

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:SsidnY-Wy9todhvanZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> I think you're a little touchy on this, old chum... He posted that
> passage in response to Jerry's selective quoting that indicated God
> ordered *all* prophets put to death.

Funny, I never used to be touchy about it... ask yourself "Why" I may have
become so...:-)

I object to long quotes from scripture (anybody's... I'd be pissed off to
see the Koran extensively quoted here, or Bhagavad Gita...) when the quote
is being used to "instruct". If I want religious instruction I'll go to
church.

Personal opinion about something is very acceptable; the "party line" is
not.

This is a free forum and it is great to see all topics being discussed here
(even taboo ones like Sex, Religion and Politics), but it is NOT a
springboard for Evangelism or proselytizing a particular religious belief
(or lack of it).

As long as religious posts are made which s

to "instruct", or justify the
"putting to death" (or otherwise maltreatment in the name of Religion) of
ANYBODY, I shall pour scorn on them.

Count on it.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-11, 6:56 pm

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:dqOhj.51297$N67.44049@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I said nothing about religion or Christianity except in response to
> criticisms already made. I challenge you to produce a post I made
> introducing the topic. Alistair and others brought the subjects up
> many times, and I resisted getting involved for quite a while because
> I don't like religious debate here.

There is nothing wrong with debating your personal beliefs here; it is
healthey for all concerned.

>
>
> Fine, then it shouldn't be a "bash Christianity" or "push atheism" forum,
> either.

Agreed, and I think you'll fnd my posts support that.

>I'm quite happy to leave the subject alone. But I won't sit by and
> do nothing while my beliefs are continually under public attack.

That is entirely up to you. Experience here has shown that if you air your
beliefs here (irrespective of whether they are religious or not :-)) they
are likely to be attacked...

>Just don't
> keep pushing atheism, then act all offended when someone takes issue.

I don't "push" atheism and I couldn't care less whether anyone here takes
issue with it. It is a personal belief I happen to hold.

I'm not arrogant enough to think I should convert the rest of the world to
it. I respect their right to be wrong :-).

What offends me is when Scripture is quoted in defence of torturing and
killing people, as a justification for it. And Evangelism of any kind
(including atheism) is quite out of place here.

Please see my response to Daniel.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-11, 6:56 pm

