Guest Michael Gray Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:17:50 -0700, johac <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: - Refer: <jhachmann-5CB182.16175027062007@news.giganews.com> >In article <5efchvF36n37vU1@mid.individual.net>, > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message >> news:1vj3835t86vajghq9n05jc1n7qdhe7ntud@4ax.com... >> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:58:27 -0700, johac >> > <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> > - Refer: <jhachmann-2EB388.15582726062007@news.giganews.com> >> >>In article >> >><Jason-2506071038350001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >>> In article <5ea5jrF383thsU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> >>> > >> >>> > snip >> >>> > >> >>> > > If they read their Bibles, they will know all about the true God. >> >>> > >> >>> > What makes your god the "true" one? >> >>> >> >>> Books have been written on that subject. >> >> >> >>I read books on Greek mythology. Does that mean that Zeus is the true >> >>god? >> > >> > Of course. >> > The non-existent Zeus can kick the non-existent YHWH's butt any time! >> >> True, but as a long-time fan of Norse mythology, I think Odin could give >> Zeus a run for his money > >I don't know. Maybe we could get all the gods in an arena and let them >fight it out to see who's the toughest non-existent being. Sort of a >divine bum fight. :-) Is that "bum" as in "vagrant", or "bum" as in "derriere"? -- Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:57:54 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <1183007444.727851.229020@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob >T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 27, 9:23 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1182999837.081663.66...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > On Jun 28, 10:42 am, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: >> > > > Martin Phipps wrote: >> > > > > On Jun 28, 8:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> > > > >> I explained why I use the term 'evolutionist' in another post. >Summary >> > > > >> version: I found the term on page 8 of the Nov/2004 issue of National >> > > > >> Geographic. >> > >> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism >> > >> > > > > "Scientists object to the terms evolutionism and evolutionist because >> > > > > the -ism and -ist suffixes accentuate belief rather than scientific >> > > > > study. Conversely, creationists use those same two terms partly >> > > > > because the terms accentuate belief, and partly perhaps because they >> > > > > provide a way to package their opposition into one group, seemingly >> > > > > atheist and materialist, designations which are irrelevant to >> > > > > science." >> > >> > > > > To use the term "evolutionist" makes as much sense as calling >> > > > > scientists who believe in gravity "gravitationists" as if gravity were >> > > > > something that one had to believe in. >> > >> > > > Or studies. I can't get too offended by someone calling a >> > > > scientist who studies evolution, an evolutionist. Not when >> > > > other scientists are called chemists, physicists, >> > > > cosmologists and biologists. >> > >> > > Perhaps, but the sciences are called chemistry, physics, cosmology and >> > > biology and not "chemistrism", "physicism", "cosmologism" or >> > > "biologism". Scientists who study evolution are studying evolution >> > > and not "evolutionism". The latter is a clear attempt of trying to >> > > paint science as religion. >> > >> > > Martin >> > >> > For some people, evolution appears to me to be their religion. >> > >> > If you went in to some churches and criticized their religion, they may >> > get very upset with you. >> > >> > When I criticize aspects of evolution, some people in this newsgroup get >> > so upset that they call me childest names. One person became so upset over >> > a minor criticism of evolution that he told me he would never again >> > respond to my posts. For those sorts of people, evolution is their >> > religion since they act just like religious people when you criticize >> > their religion. >> >> Um, no. For a simple example, take politics. People often get >> extremely angry and upset in political discussions, but that does not >> mean that the Republican party is a religion. >> > >> > However, many of the advocates of evolution do not treat evolution as >> > their religion and as a result can discuss my criticisms without becoming >> > upset. Many of those sorts of people would discard evolution if a better >> > theory became available. >> >> Jason, people become upset with you, in part, because you are very >> repetitive and slow to learn. They get frustrated when they explain >> something to you several times, and then you make the same old >> statement in the same old way and prove that you haven't learned >> anything. Take, for example, your repeatition of the incredibly >> stupid notion that "evolutionists don't want ID taught in schools >> because they are afraid people will think it makes more sense than >> evolution." I am a pretty mellow guy, but when I read your post above >> where you repeated that for the tenth time it made me angry. >> >> - Bob T. >> > >> > - Show quoted text - > >I understand your point of view. Jason, to be honest, I have grave doubts that you actually understand much of anything at all, but I'll take you at your word here. So does this mean you'll stop repeating the ridiculous lie that "evolutionists" don't want ID taught because they're afraid of it? > Quote
Guest John Baker Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 22:20:16 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >In article <pmd683pm19c9edpc4h5c2jfsal95do25ed@4ax.com>, John Baker ><nunya@bizniz.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:55:27 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >In article <mrDgi.17313$19.3321@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> ><mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-2706071727150001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <7rAgi.2306$K9.485@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:Jason-2706071403510001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> > In article <NVzgi.2269$K9.1264@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> news:Jason-2706071042260001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> >> > In article <k3m4839mgss0cijljuel3pm2nk3jonlg9c@4ax.com>, Matt >> >> >> >> > Silberstein >> >> >> >> > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:16:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-2606072216110001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <fqp3839gge41v4q43tmsag4qdme6g95nts@4ax.com>, Matt >> >> >> >> >> >Silberstein >> >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:12:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-2606072112370001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <vfk383lau8cr3oq9f2kglqucrlkn8mgn5s@4ax.com>, Matt >> >> >> >> >> >> >Silberstein >> >> >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:49:32 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-2606071749330001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The poll indicated that over 60% of the people that live in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Ohio >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >wanted >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >both ID and evolution be taught in the public schools. