Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <6j6h53hhgiiqohd3vmui1r1tvjfcl9m2n8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:56:39 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2605070156390001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <1180162865.376213.180240@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > > > >> On 25 Maj, 20:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> > In article <k0kd53hr57pjc5uouol048lefn61546...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:39:15 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> > > <Jason-2505070039150...@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > > >In article <jctc53tufh7gtmk44632l3e7q7cmdj5...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> > > >> Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> > > >> <1179804830.804769.229...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>: > >> > > >> >On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> > > >> >> <Jason-2105071149050...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> > > >> >> ... > >> > > >> > > >> >> >Martin, > >> > > >> >> >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that > >> > divided the > >> > > >> >> >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each > >> > group had > >> > > >> >> >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted > >> > each group > >> > > >> >> >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast overboard so= > >> that > >> > > >> >> >there would be more water for everyone else on the lifeboat to s= > >> hare. A > >> > > >> >> >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard > >> > since we > >> > > >> >> >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the > >> > logical thing > >> > > >> >> >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not use the= > >> term > >> > > >> >> >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young > >> > Christian man > >> > > >> >> >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, > >> > the other > >> > > >> >> >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes the s= > >> ame way > >> > > >> >> >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected all of > >> > > >> >> >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. > >> > > >> >> >Jason > >> > > >> > > >> >> So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you are in= > >> capable > >> > > >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go overboard an= > >> d you > >> > > >> >> are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness that = > >> causes > >> > > >> >> all to die. > >> > > >> > > >> >It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is > >> > > >> >served from cooperation rather than competition. > >> > > >> > > >> >Martin > >> > > >> > > >> Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish is the > >> > > >> one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if I hav= > >> e to > >> > > >> buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his > >> > > >> willingness to kill everyone. > >> > > >> > > >Are you saying that you would murder an elderly sick man in order to l= > >> ive > >> > > >several extra days? I would not do that. > >> > > >> > > I see that you selectively ignored the option that you sacrifice > >> > > yourself. Apparently you have decided that everyone should die because > >> > > you are neither capable of sacrificing yourself nor making a rational > >> > > decision about who else might be the best choice in this circumstance. > >> > > >> > > For what it's worth, the US is particularly bad in this area. We shower > >> > > billions on desperate measures for those who are dying anyway while we > >> > > allow children to die because their parents cannot afford health care > >> > > for them. > >> > > >> > The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing yourse= > >> lf.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >> > > >> > >> Now you are calling Jesus a sinner. Shame on you! > > > >Jesus did not kill himself. > > That's the only possible conclusion you can draw from the stories. For God so loved the world that he gave us his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him whould not perish but have eternal life. God send his son to die for us so that we could have eternal life. Jesus was crucified and died on a cross. He did not kill himself. What is your evidence that Jesus killed himself? See John 19:16-38 vs. 30 Jesus stated, "it is finished"--"he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." vs. 34 "and one of the soldiers pirced his side with a spear and immediately there came out boood and water." Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <f3a9cb$8pn$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f399hd$679$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhfp7j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism > >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>> <Jason-2505071319270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>> In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. > >>>>> If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. If you > >>>>> cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are > >>>>> different. > >>>>> > >>>> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the > >>>> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling > >>>> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? > >>> Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from dying. In > >>> relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would die if the > >>> grenade exploded. > >> And it's not certain that you would die in the open water, either. > > > > I disagree--I am not a good swimmer--I would not last long. > > But if this boat was rescuing you in the next hour, you would last. > Remember the boat that also was rescuing you an hour after you shove the > old man over the side? It would make more sense to spend that hour in the boat than in the water. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <f3a9gk$8pn$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f399qi$679$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f379j6$1fr$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing > > yourself. > >>>> So if you were on flight 93 (the 9/11 plane that crashed in PA where the > >>>> passengers knew was was going to happen if they didn't do anything) you > >>>> would have simply stood to one side and let the hijackers do what they > >>>> wanted to do? > >>>> > >>>> That figures. > >>> You are changing the goal post. > >> No, I'm simply looking at the one statement you made above. You said > >> that you shouldn't kill yourself. Plain and simple. > >> > >>> I was referring to the life boat scenario. > >>> Each scenario is different. I would have taken actions to save the lives > >>> of those people if I had been on that plane. > >> Including killing yourself? So which is it? Does the commandment say you > >> can kill yourself or not? > > > > When I made the statement, I was referring to normal types of suicide. I > > did not consider situations such as falling on a grenade or risking your > > life to save other people. I guess that could be considered suicide but I > > would call that "risking your life to save other people". In those cases, > > I would have to make judgements on a case by case basis. I would risk my > > life to save people but I would have to be sure that I was not needlessly > > risking my life. For example, I would not go into a burning building > > unless I was 100 percent sure that there was someone in that building. I > > would not jump off a lifeboat since it's possible the rescue could happen > > about 1 hour after I jumped out of the lifeboat. > > Jason > > I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when > killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the person > right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school full of > kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. Sounds > like "situational ethics" to me. Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become suicide bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your point. I have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and euthanasia. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <f3abqv$be9$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f3a9cb$8pn$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f399hd$679$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhfp7j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism > >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >>>>>> <Jason-2505071319270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >>>>>>> In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >>>>>>>> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have been a dud. > >>>>>>> If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. > > If you > >>>>>>> cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are > >>>>>>> different. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the > >>>>>> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling > >>>>>> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? > >>>>> Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from dying. In > >>>>> relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would die if the > >>>>> grenade exploded. > >>>> And it's not certain that you would die in the open water, either. > >>> I disagree--I am not a good swimmer--I would not last long. > >> But if this boat was rescuing you in the next hour, you would last. > >> Remember the boat that also was rescuing you an hour after you shove the > >> old man over the side? > > > > It would make more sense to spend that hour in the boat than in the water. > > But you don't KNOW that this boat was coming in an hour. I.e. it's the > same as the grenade situation. You don't know either way if you'd > survive or if you were sacrificing yourself to save the others. I had not thought of that. I still would not jump out of the boat since the possibilty of rescue during the first day would be possible. Perhaps, I may decide to jump out of the boat during the second or third day if the water supply was getting really low. Some life boats have the same sorts of electronic devices that are on planes to help rescuers quickly locate them. I heard about some mountain climbers that had such a device and the rescuers found them very quickly. Do you think that the people should take a vote to determine which person on the boat would be the best to allow to live--such as a heart surgean and that everyone else should jump off the boat? Would you jump off the boat during the first day? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <f3a9mp$8pn$4@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f39qln$okd$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <1180158726.338881.255070@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >>> <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Think of the Earth as one big lifeboat and we don't know if the > >>>> "rescue" (cooling) will start in years, decades or centuries. By > >>>> rationing fossil fuels now, we can actually avoid a calamity. We'd > >>>> also need those fossil fuels later for heating if the Earth started to > >>>> get cold. Polluting the environment now makes as much sense as > >>>> throwing an old man overboard: if we ration our supplies then we can > >>>> all be rescued. > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>> Martin, > >>> Think about it---if it is a cycle--the global warming will continue > >>> regardless of what we do. We can't control the major polluting countries > >>> of the world like China and India. Those people will not take actions to > >>> control pollution. They are on the lifeboat and don't care about anyone > >>> else on the lifeboat. > >> So if the old man on the lifeboat wants to be splashing water from the > >> ocean into the lifeboat, you should do likewise simply because you can't > >> stop him? Shouldn't you at least be doing what you can to bail some > >> water back OUT of the lifeboat even if he's splashing it back in as fast > >> as or faster than you can bail it back out? > > > > I am the only American in the boat and there are seven people on the boat > > that do not care about pollution. That guy from China is actually bragging > > about how much he loves pollution and CO2. They are splashing in the water > > much faster than I can spash it back out. After several hours, my arms get > > tired so I stop splashing. I give up. > > That's your problem. You'd just give up rather than try and stop them. It's difficult for one person to win the battle against seven people. The point is that the only way to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is if every country in the world takes major actions to reduce C02. If America is the only country that does it--the end result is that C02 levels will continue to rise. The result in America is that our economy would be placed in jeopardy--if we endorsed the accord. Both Clinton and Bush realized this and that is the reason they did not endorse the accords. Countries like China may sign the accord but as you may know--communist countries don't usually abide by agreements that they have signed. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 In article <f3a9rr$8pn$5@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f39r8u$okd$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <f379n7$1fr$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <f3761f$t99$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <f36o31$ea2$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > >>>>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In article <8lvhi4-im2.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > >>>>>>>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 13:18:02 -0700, Jason wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> In article <5blrl4F2tgqqhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > >>>>>>>>>>> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote\ > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but it's also possible that the young lady would have had an > >>>>>>>>> abortion > >>>>>>>>>>>>> if I had not been there to foot the bill. > >>>>>>>>>>>> But you don't know that. BTW, how much did it cost you? > >>>>>>>>>>> It was several years ago, I don't remember. > >>>>>>>>>> Says a lot, doesn't it. The one instance you actually did > > something > >>>>>>>>>> which sort of, kind of, almost fit in with your "belief", and > >>> even you > >>>>>>>>>> can't remember it well. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, it must have been a truly earth-shattering victory for > > your side. > >>>>>>>>>> 'Course, there is another implication in there as well. See, > > if you'd > >>>>>>>>>> actually had to pay enough to hurt - sell your house, say - to > > do this, > >>>>>>>>>> you would remember; maybe not to the dollar, but a general notion: > >>>>> "over a > >>>>>>>>>> quarter mil, all told" or "I don't recall the dollar value, but it > >>>>> cost me > >>>>>>>>>> my house, my car and most of my possessions." > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> So even here, when it cost you something, it cost you so little > >>> you don't > >>>>>>>>>> even remember. Yes, well, a marvelous display of the depths of your > >>>>>>>>>> conviction. > >>>>>>>>> It was about $300 to $400. > >>>>>>>> I thought you paid ALL her expenses. Hell, $3-400 wouldn't have even > >>>>>>>> paid for her food for 4 months. > >>>>>>> I paid the amount that the ministry asked for. It's possible that the > >>>>>>> people that adopted the babies had to pay the medical bills. > >>>>>> I.e. you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. > >>>>> I failed to take into consideration the medical expenses and perhaps other > >>>>> expenses such as utility bills. I paid the amount that the ministry > >>>>> requested. I did not even consider these issues until someone mentioned > >>>>> medical expenses in a post. I also stated that I did not remember the > >>>>> exact amount that I donated to the ministry--I was guessing that it was > >>>>> about $300-$400. It may have been more. > >>>> As I said, you lied when you said you paid ALL her expenses. Instead, > >>>> you paid what they asked for as a donation. Lies seem to be par for the > >>>> course for you. > >>> It was actully a mis-statement. It was not an intentional lie. > >> Even a brain-dead idiot should know that $100/month is NOT going to pay > >> for ALL of a person's expenses for even the food alone. But that's > >> exactly what you claimed until you were called on the issue. > >> > >> However, if > >>> it makes you feel better about yourself, you can continue to believe that > >>> I intentionally lied. > >> It doesn't make me feel anything about myself. I simply showed how you > >> tried to play us for fools and you got caught. > > > > It also shows that you don't understand what you read--I clearly stated > > (see above) that "I was guessing that it was about $300-$400. It may have > > been more". > > Unless it was more like $10,000, you didn't come close to paying "all > her expenses" for 4 or more months of pregnancy. Even $800 would work > out to $50/week. I'd LOVE to see you provide just food, shelter, etc. > for yourself on $50/week (not to mention the medical bills, etc.) > > Do you really take us for such fools? > > >>> The truth is that I paid the exact amount that the > >>> ministry requested. They had room for about 12 unwed mothers in that "home > >>> for unwed mothers". > >> Yes, the truth is that you paid what they asked for and you did NOT pay > >> "all of the expenses for the mother" as you claimed. No--if I had it to do over, I would have stated that I gave the ministry the exact amount of money they requested to care for one of the unwed mothers until she had her baby and that I did not remember the amount of money that I donated to that ministry. Quote
Guest Fred Stone Posted May 26, 2007 Posted May 26, 2007 Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1180226436.519851.76220@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > On May 25, 7:54 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote >> innews:1180048496.345636.295580@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com: > >> > On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: >> >> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> > On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> >> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions >> >> >> with a question. Even schools have changed. I found out that >> >> >> they are now showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of >> >> >> those students came home from school and was crying. She said >> >> >> that the planet would be destroyed by the time she was an adult >> >> >> and was worried that she would not be able to have a normal >> >> >> life. This real world is a crazy world. We were worried about >> >> >> Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when I was a child. >> >> >> > I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back >> >> > then to care about the environment. Obviously your generation >> >> > wasn't. >> >> >> I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the >> >> scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. >> >> > The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since >> > the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the >> > question is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it >> > down. >> >> The question is why we want to? > > Because we care about our children's future. > Because appeals to emotions are such convincing logical arguments. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing." -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:16:15 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2605071516160001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <656h539up887rtunifvms152avmt2pfs6v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:54:49 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2605070154500001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: .... >> >That might also been an exercise designed to cause children and young >> >adults to become advocates of euthanasia >> >> What's wrong with euthenasia? Remember that tribes or societies have >> limited resources. Resources spent on the old will be taken away from >> others, often the youngest who need it as much but will be able to help >> the society in the future. >> >> I think its absolutely wonderful that I live in a country that can >> afford to spend billions keeping people alive who are very old or unable >> ever to take care of themselves, but I know that this is something we >> want to do because we can. Sadly, we do take resources from children to >> do this, because our society is too selfish to make certain that every >> child is healthy and well-educated. We have our priorities screwed up, >> particularly since we are easily able to afford both. > >Are you in favor of teaching children in our public schools to become >advocates of euthanasia so that when they all become adults that they will >vote in favor of laws related to euthanasia? I am in favor of teaching children to think for themselves rather than being sheep who are easily duped by conmen, even the conmen who hide behind God to tell their lies. You have started with an unsupportable premise and a simplistic understanding of the world. Should I ask you if you support killing children by refusing to provide adequate health care for them? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:34:44 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2605071534440001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <6j6h53hhgiiqohd3vmui1r1tvjfcl9m2n8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:56:39 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2605070156390001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <1180162865.376213.180240@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: >> > >> >> On 25 Maj, 20:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> > In article <k0kd53hr57pjc5uouol048lefn61546...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > > On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:39:15 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> > > <Jason-2505070039150...@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> > > >In article <jctc53tufh7gtmk44632l3e7q7cmdj5...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >> > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > >> On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> > > >> Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> > > >> <1179804830.804769.229...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>: >> >> > > >> >On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism >> >> > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> > > >> >> <Jason-2105071149050...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> > > >> >> ... >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >Martin, >> >> > > >> >> >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that >> >> > divided the >> >> > > >> >> >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each >> >> > group had >> >> > > >> >> >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted >> >> > each group >> >> > > >> >> >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast >overboard so= >> >> that >> >> > > >> >> >there would be more water for everyone else on the >lifeboat to s= >> >> hare. A >> >> > > >> >> >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard >> >> > since we >> >> > > >> >> >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the >> >> > logical thing >> >> > > >> >> >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not >use the= >> >> term >> >> > > >> >> >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young >> >> > Christian man >> >> > > >> >> >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, >> >> > the other >> >> > > >> >> >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes >the s= >> >> ame way >> >> > > >> >> >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected >all of >> >> > > >> >> >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. >> >> > > >> >> >Jason >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you >are in= >> >> capable >> >> > > >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go >overboard an= >> >> d you >> >> > > >> >> are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness >that = >> >> causes >> >> > > >> >> all to die. >> >> > >> >> > > >> >It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is >> >> > > >> >served from cooperation rather than competition. >> >> > >> >> > > >> >Martin >> >> > >> >> > > >> Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish >is the >> >> > > >> one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if >I hav= >> >> e to >> >> > > >> buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his >> >> > > >> willingness to kill everyone. >> >> > >> >> > > >Are you saying that you would murder an elderly sick man in >order to l= >> >> ive >> >> > > >several extra days? I would not do that. >> >> > >> >> > > I see that you selectively ignored the option that you sacrifice >> >> > > yourself. Apparently you have decided that everyone should die because >> >> > > you are neither capable of sacrificing yourself nor making a rational >> >> > > decision about who else might be the best choice in this circumstance. >> >> > >> >> > > For what it's worth, the US is particularly bad in this area. We shower >> >> > > billions on desperate measures for those who are dying anyway while we >> >> > > allow children to die because their parents cannot afford health care >> >> > > for them. >> >> > >> >> > The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing >yourse= >> >> lf.