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:78Ohj.51287$N67.19283@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I won't admit that, I would be dishonest if I did, and I'll tell you why.
> I do not expect you to except what I'm about to write, but it is the only
> answer I can give you, and I know as surely as one can know anything that
> it's true. Perhaps it will at least help you understand why I believe as
> I do, even if you do not.
>
> Unlike yourself Alistair, I have spent considerable time on both sides of
> this argument. I was 27 years old when I accepted Jesus. I avidly read
> science fiction from a very early age, subscribed to Scientific American
> from the time I was 10, studied physics and math at university, and was
> thoroughly inculcated in the humanism you espouse. I had never studied
> the Bible, and like you, it did not make much sense to me when I read any
> of it. It never made sense to me that Christians would connect verses
> from different parts of the Bible and put them together to make a point.
> It seemed to me that one could do the same thing from a dictionary or
> encyclopedia (or any other source) to make any point you like.
>
> What I could not see, what I did not know, and could not realize, is that
> the Bible *cannot* be understood *through the intellect alone*, any more
> than color can be understood through the intellect alone. Unless a person
> has color sense, you can describe color to them until your tongue falls
> out, and they *will not get it*. You either can see color, in which case
> explanation is unnecessary, or you can't see it, and explanation is
> useless. No amount of study would permit even a Newton or an Einstein to
> know color, without color vision.
>
> I did not come to Christ because I believed the Bible; I hadn't read much
> of it. I asked Jesus into my life because I had a lot of serious problems
> in my life at the time, and was desperate for any help I could get. But,
> once I did ask Jesus into my life, things began to change, a lot. When a
> person accepts Jesus as Savior God, sends His Holy Spirit to live inside
> them. This Presence is real and tangible to the Christian. You can clearly
> sense the presence of the Holy Spirit. And as promised in the Bible, the
> Holy Spirit opens your understanding to the Bible, just like having color
> vision opens color to you. I began to have an enormous appetite for the
> Bible, and read it avidly every day. I began to see that the Bible really
> is one, integrated, completely consistent work. I remember the
> astonishment
> I felt when I first realized that I could now *see* why various Scriptures
> could be taken from different places in the Bible to make a single point.
> It is because the Bible *is* one whole consistent work, and when the Holy
> Spirit gives one the understanding of it, it isn't arbitrary at all.
> Studying the Scriptures, I can see things myself, that are the same things
> Christians in other parts of the world also see. It is amazing to meet
> Christians from different cultures; it's like meeting family or dear old
> friends you didn't know you had. Some people, particularly non-believers,
> usually only accent the differences; but the commonality of belief and
> worldview is astonishing. Like different paintings by the same painter.
>
> Over time, as I studied the Bible and some Christian history, I learned
> that there are fewer things in the Bible that are criticized as error by
> non-believers today, than in the past. Over time the Bible is increasingly
> attested by other sources to be correct, not the reverse. No purely human
> book would exhibit this characteristic. If the Bible were purely human,
> therefore fallible, then in such a large work, over time the number of
> known fallacies would increase, not decrease. For example, until (IIRC)
> circa 1930, the only known reference to Sargon II, king of Assyria, was
> Isaiah 20:1 "In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, when Sargon the king
> of Assyria sent him, and he fought against Ashdod and took it...". But
> about 1930 they dug up Sargon II's palace, along with his 100,000 volume
> library, and now it's thought that Sargon II may have been the greatest
> king Assyria ever had. Oh, and in that 100,000 volume library they found
> in greater detail the same account as in Isaiah 20:1. Again and again the
> Bible has been shown historically correct through further archeological
> discoveries. It was once thought that the Gospels presented contradictory
> chronologies of Jesus life, but that has been shown to be false, since
> chronologies have been developed that are consistent with the Gospel
> accounts.
>
> Are there passages in the Bible that are difficult to reconcile? Yes,
> there are. There are several reasonable explanations for this. For one
> thing, we do not have the original manuscripts, and scribal errors and
> changes have definitely been introduced. For another, as shown in the
> apparent Gospel chronology problems, our knowledge is incomplete. As we
> continue to study the Bible, more and more of the seeming contradictions
> are resolved, as one would expect in a genuine divinely inspired book.
> In addition, there have been a lot of "jewels" uncovered in the digging
> done to resolve the apparent contradictions. So many that theologians
> have suggested God may have intentionally permitted those problems just
> to promote deeper digging in some areas.
>
> It is also true that the documentary evidence for Biblical events is
> vastly greater than for any other events of comparable antiquity. For
> example, there is more evidence of Jesus crucifixion and resurrection
> than that Julius Caesar ever existed. There are vastly more manuscripts,
> and they date from much closer to the actual events, than any other
> historical events of comparable antiquity. For example, there are only
> (IIRC) nine extant copies of Caesar's "Gallic Wars", and the oldest
> dates over 900 years after the events. There are literally tens of
> thousands of ancient Biblical manuscripts, and some of the New Testament
> manuscripts date from about 30 years after the events.
>
> (Aside: anyone interested in a legal defense of Jesus crucifixion and
> resurrection should read a little book "The Testimony of the Evangelists"
> by Simon Greenleaf. Check out Greenleaf's credentials while your at it.)
>
> So, the only thing I, or any other Christian, can do to answer critics
> such as yourself is tell you what we know from experience. What you do
> with that information is up to you. You can either believe it, accept
> Christ as your Savior, and you will see and experience what we see
> and experience. Millions have chosen that road. Or you can continue to
> reject our testimony, and you won't ever see it, or experience what we
> do. Many more millions have chosen that road. The choice is yours, and
> that's the bottom line. :-)

As this post is not advocating violence against anybody, and does not make
extensive quotes from any "Holy Writ", I have no problem with it.

Religion CAN be discussed here, and it may even be a fruitful discussion.

Some of the points being made could be argued, but that is what Usenet
forums (especially unmoderated ones) are for.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

> --
> Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
>

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-11, 9:56 pm

"Richard" <riplin@azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:a5b93c44-02eb-4393-84ae-55991d166b7b@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 12, 9:08 am, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

It's amazing what I can see after a few Jack Daniels... :-)
[color=darkred]
>
> Regardless of 'what you see', your 'intellectual arguments' are
> inadequate in being a description of reality.
>
> It is obvious (to those of us that 'see' that) that you have
> constructed your argument by starting at the conclusion that you
> require and then working backwards to establish the precepts necessary
> for it to appear as if it was a logical argument.
>
> Because it comes out to the conclusion that you started with you feel
> that it is a satisfactory way of going about making an argument.
>
> What _we_ "see" is that is it is a fraud.