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What if 60% wanted separate schools for blacks and whites? >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >It would be illegal for a school board to do that. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> And it was illegal for the school board to put ID into the >> >> >> >> >> >> curriculum. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I suggest you go and look up the history of complaint about >> >> >> >> >> >> legislation from the bench. They started in the '50s >pretty much >> >> >> >> >> >> with >> >> >> >> >> >> Brown v Topeka Board of Education. When people complained >about >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> Court making law what they specifically meant was when >the Court >> >> >> >> >> >> ruled >> >> >> >> >> >> that separate but "equal" schools were illegal. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Yes, we studied that case while I was in college. I understand >> >> >> >> >> >your >> >> >> >> >> >point. >> >> >> >> >> >The ID people should have done a better job in making sure they >> >> >> >> >> >had >> >> >> >> >> >no >> >> >> >> >> >religion mixed in--they failed. Perhaps they will do a >better job >> >> >> >> >> >the >> >> >> >> >> >next >> >> >> >> >> >time. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How? I mean that. ID is religion, you admit over and over >that your >> >> >> >> >> motives and goals are religious in nature and that your source >> >> >> >> >> material is religious. ID is religion and any attempt by its >> >> >> >> >> supporters to say otherwise is just lying. Do you support lying to >> >> >> >> >> promote Christianity? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Matt, >> >> >> >> > Yes, you are correct. However, the people in the ID movement could >> >> >> >> > arrange >> >> >> >> > to do it in such a way that no court could find any evidence of >> >> >> >> > religion. >> >> >> >> > They tried to do it in the Dover case but they failed. Perhaps they >> >> >> >> > will >> >> >> >> > never succeed. >> >> >> >> > Jason >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> They will never succeed because ID contains no science. Religion >> >> >> >> abounds >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> ID and creation science for one important reason, it is there! >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I agree that religion abounds in ID and creation science. However, if >> >> >> > God, >> >> >> > Jesus and scriptures are NEVER mentioned in the text book or >curriculum >> >> >> > guide--it seems to me that a judge could not call it religion. For >> >> >> > example, some people believe that astronauts from some other planet >> >> >> > came >> >> >> > to this planet millions of years ago and left behind dozens of people; >> >> >> > some plants and some animals. Is that idea based on religion? The >> >> >> > answer >> >> >> > is no. In the last court case, the IDers did a terrible job since >> >> >> > lawyers >> >> >> > representing evolutionists found all sorts of evidence indicating that >> >> >> > religion was involved. >> >> >> > Jason >> >> >> >> >> >> You don't have to specifically name your religious figure in order to >> >> >> find >> >> >> that religion is involved. When the descriptions fit the bible then it >> >> >> will >> >> >> be assumed that it is the bible. >> >> > >> >> > Judges are to suppose to base their rulings on evidence--not assumptions. >> >> >> >> They do, Jason, the evidence points to religion. >> > >> >It did in the Dover case. My point was that the IDers will have to make >> >sure there is NO evidence related to religion in the next court case. >> >> >> If the IDiots eliminate everything that points to religion, they'll >> have no case to present. >> >> >> >> > > >They have fossil evidence and rock strata data. They could discuss the >research projects that have been done at the Grand Canyon and Mount St. >Helens. If they tried discussing any of that in the presence of real scientists, they'd have their arses handed to them on a platter before they knew what hit them. I'm familiar with their Grand Canyon "research". It's laughable. Or it would be if they weren't trying to pass it off as real science. And if some people weren't gullible enough to believe them..... > Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f5tl6k$535$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <1182914771.873163.36550@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin >>> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 27, 2:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>> >>>>> Why is there a symbol of a crescent moon on top of every Muslim mosque in >>>>> the world? >>>> Why does a halo appear on the head of every saint in pictures? Why >>>> does sun symbolism continue to the present day on robes, banners, >>>> icons, behind the cross in a ray of light, flames coming from the >>>> heart of Jesus, etc.? Who do priests bow and kiss a monstrance which >>>> is a gold statue of the sun on a pedestal during processions? Why do >>>> Christians go to church on Sunday when the old testament claimed that >>>> Jesus would rise after three days, ie three days after Friday and >>>> therefore on Monday? >>>> >>>> Answer the damn questions, Jason. >>>> >>>> Martin >>> I am not a Catholic so as a result have never done any research regarding >>> Catholics. I don't why artists painted halos on the heads of saints. >>> Perhaps it was part of the culture or a rule established by a Pope. You >>> may want to visit the art department and ask that question to the >>> professor that teaches courses related to the history of art. I suggest >>> that you visit Wikipedia and type "Easter Sunday". It clearly states that >>> Christ rose from the dead on Sunday. >> And yet your bible clearly says he would rise after THREE days. >> >> Where's the 3rd day, Jason? Do you now believe wikipedia over your own >> bible? > > The deciples worshipped on Sunday. They knew more about the time aspects > than we know today since they were witnesses. So was there some kind of "old math" in place? 3 days would be more than 48 hours. From Friday evening to Sunday morning was only 36 or so hours. So did Jesus lie or did the disciples? (this isn't an essay question. It's a question answered only by either "Jesus" or "the disciples.") Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <BUzgi.2268$K9.580@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2706071037190001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >>> In article <f5tl6k$535$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <1182914771.873163.36550@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >>>>> Martin >>>>> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 27, 2:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Why is there a symbol of a crescent moon on top of every Muslim >>>>>>> mosque in >>>>>>> the world? >>>>>> Why does a halo appear on the head of every saint in pictures? Why >>>>>> does sun symbolism continue to the present day on robes, banners, >>>>>> icons, behind the cross in a ray of light, flames coming from the >>>>>> heart of Jesus, etc.? Who do priests bow and kiss a monstrance which >>>>>> is a gold statue of the sun on a pedestal during processions? Why do >>>>>> Christians go to church on Sunday when the old testament claimed that >>>>>> Jesus would rise after three days, ie three days after Friday and >>>>>> therefore on Monday? >>>>>> >>>>>> Answer the damn questions, Jason. >>>>>> >>>>>> Martin >>>>> I am not a Catholic so as a result have never done any research >>>>> regarding >>>>> Catholics. I don't why artists painted halos on the heads of saints. >>>>> Perhaps it was part of the culture or a rule established by a Pope. You >>>>> may want to visit the art department and ask that question to the >>>>> professor that teaches courses related to the history of art. I suggest >>>>> that you visit Wikipedia and type "Easter Sunday". It clearly states >>>>> that >>>>> Christ rose from the dead on Sunday. >>>> And yet your bible clearly says he would rise after THREE days. >>>> >>>> Where's the 3rd day, Jason? Do you now believe wikipedia over your own >>>> bible? >>> The deciples worshipped on Sunday. They knew more about the time aspects >>> than we know today since they were witnesses. >>> Jason >> What time aspects Jason? Three days and three nights is the same today as it >> was two thousand years ago. > > Our days end at 12 midnight. Are you 100% sure that was the way is was in > the first century? Even if the day ended at noontime, there's still not 3 days (periods of daylight) and 3 nights (periods of darkness) between Friday evening and Sunday morning. You get more and more ridiculous as you go along. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > Does the Bible state that Jesus was in the tomb 72 hours or three days? > If Jesus was placed in the tomb prior to sundown on Friday that would be day 1 > Saturday would be day 2 and Sunday-after sun-up would be day 3. That would > not be 72 hours but as far as the deciples were concerned--it would count > as the third day. That's NOT "3 days and 3 nights", Jason. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 Jason wrote: > If the scripture had stated 72 hours, I would be in agreement with you. > > If the scripture had stated 3 full days and 3 full nights, I would agree > with you. > > The scripture used the term "3 days"--not 72 hours or 3 full days AND "3 nights." Where was the third night, Jason? > > the day ends at sundown and begins at sunup > > Jesus was placed in the tomb on friday---prior to sundown--that counts as day 1 > Saturday--counts as day 2 > Sunday--after sunup--counts as day 3 Where's night #3, Jason? > That is probably the reason the deciples worshipped on Sunday instead of > Monday. It's probably the reason Easter is on Sunday instead of on Monday. No, it's because they usurped a pagan holiday. Quote
Guest Mike Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 John Baker wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:35:13 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> > wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f5rnk0$40j$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Bob T. wrote: >>>>> On Jun 25, 11:04 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>>>>> Good point--our troops will eventually leave Iraq and Afghanistan. If the >>>>>> leaders of either of those countries asked Bush to remove our troops from >>>>>> their countries--Bush would do it. >>>>> <snicker> No, he wouldn't. >>>> He didn't listen when they asked him not to invade (at least in Iraq's >>>> case, he didn't. I'm not saying if the invasion was right or wrong; >>>> simply pointing out that it was against the wishes of the then-current >>>> leader(s) of the country.) so why would he listen when they ask him to >>>> leave? >>> In Iraq--the current leaders are different than the former leaders. If the >>> current leaders asked Bush to remove the troops--I believe Bush would >>> remove the troops. I seem to recall that the citzens voted on this issue >>> about a year ago and they voted to keep our troops in their country. They >>> had to have their finger prints tested and they proudly held up their >>> inked fingers to the cameras to show they had freely voted. >> Damned, Jason, you're going to have a heart attack from back-pedalling >> so fast. > > > I've done this before and been wrong, and I may be wrong this time, > but I'm calling Loki on Jason. No, in this case, I think he's really this stupid. Quote
Guest Therion Ware Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:39:35 -0700, Jason wrote in message [ [snip] >If the scripture had stated 72 hours, I would be in agreement with you. > >If the scripture had stated 3 full days and 3 full nights, I would agree >with you. > >The scripture used the term "3 days"--not 72 hours or 3 full days > >the day ends at sundown and begins at sunup > >Jesus was placed in the tomb on friday---prior to sundown--that counts as day 1 >Saturday--counts as day 2 >Sunday--after sunup--counts as day 3 > >That is probably the reason the deciples worshipped on Sunday instead of >Monday. It's probably the reason Easter is on Sunday instead of on Monday. > >You don't believe in Jesus so why do you care? ("The King's English // A guide to modern usage", Amis, Kingsley, HarperCollins, 1997, ISBN 0 00 255681 2 pp141 - 2. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0006387462) On the third day Christians know as certainly as they know anything that on the third day after his death on the cross Jesus rose again from the dead. Like many others I knew this myself at one time. Even when I knew it, however, another part of my mind was not to be prevented from seeing that Easter Day, Sunday, was only the second day after the day of crucifixion, Friday. This caused me no difficulty at that far off time, and it cannot have been long afterwards that I abandoned all speculation about such matters. The answer to the problem is, as usual, that there is no problem. The ancient world reckoned the passage of time inclusively, so that to every Roman yesterday was two days ago and tomorrow can along in two days' time. And any Sunday was the third day after the preceding Friday, whatever else might have been going on. This fact cannot have been known for some centuries, but I have never heard of any Christian who seems to have experienced difficulty in believing two apparently incompatible things at once. This would appear to point to a discernable incuriosity about one of the fundamental articles of Christian faith. -- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". attrib: Pauline R Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 27, 11:12 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1183006804.224891.285...