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - >> >> > >> >> >> >> Now you are calling Jesus a sinner. Shame on you! >> > >> >Jesus did not kill himself. >> >> That's the only possible conclusion you can draw from the stories. > >For God so loved the world that he gave us his only begotten Son that >whosoever believes in Him whould not perish but have eternal life. > >God send his son to die for us so that we could have eternal life. Jesus >was crucified and died on a cross. He did not kill himself. What is your >evidence that Jesus killed himself? According to the stories, Jesus was completely capable of avoiding capture and crucifixion. His decisions were no different than those today of people who commit suicide by cop. > >See John 19:16-38 >vs. 30 Jesus stated, "it is finished"--"he bowed his head and gave up his >spirit." >vs. 34 "and one of the soldiers pirced his side with a spear and >immediately there came out boood and water." > Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:02:42 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2605071502430001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <cs6h535dkikcgnpijc347tbrn6j7snknk2@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 22:18:09 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2505072218090001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <s5bf531184gghqsgln6gggss9h668uoi3u@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 21:27:33 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-2505072127340001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> >In article <1180146027.923202.127550@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On May 25, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> >> >> > In article <1180062824.128380.135...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, >> >Martin >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> > > Scientists had predicted that the warming would peak but they >now say >> >> >> > > that the warming is accelerating. They point to the burning >of fossil >> >> >> > > fuels and the subsequent increase in greenhouse gases as being the >> >> >> > > cause. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Not all scientists. There are some scientists that believe it is a >> >natural >> >> >> > cycle. >> >> >> >> >> >> But based on the theory that the warming was simply a natural process, >> >> >> scientists were expecting the Earth to start getting cooler again. >> >> >> >> >> >> Martin >> >> > >> >> >Martin, >> >> >Some scientists believe that it will start getting cooler again but they >> >> >are not sure when the cooling cycle will kick in. >> >> >Jason >> >> >> >> You don't seem to understand the problem. Yes, there has been a >> >> long-term climate cycle. What we are seeing right now is not part of >> >> that cycle, it is a result of human activity. >> > >> >I know that is what many scientists believe. >> >> Scientists gather evidence. It's not about belief in the way religion >> is. >> >> >However, there are other >> >scientists that believe it is a natural cycle but that human activity is >> >playing a role in making the natural cycle worse than it would have been >> >if humans were not on this planet. I agree with the scientists that >> >believe that it is a natural cycle. >> >> Yet you ignore that humans are exacerbating the problem. The only >> 'scientists' who deny it are the anti-science fools in the Bush >> administration. > >I disagree. Some of the scientists that are of the opinion (based on >research) that the primary reason for global warming is because it's a >natural cycle. Many of those scientists that have that point of view do >not work for the Bush administration. > I see that you omitted the important part that you had provided earlier: >> >but that human activity is >> >playing a role in making the natural cycle worse than it would have been >> >if humans were not on this planet. Whatever that place we are in the natural cycle, human activity has made the earth warm more than it would have. Got it? Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 16:37:06 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2605071637060001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f3abqv$be9$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <f3a9cb$8pn$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Jason wrote: >> >>> In article <f399hd$679$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Jason wrote: >> >>>>> In article <qfee5319c791fusl855bb56d0alnrhfp7j@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:19:27 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >>>>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >>>>>> <Jason-2505071319270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >>>>>>> In article <7dce53lg6nfjjuss633jvi9ttehil1v39e@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> >>>>>>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> No more than it's possible that the hand grenade would have >been a dud. >> >>>>>>> If the grenade was a dud--the person that jumped on it would live. >> > If you >> >>>>>>> cast the elderly man overboard, he would have died. The scenarios are >> >>>>>>> different. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> You keep ignoring that one of the options was for _you_ to leave the >> >>>>>> lifeboat and take your chances in the open water. Why are you unwilling >> >>>>>> to take that option to save the others in the lifeboat? >> >>>>> Because it is NOT certain that it would prevent the others from >dying. In >> >>>>> relation to the grenade, it would be certain that people would die >if the >> >>>>> grenade exploded. >> >>>> And it's not certain that you would die in the open water, either. >> >>> I disagree--I am not a good swimmer--I would not last long. >> >> But if this boat was rescuing you in the next hour, you would last. >> >> Remember the boat that also was rescuing you an hour after you shove the >> >> old man over the side? >> > >> > It would make more sense to spend that hour in the boat than in the water. >> >> But you don't KNOW that this boat was coming in an hour. I.e. it's the >> same as the grenade situation. You don't know either way if you'd >> survive or if you were sacrificing yourself to save the others. > >I had not thought of that. I still would not jump out of the boat since >the possibilty of rescue during the first day would be possible. Perhaps, >I may decide to jump out of the boat during the second or third day if the >water supply was getting really low. Some life boats have the same sorts >of electronic devices that are on planes to help rescuers quickly locate >them. I heard about some mountain climbers that had such a device and the >rescuers found them very quickly. Do you think that the people should take >a vote to determine which person on the boat would be the best to allow to >live--such as a heart surgean and that everyone else should jump off the >boat? Would you jump off the boat during the first day? >Jason > The longer you wait, the more likely you are to kill everyone on board. Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On May 25, 7:54 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1180048496.345636.295580@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com: > > On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > >> > On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> >> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions with > >> >> a question. Even schools have changed. I found out that they are > >> >> now showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of those > >> >> students came home from school and was crying. She said that the > >> >> planet would be destroyed by the time she was an adult and was > >> >> worried that she would not be able to have a normal life. This > >> >> real world is a crazy world. We were worried about Russia firing > >> >> nuclear missiles at America when I was a child. > > >> > I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back then > >> > to care about the environment. Obviously your generation wasn't. > > >> I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the > >> scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. > > > The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since > > the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the question > > is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it down. > > The question is why we want to? Because we care about our children's future. Martin Quote
Guest AT1 Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f3abu2$be9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <f3a9gk$8pn$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when >>>> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the person >>>> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school full of >>>> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. Sounds >>>> like "situational ethics" to me. >>> Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become suicide >>> bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your point. I >>> have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you >>> understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash >>> children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and euthanasia. >> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for classes on >> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." > > That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash > children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology professors > could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from non-life > despite the lack of proof that it happened. > Jason > > Life did evolve from non-life. So if by 'brainwashing' you mean 'educating', then yes; teachers brainwash children. However, unlike your belief in infallible mysticism; if new evidence is discovered that life originated in another way, it will be embraced by the scientific community. Religion refuses to adapt to anything, and instead insists on blind, steadfast adherence to ignorant, millenia-old garbage. -- AT1 http://www.godblows.net Quote
Guest AT1 Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <qjjh531dfc2hk1r2bc7o6kfi16il7selj9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:16:15 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2605071516160001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >>> In article <656h539up887rtunifvms152avmt2pfs6v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >>> <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:54:49 -0700, in alt.atheism >>>> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >>>> <Jason-2605070154500001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> ... >> >>>>> That might also been an exercise designed to cause children and young >>>>> adults to become advocates of euthanasia >>>> What's wrong with euthenasia? Remember that tribes or societies have >>>> limited resources. Resources spent on the old will be taken away from >>>> others, often the youngest who need it as much but will be able to help >>>> the society in the future. >>>> >>>> I think its absolutely wonderful that I live in a country that can >>>> afford to spend billions keeping people alive who are very old or unable >>>> ever to take care of themselves, but I know that this is something we >>>> want to do because we can. Sadly, we do take resources from children to >>>> do this, because our society is too selfish to make certain that every >>>> child is healthy and well-educated. We have our priorities screwed up, >>>> particularly since we are easily able to afford both. >>> Are you in favor of teaching children in our public schools to become >>> advocates of euthanasia so that when they all become adults that they will >>> vote in favor of laws related to euthanasia? >> I am in favor of teaching children to think for themselves rather than >> being sheep who are easily duped by conmen, even the conmen who hide >> behind God to tell their lies. >> >> You have started with an unsupportable premise and a simplistic >> understanding of the world. Should I ask you if you support killing >> children by refusing to provide adequate health care for them? > > I live in California. Many members of the lower class in this state can > receive Medicade which is similar to Medicare. I think that program is > wonderful and I am glad that lower class families get excellent health > care in California. I care about children regardless of their age. Would > you be happier if there were no advocates for unwanted unborn babies? In > other words, would you be pleased if all pro-life organizations stopped > protesting in front of abortion clinics? > Jason > > Yes. -- AT1 http://www.godblows.net Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On May 27, 3:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Neither Clinton or Bush wanted to cause harm to the economy while they > were presidents. It's related to the building of their legacies. I am glad > that the Kyoto Accord was not approved. The reason is because I care about > the millions of people that work in American factories. If the Kyoto > Accord is approved in America--even more factories will close down. It's > cheaper to close down a factory than to install billions of dollars worth > of pollution equipment. The problem with the Kyoto Accord is that > countries like China will sign it but will do little or nothing to abide > by it. There's not much they have to do. United States produces three times as much emissions with a quarter of their population. > That is the nature of Communist countries--they sign agreements and > usually do whatever they want to do. On the other hand, environmentalists > would DEMAND that America abide by all provisions of the Kyoto Accord and > they will get their way. If America becomes the only country in the world > that abides by the Kyoto Accord, that means the world problems related to > C02 levels and pollution will get worse and not better. The United States did sign the accord during the Clinton Administration but it was never ratified by the American congress. Environmentalists worldwide have demanded that the US abide by its signature, for all the good it does them. Martin Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> snip > > That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash > children into becoming atheist. Are you serious? What a load. > High Scoool Which you probably graduate from...... -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On May 27, 8:25 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:34:44 -0700, in alt.atheism > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2605071534440...