I have to agree.

>
> Your argument here is that you are 'right' because you "see" things
> that we don't. You "see" the pot of gold, we only see the rainbow
> (and know how it is formed).
>

Personally, I have no problem with people "seeing" the pot of gold.

It's when they suggest that those who can't see it should be killed, I start
to get antsy... :-)

Good points, made fairly and without scorn or abuse, Richard (more than I
can say about my own effort :-))

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Robert

2008-01-11, 9:56 pm

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:31:34 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:

>What offends me is when Scripture is quoted in defence of torturing and
>killing people, as a justification for it. And Evangelism of any kind
>(including atheism) is quite out of place here.

How about when US patriotism is used in defense of torturing and killing people in
Guantanamo Bay? Romney said he wanted the prison size doubled, which got cheers and
applaise.

In this case The People are immoral, and it has nothing to do with religion.

tlmfru

2008-01-11, 9:56 pm

Judson McClendon <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:78Ohj.51287$N67.19283@bignews5.bellsouth.net...

>
> I won't admit that, I would be dishonest if I did, and I'll tell you why.
> I do not expect you to except what I'm about to write, but it is the only
> answer I can give you, and I know as surely as one can know anything that
> it's true. Perhaps it will at least help you understand why I believe as
> I do, even if you do not.
<snip>

> It is also true that the documentary evidence for Biblical events is
> vastly greater than for any other events of comparable antiquity. For
> example, there is more evidence of Jesus crucifixion and resurrection
> than that Julius Caesar ever existed. There are vastly more manuscripts,
> and they date from much closer to the actual events, than any other
> historical events of comparable antiquity. For example, there are only
> (IIRC) nine extant copies of Caesar's "Gallic Wars", and the oldest
> dates over 900 years after the events. There are literally tens of
> thousands of ancient Biblical manuscripts, and some of the New Testament
> manuscripts date from about 30 years after the events.
>

There is no point in engaging in discussions about the results achieved (or
not) by faith as it satisfies no-one and results only in hardening of
positions. Therefore I will just challenge you on the above paragraph. In
a previous long disputation in this ng, you made the same claim; I
challenged you then to substantiate it and you didn't. So let's try again:
I know of the Bible and the history by Josephus as more-or-less contemporary
writings. To make such a statement you must know of a source that lists
said documents apart from these two: what is it? (After all, somebody
responded to my repeated proddings about a list of expanding glaciers;
surely you can do the same!) This is a part of your explanation that ought
to be subject to fairly objective analysis - so I urge you to give us your
references.

Respectfully,
PL

> --
> Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
>
>

LX-i

2008-01-11, 9:56 pm

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:SsidnY-Wy9todhvanZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> Funny, I never used to be touchy about it... ask yourself "Why" I may have
> become so...:-)
>
> I object to long quotes from scripture (anybody's... I'd be pissed off to
> see the Koran extensively quoted here, or Bhagavad Gita...) when the quote
> is being used to "instruct". If I want religious instruction I'll go to
> church.

How else could Judson have responded to Jerry's hack job? It's a fact
that, literarily or literally, the words recorded in Deuteronomy do not
say what Jerry selectively quoted - God did not say to kill *all*
prophets. (Knowing Jerry, I don't think there was malice, just humour.
But, still, in what way could Judson have corrected that without
arousing your disdain?) If the answer was "he can't," then that's no
good - you can be ridiculed, but not defend your position?

> This is a free forum and it is great to see all topics being discussed here
> (even taboo ones like Sex, Religion and Politics), but it is NOT a
> springboard for Evangelism or proselytizing a particular religious belief
> (or lack of it).

I just thought it was odd that you picked *that* one to jump all over.
I thought it was one of the least-proselytizing posts in the whole thread.

It's certainly your right to post whatever reply you wanted - I just
know that, in the past, you've made posts that you regretted. Now I
know that this wasn't one of them. No harm, no foul...

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

Judson McClendon

2008-01-12, 7:55 am

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> As this post is not advocating violence against anybody, and does not make extensive quotes from any "Holy Writ", I have no
> problem with it.

Pete, can you produce a post where I've advocated violence against people?
Unless you're talking about capital punishment for crimes like murder, I can't
imagine where you're coming from.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-13, 7:55 am

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:9pqdnaMudZo-uxXanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:

Hmmm... no response. I'll spell it out for you: It is becoming tiresome.
[color=darkred]
>
> How else could Judson have responded to Jerry's hack job?