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, "Bob > > > > > > T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote: > > On Jun 27, 5:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <4dp583lqrr9fhgchqv0633889v7s6mt...@4ax.com>, Michael Gray > > > > <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:41:07 -0000, Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > - Refer: <1182930067.182358.221...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> > > > > >On Jun 27, 2:25 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > >> It's obvious to me that the evolutionists are afraid that the > > > > >> children will realize that ID makes more sense > > > > > >You don't seriously believe that, Jason. If you were then you would > > > > >be calling every qualified scientist alive today a liar. > > > > > He has done that very thing on several occasions. > > > > > -- > > > > Yes, I believe that evolutionists are afraid that the children will > > > realize that ID makes more sense than evolution. Otherwise, they would not > > > millions of dollars keeping ID from being taught in the public school > > > system. > > > Please stop saying this. It is really stupid. We don't want ID > > taught in school because it is a lie told by liars who are trying to > > sneak religion in under the guise of science. Have you read about the > > Dover trial? If you read the Wikipedia article (or any other > > objective writeup) you will discover that the creationists lied over > > and over again. > > > I have explained before that the evidence for evolution and common > > descent is overwhelming. If there is a God who created us, He did so > > using evolution as His tool. > > > - Bob T. > > I believe the evidence for common descent and abiogenesis is underwhelming. But you don't know anything about biology. Why do you believe preachers instead of biologists when it comes to the subject of biology? As has been explained before, there is a big difference between common descent and abiogenesis. Common descent is a fact - the evidence is crystal clear. Abiogenesis is much more speculative because it happened so long ago, and the first living creatures were very very small. Scientists may never know exactly how life began. Common descent, on the other hand, is incontrovertible. Take, for example, the human inability to synthesize Vitamin C. There is a gene present in most mammals that will synthesize Vitamin C so that it is not a necessary nutrient. Humans and other apes have this gene in a disabled form. Guinea pigs are also unable to synthesize Vitamin C, but their gene is disabled in a different way. Why would a Creator create humans with exactly the same genetic flaw that gorillas have, but create guinea pigs with the same flaw in different form? It makes no sense... ah, but if we realize that humans and gorillas have a relatively recent common ancestor, it _does_ make sense. Humans share 97% of their genes with chimpanzees, slightly less with gorillas, less than that with monkeys, etc. etc. Why did God create us with genetic patterns that exactly match the fossil evidence for common descent? Is He trying to trick us? Surely you don't believe in a deity that deliberately created misleading evidence in order to lead scientists astray, do you? - Bob T. Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 27, 11:41 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <Xu-dnQbqCvpMzB7bnZ2dnUVZ_jydn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <bPednRXK68-o1B7bnZ2dnUVZ_vyun...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > > >>> In article <qfudnSPFtMzXkR7bnZ2dnUVZ_sfin...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > >>> <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > >>>> Jason wrote: > > >>>>> In article <Gr2dnTUtqYqunh7bnZ2dnUVZ_gWdn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > >>>>> <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > > >>>>>> (snip) > > >>>>>>> Yes, a creationist school board and evolutionist both have agendas. > > >>>>>> I agree. How about taking a stab at summarizing what you > > >>>>>> thing each of those agendas is about. > > >>>>> One group wants to teach ID and evolution to the children. > > >>>>> One group wants to teach only evolution to the the children. > > >>>> Yes, yes, but why do they want those things? > > >>> Because both groups believe they are correct. > > > >>> Please state your point. > > >> I think the agenda of I.D supporters is to make sure their > > >> children's education does not contradict their religious > > >> beliefs. If they cannot expel evolution from the class > > >> room, they want to at least make it look to their children > > >> that there is another reasonable explanation that is > > >> compatible with their religious beliefs. They don't want > > >> their children to realize that their beliefs have no basis > > >> in the evidence. These people place their religious dogma > > >> and its propagation above all other considerations. > > > >> I think the agenda of scientists that want only established > > >> science being taught in public schools is that they want a > > >> new generation of scientists to get the education necessary > > >> to take their places and continue their work, finding out > > >> how reality works, for the long term good of mankind. They > > >> see teaching I.D as if it were science is just a way to > > >> derail the education the students will need to become > > >> scientists. They also realize that if most people are > > >> taught that science is equal or inferior to religious dogma, > > >> it won't be long before society values science so little > > >> that it will cease to function and hard earned knowledge > > >> will be lost, or that our country will lose its place of > > >> leadership in the sciences, and all the bounty that > > >> leadership has produced for us. > > > >> Have I been unfair to either side? > > > > Your grade is A > > > Well, my point was to have you ponder the motivation of > > people on each side of this, and understand that, from their > > own point of view and priorities, both are trying to do good. > > > Just as you may have trouble granting good intentions to > > people who have not the slightest care for your religious > > dogma, I have trouble remembering that people who lie for a > > a "good cause" (pretending that I.D. is science, when they > > know it is a sham that must be carefully managed and > > protected from scrutiny) can be admired for their good > > intentions (Christian beliefs being an inherent good, in > > their minds). > > > However, getting their "good" through dishonesty grates on > > my sense of fair play and reeks of hypocrisy, since lying is > > forbidden in one of their commandments from their > > hypothetical god. Can one do good for your god by breaking > > his commandments? > > > Not lying is one of my personal rules, but when I break it, > > I don't have to answer to some deity, I have to face the > > fact that haven't measured up to my own standards. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I have taken a high school biology course (college prep). I have also > taken a college biology course (biology 101). In both courses, the text > books and the teacher and professor explained the basics of biology and > the basics of evolution theory. In the labs, we only done simple > experiments. > > The proposed ID course would be the same sort of thing. It would cover the > basics of Intelligent Design. > > Several posters have mentioned lies in relation to preparing a ID court > case. You would have to do some basic research related to how judges go > about making rulings before you could understand my points. I only know > about it since I was recently on jury duty and had to take a short course > before they would allow us to serve on jury duty. The judge discussed > "rules of evidence". The lawyers have to prepare their cases with the > rules of evidence in mind. In relation to the ID court case, the IDers > done a poor job of preparing the case. You misspelled "lied". The ID advocates lied in court. They may also have done a poor job of preparing their case, but the important thing is that they lied through their teeth. - Bob T. > I made the point that they need to > do a better job to prepare the next case. It involves making sure the text > book and curriculum guide contain no evidence of God, Jesus or scriptures. > The reason is because it is against the law to discuss religion in public > class rooms. If the judge finds any evidence of religion, we will lose the > next court case. Court decisions are not suppose to be based on > assumptions--just evidence.- Hid > > - Show quoted text - Quote
Guest Bob T. Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 On Jun 27, 11:44 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <Xu-dnQHqCvo1zx7bnZ2dnUVZ_jydn...@comcast.com>, John Popelish > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > Just for a minute, realize what it must have been like for a Christian > > > student or a Christian teacher involved in these circumstances: > > > > Northeast Intelligence Network > > > is a leading anti-terrorist web site, that offers practical reference > > > information, vital links, and other valuable information from an > > > investigative perspective in today's troubled times. > > > broken watermains > > (snip) > > > Shouldn't this be placed in a new thread? > > I would appreciate your comments about the article. It's an article about > how religion in the public schools. Please start a new thread with a new subject line. I don't think you're as familiar with Usenet as most of us, and may not realize that new topics should be started in new threads. This particular thread has become extremely long and unwieldy, and contains several unrelated topics already. - Bob T. Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message news:szk4pktxc9x.fsf@eris.io.com... > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes: > >>"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message >>news:h0k383tvu4l40srqvo3k496r4ulusla2b3@4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:02:58 -0400, "Robibnikoff" >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>> - Refer: <5eckjeF36fh2jU1@mid.individual.net> > >>>><gudloos@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>news:1182812811.996798.30050@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>>>> On 25 Jun., 17:34, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote > >>>>>> snip > >>>>>> > If they read their Bibles, they will know all about the true God. > >>>>>> What makes your god the "true" one? > >>>>> The Bible says so of course. > >>>>Yeah, I've heard that, but I'm not buying it ;P > >>> You don't have to buy. >>> You can steal one from a motel side-table. > >>Where do you think my bible came from? The husband pilfered it while on a >>business trip many moons ago > > Welcome to the club...Dale and I, on a trip to South Dakota in 1994, > stayed at > a motel and took the opportunity to violate a Sioux Falls ordinance by > having > sex on the floor between two beds (obviously, with the bible on the desk). > ;-) Wha? It's against the law there to have sex on the floor?!? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest The Chief Instigator Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes: >"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message >news:szk4pktxc9x.fsf@eris.io.com... >> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes: >>>"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message >>>news:h0k383tvu4l40srqvo3k496r4ulusla2b3@4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:02:58 -0400, "Robibnikoff" >>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>> - Refer: <5eckjeF36fh2jU1@mid.individual.net> >>>>><gudloos@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:1182812811.996798.30050@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> On 25 Jun., 17:34, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote >>>>>>> snip >>>>>>> > If they read their Bibles, they will know all about the true God. >>>>>>> What makes your god the "true" one? >>>>>> The Bible says so of course. >>>>>Yeah, I've heard that, but I'm not buying it ;P >>>> You don't have to buy. >>>> You can steal one from a motel side-table. >>>Where do you think my bible came from? The husband pilfered it while on a >>>business trip many moons ago >> Welcome to the club...Dale and I, on a trip to South Dakota in 1994, stayed >> at a motel and took the opportunity to violate a Sioux Falls ordinance by >> having sex on the floor between two beds (obviously, with the bible on the >> desk). ;-) >Wha? It's against the law there to have sex on the floor?!? It's probably still on the books, but so far, SFPD hasn't put up roadblocks to try and capture us... -- Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15) NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:jhachmann-5CB182.16175027062007@news.giganews.com... > In article <5efchvF36n37vU1@mid.individual.net>, > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message >> news:1vj3835t86vajghq9n05jc1n7qdhe7ntud@4ax.com... >> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:58:27 -0700, johac >> > <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> > - Refer: <jhachmann-2EB388.15582726062007@news.giganews.com> >> >>In article >> >><Jason-2506071038350001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >>> In article <5ea5jrF383thsU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> >>> > >> >>> > snip >> >>> > >> >>> > > If they read their Bibles, they will know all about the true God. >> >>> > >> >>> > What makes your god the "true" one? >> >>> >> >>> Books have been written on that subject. >> >> >> >>I read books on Greek mythology. Does that mean that Zeus is the true >> >>god? >> > >> > Of course. >> > The non-existent Zeus can kick the non-existent YHWH's butt any time! >> >> True, but as a long-time fan of Norse mythology, I think Odin could give >> Zeus a run for his money > > I don't know. Maybe we could get all the gods in an arena and let them > fight it out to see who's the toughest non-existent being. Sort of a > divine bum fight. :-) LOL! Diety Death Match? Who knows how to do claymation? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:740783hjnp1rl69hncffbem3j5p90ls05v@4ax.com... > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:17:50 -0700, johac > <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: > - Refer: <jhachmann-5CB182.16175027062007@news.giganews.com> >>In article <5efchvF36n37vU1@mid.individual.net>, >> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >>> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message >>> news:1vj3835t86vajghq9n05jc1n7qdhe7ntud@4ax.com... >>> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:58:27 -0700, johac >>> > <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> > - Refer: <jhachmann-2EB388.15582726062007@news.giganews.com> >>> >>In article >>> >><Jason-2506071038350001@66-52-22-83.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, >>> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> In article <5ea5jrF383thsU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >>> >>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >>> >>> > >>> >>> > snip >>> >>> > >>> >>> > > If they read their Bibles, they will know all about the true >>> >>> > > God. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > What makes your god the "true" one? >>> >>> >>> >>> Books have been written on that subject. >>> >> >>> >>I read books on Greek mythology. Does that mean that Zeus is the true >>> >>god? >>> > >>> > Of course. >>> > The non-existent Zeus can kick the non-existent YHWH's butt any time! >>> >>> True, but as a long-time fan of Norse mythology, I think Odin could give >>> Zeus a run for his money >> >>I don't know. Maybe we could get all the gods in an arena and let them >>fight it out to see who's the toughest non-existent being. Sort of a >>divine bum fight. :-) > > Is that "bum" as in "vagrant", or "bum" as in "derriere"? SNORT! "Bum" as in "vagrant". I don't even want to think about the other one -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2706071755270001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <mrDgi.17313$19.3321@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-2706071727150001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> > In article <7rAgi.2306$K9.485@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Jason-2706071403510001@66-52-22-67.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> > In article <NVzgi.2269$K9.1264@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, "Ralph" >> >> > <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> >> >> news:Jason-2706071042260001@66-52-22-101.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >> >> > In article <k3m4839mgss0cijljuel3pm2nk3jonlg9c@4ax.com>, Matt >> >> >> > Silberstein >> >> >> > <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:16:11 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> >> <Jason-2606072216110001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <fqp3839gge41v4q43tmsag4qdme6g95nts@4ax.com>, Matt >> >> >> >> >Silberstein >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:12:36 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-2606072112370001@66-52-22-64.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <vfk383lau8cr3oq9f2kglqucrlkn8mgn5s@4ax.com>, >> >> >> >> >> >Matt >> >> >> >> >> >Silberstein >> >> >> >> >> ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:49:32 -0700, in alt.atheism , >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason@nospam.com >> >> >> >> >> >> (Jason) in >> >> >> >> >> >> <Jason-2606071749330001@66-52-22-20.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >The poll indicated that over 60% of the people that live >> >> >> >> >> >> >in >> >> >> >> >> >> >Ohio >> >> >> >> >> >> >wanted >> >> >> >> >> >> >both ID and evolution be taught in the public schools. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What if 60% wanted separate schools for blacks and whites? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >It would be illegal for a school board to do that. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> And it was illegal for the school board to put ID into the >> >> >> >> >> curriculum. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I suggest you go and look up the history of complaint about >> >> >> >> >> legislation from the bench. They started in the '50s pretty >> >> >> >> >> much >> >> >> >> >> with >> >> >> >> >> Brown v Topeka Board of Education. When people complained >> >> >> >> >> about >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> Court making law what they specifically meant was when the >> >> >> >> >> Court >> >> >> >> >> ruled >> >> >> >> >> that separate but "equal" schools were illegal. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Yes, we studied that case while I was in college. I understand >> >> >> >> >your >> >> >> >> >point. >> >> >> >> >The ID people should have done a better job in making sure they >> >> >> >> >had >> >> >> >> >no >> >> >> >> >religion mixed in--they failed. Perhaps they will do a better >> >> >> >> >job >> >> >> >> >the >> >> >> >> >next >> >> >> >> >time. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How? I mean that. ID is religion, you admit over and over that >> >> >> >> your >> >> >> >> motives and goals are religious in nature and that your source >> >> >> >> material is religious. ID is religion and any attempt by its >> >> >> >> supporters to say otherwise is just lying. Do you support lying >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> promote Christianity? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Matt, >> >> >> > Yes, you are correct. However, the people in the ID movement >> >> >> > could >> >> >> > arrange >> >> >> > to do it in such a way that no court could find any evidence of >> >> >> > religion. >> >> >> > They tried to do it in the Dover case but they failed. Perhaps >> >> >> > they >> >> >> > will >> >> >> > never succeed. >> >> >> > Jason >> >> >> >> >> >> They will never succeed because ID contains no science. Religion >> >> >> abounds >> >> >> in >> >> >> ID and creation science for one important reason, it is there! >> >> > >> >> > I agree that religion abounds in ID and creation science. However, >> >> > if >> >> > God, >> >> > Jesus and scriptures are NEVER mentioned in the text book or >> >> > curriculum >> >> > guide--it seems to me that a judge could not call it religion. For >> >> > example, some people believe that astronauts from some other planet >> >> > came >> >> > to this planet millions of years ago and left behind dozens of >> >> > people; >> >> > some plants and some animals. Is that idea based on religion? The >> >> > answer >> >> > is no. In the last court case, the IDers did a terrible job since >> >> > lawyers >> >> > representing evolutionists found all sorts of evidence indicating >> >> > that >> >> > religion was involved. >> >> > Jason >> >> >> >> You don't have to specifically name your religious figure in order to >> >> find >> >> that religion is involved. When the descriptions fit the bible then it >> >> will >> >> be assumed that it is the bible. >> > >> > Judges are to suppose to base their rulings on evidence--not >> > assumptions. >> >> They do, Jason, the evidence points to religion. > > It did in the Dover case. My point was that the IDers will have to make > sure there is NO evidence related to religion in the next court case. You mean they need to be more dishonest? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-2706072127100001@66-52-22-96.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <f136839av8uped9120293qqesobkbfeqtf@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:08:35 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2706071808350001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <Gr2dnTUtqYqunh7bnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> (snip) >> >> > Yes, a creationist school board and evolutionist both have agendas. >> >> >> >> I agree. How about taking a stab at summarizing what you >> >> thing each of those agendas is about. >> > >> >One group wants to teach ID and evolution to the children. >> >One group wants to teach only evolution to the the children. >> > >> Why would you want to teach lies to children? > > I would prefer that teachers not teach evolution because of the lies What lies? -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message news:eeu6835ui1hmjiibc0rk2kv7rtefq2v76g@4ax.com... > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:27:10 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>In article <f136839av8uped9120293qqesobkbfeqtf@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:08:35 -0700, in alt.atheism >>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>> <Jason-2706071808350001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> >In article <Gr2dnTUtqYqunh7bnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John >>> >Popelish >>> ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Jason wrote: >>> >> (snip) >>> >> > Yes, a creationist school board and evolutionist both have agendas. >>> >> >>> >> I agree. How about taking a stab at summarizing what you >>> >> thing each of those agendas is about. >>> > >>> >One group wants to teach ID and evolution to the children. >>> >One group wants to teach only evolution to the the children. >>> > >>> Why would you want to teach lies to children? >> >>I would prefer that teachers not teach evolution because of the lies but >>there is nothing that I can do about. > > There are no lies being taught, Jason, because public schools don't > teach ID. > > Which reminds me ... the last time you "visited" us, I gave you a list > of documented examples of deliberate creationist lies. To > paraphrase one of your favorite lines, you failed to comment on them. > Would you like me to repost them so you can have another shot? <G> crickets chirping I think that's a "no" -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message news:szkk5tojh5c.fsf@eris.io.com... > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes: > >>"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message >>news:szk4pktxc9x.fsf@eris.io.com... >>> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes: > >>>>"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message >>>>news:h0k383tvu4l40srqvo3k496r4ulusla2b3@4ax.com... >>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:02:58 -0400, "Robibnikoff" >>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>> - Refer: <5eckjeF36fh2jU1@mid.individual.net> > >>>>>><gudloos@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:1182812811.996798.30050@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>> On 25 Jun., 17:34, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote > >>>>>>>> snip > >>>>>>>> > If they read their Bibles, they will know all about the true God. > >>>>>>>> What makes your god the "true" one? > >>>>>>> The Bible says so of course. > >>>>>>Yeah, I've heard that, but I'm not buying it ;P > >>>>> You don't have to buy. >>>>> You can steal one from a motel side-table. > >>>>Where do you think my bible came from? The husband pilfered it while on >>>>a >>>>business trip many moons ago > >>> Welcome to the club...Dale and I, on a trip to South Dakota in 1994, >>> stayed >>> at a motel and took the opportunity to violate a Sioux Falls ordinance >>> by >>> having sex on the floor between two beds (obviously, with the bible on >>> the >>> desk). ;-) > >>Wha? It's against the law there to have sex on the floor?!? > > It's probably still on the books, but so far, SFPD hasn't put up > roadblocks to > try and capture us... Oh my! A fugitive from justice in our very midst! -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest The Chief Instigator Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes: >"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message >news:szkk5tojh5c.fsf@eris.io.com... >> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes: >>>"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote in message >>>news:szk4pktxc9x.fsf@eris.io.com... >>>> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes: >>>>>"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:h0k383tvu4l40srqvo3k496r4ulusla2b3@4ax.com... >>>>>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:02:58 -0400, "Robibnikoff" >>>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>>> - Refer: <5eckjeF36fh2jU1@mid.individual.net> >>>>>>><gudloos@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>news:1182812811.996798.30050@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>> On 25 Jun., 17:34, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> snip >>>>>>>>> > If they read their Bibles, they will know all about the true God. >>>>>>>>> What makes your god the "true" one? >>>>>>>> The Bible says so of course. >>>>>>>Yeah, I've heard that, but I'm not buying it ;P >>>>>> You don't have to buy. >>>>>> You can steal one from a motel side-table. >>>>>Where do you think my bible came from? The husband pilfered it while on a >>>>>business trip many moons ago >>>> Welcome to the club...Dale and I, on a trip to South Dakota in 1994, >>>> stayed at a motel and took the opportunity to violate a Sioux Falls >>>> ordinance by having sex on the floor between two beds (obviously, with >>>> the bible on the desk). ;-) >>>Wha? It's against the law there to have sex on the floor?!? >> It's probably still on the books, but so far, SFPD hasn't put up roadblocks >> to try and capture us... >Oh my! A fugitive from justice in our very midst! <Monty Python>Consternation! Uproar!