He could have quoted references rather than text advocating the execution of
people who are not of the Faith, and there was no need for the instructional
tone. I don't mnd hearing someone's personal opinion but not the Party Line
and I won't be preached at.

Furthermore, while I have good tolerance for the religious beliefs of
others, that tolerance stops when they advocate the putting to death of
people or the torturing or stoning of them, for anything that is NOT a
criminal act.(And even then, I would be wary about it....) We have enough
individuals waiting for the chance to be "Thought Police".

If your religion says you must harm people for what they think or believe,
then I suggest you keep that part of it to yourself.

I see NO DIFFERENCE between true and false prophets. (They are both nut
cases and harmless.)

Waving Holy Writ around in support of the violence required by this all
merciful, loving , supreme being... it just made me spit the dummy.

>It's a fact that, literarily or literally, the words recorded in
>Deuteronomy do not say what Jerry selectively quoted - God did not say to
>kill *all* prophets. (Knowing Jerry, I don't think there was malice, just
>humour. But, still, in what way could Judson have corrected that without
>arousing your disdain?)

He could have registered his disagreement, the reason for it and a
reference.

Instead he chose to get into a pulpit.

> If the answer was "he can't," then that's no good - you can be ridiculed,
> but not defend your position?

The answer was not, and never would be from me, "he can't", so the predicate
is not applicable.

My issue is having Scripture that advocates violence against "unbelievers"
waved in my face and presented as being an ultimate truth, when it is at
best arguable, at worst anachronistic nonsense.

>
>
> I just thought it was odd that you picked *that* one to jump all over. I
> thought it was one of the least-proselytizing posts in the whole thread.

Just shows our different viewpoints, doesn't it? :-)

>
> It's certainly your right to post whatever reply you wanted -

Thank you. I'll continue to do so.

>I just know that, in the past, you've made posts that you regretted. Now I
>know that this wasn't one of them. No harm, no foul...

I can think of maybe two posts in over 8000 across 11 years that I have
regretted. I apologised unreservedly for them at the time, and do not now
regret them.

This was not one of those and you seem to have edited some of the reasons I
gave as to why it aroused my scorn.(I repeated them above)

I'm not sorry, and therefore can offer no apology.

Any further such posts will get the same treatment, if I see them.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-13, 6:56 pm

"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:378go3tnhko793u45ebi4snptotcr90tik@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:31:34 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>
> How about when US patriotism is used in defense of torturing and killing
> people in
> Guantanamo Bay? Romney said he wanted the prison size doubled, which got
> cheers and
> applaise.
>
> In this case The People are immoral, and it has nothing to do with
> religion.

I hope you don't think I support Guantanamo Bay?

I see the USA as "the cradle of the best and of the worst" (Leonard Cohen).

The potential for greatness is sometimes smothered by greed and lust for
power. But there are good people in the USA who are NOT doing nothing.

I think the outlook is positive. We are ALL in deep shit if it isn't...:-)

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-13, 6:56 pm

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:vO2ij.50964$_m.4947@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Pete, can you produce a post where I've advocated violence against people?
> Unless you're talking about capital punishment for crimes like murder, I
> can't
> imagine where you're coming from.

Perhaps you could re-read what your post quoted from the Bible?

I believe a line was crossed. It isn't personal.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Judson McClendon

2008-01-13, 6:56 pm

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> Hmmm... no response. I'll spell it out for you: It is becoming tiresome.
>
>
> He could have quoted references rather than text advocating the execution of people who are not of the Faith, and there was no
> need for the instructional tone. I don't mnd hearing someone's personal opinion but not the Party Line and I won't be preached at.

Hold it! This was Old Testament Judaism referring to Jewish prophets,
and had *nothing* to with people "not of the Faith" as you put it!
This would be plain to you, if you stopped the knee-jerk brain-dead
reactions and actually paid attention to what's being posted before
slamming it from a false basis.

> Furthermore, while I have good tolerance for the religious beliefs ...
> <deleted rest of self contradictory absolute nonsense>

Wrong! The problem here is your *lack* of tolerance. I'm not the one
slamming anyone for expressing their beliefs here! I may post argument
for or against someone's position, but you can't produce a single post
where I have slammed *anyone* for expressing their beliefs, as you
have done repeatedly.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Judson McClendon

2008-01-13, 6:56 pm

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps you could re-read what your post quoted from the Bible?
>
> I believe a line was crossed. It isn't personal.

What "line?" That Scripture was written to adherents of Judaism under
the Mosaic Law, about prophets operating under that system. It had
*absolutely nothing* to do with people outside that system. If you
actually read the Bible rather than bash it from ignorance, you might be
able to make comments about it that weren't patently false and absurd.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-13, 6:56 pm

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:D1rij.51737$_m.40878@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Hold it! This was Old Testament Judaism referring to Jewish prophets,
> and had *nothing* to with people "not of the Faith" as you put it!
> This would be plain to you, if you stopped the knee-jerk brain-dead
> reactions and actually paid attention to what's being posted before
> slamming it from a false basis.

I'm tired of paying attention to it; that's part of the problem.

>

That translates as: I can't refute what was written so I'll just call it
nonsense.

[color=darkred]
>
> Wrong! The problem here is your *lack* of tolerance. I'm not the one
> slamming anyone for expressing their beliefs here! I may post argument
> for or against someone's position, but you can't produce a single post
> where I have slammed *anyone* for expressing their beliefs, as you
> have done repeatedly.

Really?

I'll back my "lack of tolerance" against your zeal and fervor, any day...

I don't slam people for expressing their beliefs; in fact, I have always
encouraged free expression here.

I slammed YOUR POST not because you expressed YOUR beliefs but because you
preached a "Party Line" which I really find distasteful.

It's a free forum and that's my right.

I don't exercise it very often.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

LX-i

2008-01-13, 9:56 pm

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:9pqdnaMudZo-uxXanZ2dnUVZ_o-mnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> Hmmm... no response. I'll spell it out for you: It is becoming tiresome.

But it's not necessarily directed at you. (Well, unless you are a false
prophet in 3,000 B.C. - heh...)

>
> He could have quoted references rather than text advocating the execution of
> people who are not of the Faith, and there was no need for the instructional
> tone. I don't mnd hearing someone's personal opinion but not the Party Line
> and I won't be preached at.

As he put not quite so nicely, that was a historical text, in no way
indicative of the beliefs of *any* (that I know) mainstream or fringe
Evangelical organization today. Throughout the Bible (which you know,
as you've read it through), God changed His techniques with different
people.

>
> Just shows our different viewpoints, doesn't it? :-)

Heh - well, knowing the context, maybe that helps it not be so
distasteful to you. Maybe not.

> This was not one of those and you seem to have edited some of the reasons I
> gave as to why it aroused my scorn.(I repeated them above)

My apologies if that changed the history - I was just trying to avoid 5
pages of quotes with one or two lines of response. :) I didn't mean to
prolong it, and I really don't have a horse in this race. Knowing the
context, and the history, I knew that Judson wasn't advocating doing
that today, and so your ire seemed misplaced. It obviously wasn't.

When you think about it, there are *lots* of things in the Old Testament
that wouldn't make sense today - I doubt that many armies would silently
march around a city for 7 days if they wanted to destroy it. :) But,
at one time, those were God's orders. Would a woman who lost her
husband go live with her mother-in-law? Rarely - but that's what God
led Ruth to do.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~
~ _ /\ | ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~
~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~
~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

HeyBub

2008-01-14, 6:56 pm

Richard wrote:
>
> Stone the adulterers to death, I say. That is a 'moral' thing to do
> because it is "GoDs lAws".

Well, stoning worked. How would YOU have them do it?

Howard Brazee

2008-01-14, 6:56 pm

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:14:46 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:

>How about when US patriotism is used in defense of torturing and killing people in
>Guantanamo Bay? Romney said he wanted the prison size doubled, which got cheers and
>applaise.
>
>In this case The People are immoral, and it has nothing to do with religion.

Absolutely. I keep seeing arguments about how bad people are who
have this religion or that one or no religion. But I look around and
see people of all categories with members doing good and with members
doing evil. Sometimes religion or patriotism or some other -ism is
used as an excuse, but in the real world we see the behaviors
nevertheless.

Just because some Preacher or Priest or Ayatollah or atheist or
patriot does evil or good doesn't mean that his whole group is evil or
good.