</Monty Python> (We've only been back to Minnehaha County ten or eleven times, since.) -- Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273 LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15) NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <f608fq$prp$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f5tl6k$535$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <1182914771.873163.36550@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >>> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Jun 27, 2:54 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Why is there a symbol of a crescent moon on top of every Muslim mosque in > >>>>> the world? > >>>> Why does a halo appear on the head of every saint in pictures? Why > >>>> does sun symbolism continue to the present day on robes, banners, > >>>> icons, behind the cross in a ray of light, flames coming from the > >>>> heart of Jesus, etc.? Who do priests bow and kiss a monstrance which > >>>> is a gold statue of the sun on a pedestal during processions? Why do > >>>> Christians go to church on Sunday when the old testament claimed that > >>>> Jesus would rise after three days, ie three days after Friday and > >>>> therefore on Monday? > >>>> > >>>> Answer the damn questions, Jason. > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>> I am not a Catholic so as a result have never done any research regarding > >>> Catholics. I don't why artists painted halos on the heads of saints. > >>> Perhaps it was part of the culture or a rule established by a Pope. You > >>> may want to visit the art department and ask that question to the > >>> professor that teaches courses related to the history of art. I suggest > >>> that you visit Wikipedia and type "Easter Sunday". It clearly states that > >>> Christ rose from the dead on Sunday. > >> And yet your bible clearly says he would rise after THREE days. > >> > >> Where's the 3rd day, Jason? Do you now believe wikipedia over your own > >> bible? > > > > The deciples worshipped on Sunday. They knew more about the time aspects > > than we know today since they were witnesses. > > So was there some kind of "old math" in place? 3 days would be more than > 48 hours. From Friday evening to Sunday morning was only 36 or so hours. > So did Jesus lie or did the disciples? (this isn't an essay question. > It's a question answered only by either "Jesus" or "the disciples.") Yes, only the witnesses could properly answer the question. Any answers that I gave would only be guesses. The disciples worshipped on Sunday so that is good enough for the millions of people that worship on Sunday. Perhaps you could explain why people that don't believe in Jesus are so concerned about how many days Jesus remained in the tomb. Jason Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In alt.atheism On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:05:56 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >Not according to polls. They took a poll in Ohio and the result was that >68% wanted both evolution and ID to be taught. > What if 68% of the people wanted to kill all christians? Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In alt.atheism On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:27:10 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <f136839av8uped9120293qqesobkbfeqtf@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:08:35 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2706071808350001@66-52-22-70.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <Gr2dnTUtqYqunh7bnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish >> ><jpopelish@rica.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >> (snip) >> >> > Yes, a creationist school board and evolutionist both have agendas. >> >> >> >> I agree. How about taking a stab at summarizing what you >> >> thing each of those agendas is about. >> > >> >One group wants to teach ID and evolution to the children. >> >One group wants to teach only evolution to the the children. >> > >> Why would you want to teach lies to children? > >I would prefer that teachers not teach evolution because of the lies but >there is nothing that I can do about. Trouble is: you have never been about to point out a single lie. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Jason Posted June 28, 2007 Posted June 28, 2007 In article <t9a7839hlvsoufvvb6aj550udce5i4nq1c@4ax.com>, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:39:35 -0700, Jason wrote in message [ > > [snip] > > >If the scripture had stated 72 hours, I would be in agreement with you. > > > >If the scripture had stated 3 full days and 3 full nights, I would agree > >with you. > > > >The scripture used the term "3 days"--not 72 hours or 3 full days > > > >the day ends at sundown and begins at sunup > > > >Jesus was placed in the tomb on friday---prior to sundown--that counts as day 1 > >Saturday--counts as day 2 > >Sunday--after sunup--counts as day 3 > > > >That is probably the reason the deciples worshipped on Sunday instead of > >Monday. It's probably the reason Easter is on Sunday instead of on Monday. > > > >You don't believe in Jesus so why do you care? > > ("The King's English // A guide to modern usage", Amis, Kingsley, > HarperCollins, 1997, ISBN 0 00 255681 2 pp141 - 2. > http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0006387462) > > On the third day > > > Christians know as certainly as they know anything that on the third > day after his death on the cross Jesus rose again from the dead. Like > many others I knew this myself at one time. Even when I knew it, > however, another part of my mind was not to be prevented from seeing > that Easter Day, Sunday, was only the second day after the day > of crucifixion, Friday. This caused me no difficulty at that far off > time, and it cannot have been long afterwards that I abandoned all > speculation about such matters. > > The answer to the problem is, as usual, that there is no problem. The > ancient world reckoned the passage of time inclusively, so that to > every Roman yesterday was two days ago and tomorrow can along in two > days' time. And any Sunday was the third day after the preceding > Friday, whatever else might have been going on. This fact cannot have > been known for some centuries, but I have never heard of any Christian > who seems to have experienced difficulty in believing two apparently > incompatible things at once. This would appear to point to a > discernable incuriosity about one of the fundamental articles of > Christian faith. I don't concern myself with these sorts of issues. The reason is because I know that the culture was vastly different in those days--as you pointed out in your post. We still have problems with culture differences even today. A missionary in Haiti estabished a church in Haiti. He found out that some of the converts that were church members were still involved in voodoo worship. They had mixed together Christian worship and voodoo worship. I don't recall how the missionary dealt with this situation. The point is that many people living today truly can not relate to people that lived in cultures that are radically different than the culture that we live in. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.