Howard Brazee

2008-01-14, 6:56 pm

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:08:48 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
<judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:

>
>I don't. What frustrates me is being told by a "color blind" person that
>my "seeing color" is "illogical" and "invalid" because they can't see it.
>Particularly when the "color blind" person could see in color if they
>chose to do so. If you don't want to see, fine don't see. Just don't keep
>telling me I'm illogical or stupid because I can. :-)

Of course, that applies to anybody's ability to see the supernatural.
He might be a Hindu, or he might hold seances, or have any of
countless other images. To those who don't see the supernatural,
we also don't see the difference between these.

Why is it that children of Hindu families see Hindu gods? Is it
their inner eyes are different from yours - or is it that the stories
they are told are different?

Judson McClendon

2008-01-14, 6:56 pm

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> Absolutely. I keep seeing arguments about how bad people are who
> have this religion or that one or no religion. But I look around and
> see people of all categories with members doing good and with members
> doing evil. Sometimes religion or patriotism or some other -ism is
> used as an excuse, but in the real world we see the behaviors
> nevertheless.
>
> Just because some Preacher or Priest or Ayatollah or atheist or
> patriot does evil or good doesn't mean that his whole group is evil or
> good.

The point of Christianity *is not* that Christians are good, but that they
have been forgiven. Christians are expected to endeavor to be good, but
the Bible makes it clear that Christians will sin on occasion (e.g the book
of Romans). It is faith in Jesus as Savior, not good conduct, that makes
one a Christian, and forgiven.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Judson McClendon

2008-01-14, 6:56 pm

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
> "Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> Of course, that applies to anybody's ability to see the supernatural.
> He might be a Hindu, or he might hold seances, or have any of
> countless other images. To those who don't see the supernatural,
> we also don't see the difference between these.

I understand that.

> Why is it that children of Hindu families see Hindu gods? Is it
> their inner eyes are different from yours - or is it that the stories
> they are told are different?

From the Christian standpoint, any other religion (except Judaism) is
either rejection of God (e.g. atheism) or worshiping a false god. The
Bible says such false gods are actually demons, evil spirit beings.
These spirit beings can influence people, though not like you see in
the movies. I've known several people who were deeply into the
occult before accepting Jesus, and every one of them insists that
things such as "channeling demons" is absolutely real.
--
Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-14, 6:56 pm

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:vNSdnQhg-vT3KxfanZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> But it's not necessarily directed at you. (Well, unless you are a false
> prophet in 3,000 B.C. - heh...)
>
>
> As he put not quite so nicely, that was a historical text, in no way
> indicative of the beliefs of *any* (that I know) mainstream or fringe
> Evangelical organization today. Throughout the Bible (which you know, as
> you've read it through), God changed His techniques with different people.
>
>
> Heh - well, knowing the context, maybe that helps it not be so distasteful
> to you. Maybe not.

I appreciate your effort. Thanks. I still feel very strongly about the
issues I outlined.
>
>
> My apologies if that changed the history - I was just trying to avoid 5
> pages of quotes with one or two lines of response. :) I didn't mean to
> prolong it, and I really don't have a horse in this race. Knowing the
> context, and the history, I knew that Judson wasn't advocating doing that
> today, and so your ire seemed misplaced. It obviously wasn't.
>
> When you think about it, there are *lots* of things in the Old Testament
> that wouldn't make sense today - I doubt that many armies would silently
> march around a city for 7 days if they wanted to destroy it. :) But, at
> one time, those were God's orders. Would a woman who lost her husband go
> live with her mother-in-law? Rarely - but that's what God led Ruth to do.
>

Daniel this is a good post and I accept it in the spirit it was intended.

"Blessed are the Peacemakers..." :-)

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-14, 6:56 pm

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:d6tmo3h8shsn29ant62dsb5mv51ti06qc3@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:14:46 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>
> Absolutely. I keep seeing arguments about how bad people are who
> have this religion or that one or no religion. But I look around and
> see people of all categories with members doing good and with members
> doing evil. Sometimes religion or patriotism or some other -ism is
> used as an excuse, but in the real world we see the behaviors
> nevertheless.
>
> Just because some Preacher or Priest or Ayatollah or atheist or
> patriot does evil or good doesn't mean that his whole group is evil or
> good.

Sadly, we often lose sight of that.

See my comments about ITSA, elsewhere in this forum :-)

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-14, 6:56 pm

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:d7Mij.50461$Mu4.2341@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> The point of Christianity *is not* that Christians are good, but that they
> have been forgiven. Christians are expected to endeavor to be good, but
> the Bible makes it clear that Christians will sin on occasion (e.g the
> book
> of Romans). It is faith in Jesus as Savior, not good conduct, that makes
> one a Christian, and forgiven.
> --
> Judson McClendon judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
> Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
> whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
Only the guilty need forgiveness, and even then, there are much better
solutions than "forgiving" them. Let them take responsibility for what they
did and make it as right as it is possible to make it... for example. Let
them show by action they are truly contrite and have worked to make amends.
Reparation and genuine apology to victims would be a fundamental part of
this.

Much better than "forgiveness" which is a supercilious concept, implying
superiority of one party over another.

As mentioned elsewhere in this forum a little while back, the major personal
problem I have with Christianity (and I'm offering this in a spirit of
debate, not trolling...) is that I never asked or wanted Jesus to die for my
sins. The horriffic things the Romans did to this man I wouldn't want on my
account.

Mainly for that reason, if I HAD to have some belief system (other than the
one I DO have), it would be Buddhism.

Gautama Buddha never claimed to be God, never offered forgiveness, simply
said: "There is suffering in the world. The suffering can be stopped if you
do these 8 simple things."

And his last words to his disciple Ananda were:"Work out your OWN salvation,
with diligence." (My emphasis).

I have never had a problem with the teachings of Christ (which are sound
common sense, just like many other teachers who lived within 800 years of
him, before and after); I have a problem with the "Organisation",
Christianity. Founded by Paul (Saul of Tarsus), who was a martinet and
probably mentally ill, with his own stamp on it... fire and brimstone and
the promise of eternal torture if the line is not toed... It worked for a
very long time; now people are waking up. (You can blame education and
better "tools" for thinking...)

I know there are millions of quiet, decent, Christian people who find
inspiration through their faith, just as there are millions of Buddhists and
other followers of great teachers. I wish them all well. But I would much
rather see all of them standing on their own two feet and dealing with life
on this planet, rather than relying on the glory to come in the next life
somewhere else...

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-14, 6:56 pm

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:tctmo31b0g4irm0qrr1v1g63efepkkm83u@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:08:48 -0600, "Judson McClendon"
> <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
>
> Of course, that applies to anybody's ability to see the supernatural.
> He might be a Hindu, or he might hold seances, or have any of
> countless other images. To those who don't see the supernatural,
> we also don't see the difference between these.
>
> Why is it that children of Hindu families see Hindu gods? Is it
> their inner eyes are different from yours - or is it that the stories
> they are told are different?

I'd never thought about that until you wrote it here, Howard.

It is a point worth considering.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-14, 6:56 pm

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:DnMij.50469$Mu4.455@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> I understand that.
>
>
> From the Christian standpoint, any other religion (except Judaism) is
> either rejection of God (e.g. atheism) or worshiping a false god. The
> Bible says such false gods are actually demons, evil spirit beings.
> These spirit beings can influence people, though not like you see in
> the movies. I've known several people who were deeply into the
> occult before accepting Jesus, and every one of them insists that
> things such as "channeling demons" is absolutely real.

My work here is done... :-)

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."

Pete Dashwood

2008-01-14, 6:56 pm

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cc00b8a4-f396-49a4-9d75-51855ccb9171@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Jan, 17:59, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@sunvaley0.com> wrote:
>
> I, too, have spent considerable time on both sides. I started to
> question the dogma of christianity when I was 11 years old but did not
> become faithless untill I was at least 18. During that period I spent
> some time studying christianity (I was forced to at school and still
> despise the system that allows Jews and Muslims to opt out but doesn't
> allow the same rights to atheists and agnostics) and other religions
> (I rather like Buddhism but just can not bring myself to believe in a
> spirit or miniature white elephants). Around the age of 21 I more or
> less gave up on religion, seeing it as one of the worlds' forces for
> evil but did not declare myself to be an atheist until well after
> hitting 40.
>
>
> I don't think that I have ever advocated humanism. I consider it an
> ugly term. I just think that the world would be a better place if we
> ditched superstition (I know people who claim to have seen demons. I
> don't know what they had been smoking at the time)
>
>
> The bible makes perfect sense to me. It contains religious tracts
> which detail the perceived history of the world (as seen by people
> from around 4000 years ago who could not possibly have been able to
> see the world for what it really is). As a historical document it is a
> wonderful work; albeit one that is inconsistent (two accounts of
> creation