@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > > > > > >In article <6j6h53hhgiiqohd3vmui1r1tvjfcl9m...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:56:39 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2605070156390...@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <1180162865.376213.180...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > >> >gudl...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >> >> On 25 Maj, 20:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing > >yourself > >> >> Now you are calling Jesus a sinner. Shame on you! > > >> >Jesus did not kill himself. > > >> That's the only possible conclusion you can draw from the stories. > > >For God so loved the world that he gave us his only begotten Son that > >whosoever believes in Him whould not perish but have eternal life. > > >God send his son to die for us so that we could have eternal life. Jesus > >was crucified and died on a cross. He did not kill himself. What is your > >evidence that Jesus killed himself? > > According to the stories, Jesus was completely capable of avoiding > capture and crucifixion. His decisions were no different than those > today of people who commit suicide by cop. Which is why Cho said he was going to "die like Jesus Christ". Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On May 27, 7:56 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:1180226436.519851.76220@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On May 25, 7:54 pm, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> innews:1180048496.345636.295580@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com: > > >> > On May 23, 6:07 am, Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote: > >> >> Martin Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> >> innews:1179557065.234911.197640@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: > > >> >> > On May 19, 3:49 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > >> >> >> That is true. In the real world, people can answer questions > >> >> >> with a question. Even schools have changed. I found out that > >> >> >> they are now showing Al Gore's movie in grade schools. One of > >> >> >> those students came home from school and was crying. She said > >> >> >> that the planet would be destroyed by the time she was an adult > >> >> >> and was worried that she would not be able to have a normal > >> >> >> life. This real world is a crazy world. We were worried about > >> >> >> Russia firing nuclear missiles at America when I was a child. > > >> >> > I was in grade school thirty years ago and we were taught back > >> >> > then to care about the environment. Obviously your generation > >> >> > wasn't. > > >> >> I was in high school thirty years ago, and I was taught about the > >> >> scientific method. Obviously your generation wasn't. > > >> > The Earth is getting warmer. It's been slowly getting warmer since > >> > the end of the last ice age. It's an alarming trend and the > >> > question is whether or not there is anything we can do to slow it > >> > down. > > >> The question is why we want to? > > > Because we care about our children's future. > > Because appeals to emotions are such convincing logical arguments. Except to those of us who feel nothing, eh? Martin Quote
Guest Martin Phipps Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On May 27, 9:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <f3abu2$be...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > > In article <f3a9gk$8p...@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > > <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when > > >> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the person > > >> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school full of > > >> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. Sounds > > >> like "situational ethics" to me. > > > > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become suicide > > > bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your point. I > > > have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you > > > understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash > > > children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and euthanasia. > > > I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for classes on > > religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." > > That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash > children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology professors > could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from non-life > despite the lack of proof that it happened. It's not brainwashing: it's enlightenment. And it's your Bible, not evolution, that lacks any proof. It's just a pack of lies. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 In article <f3abu2$be9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f3a9gk$8pn$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when > >> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the person > >> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school full of > >> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. Sounds > >> like "situational ethics" to me. > > > > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become suicide > > bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your point. I > > have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you > > understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash > > children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and euthanasia. > > I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for classes on > religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology professors could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from non-life despite the lack of proof that it happened. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 In article <pujh53hc0b5l726dr2218vuqp6gesbeb2t@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:34:44 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2605071534440001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <6j6h53hhgiiqohd3vmui1r1tvjfcl9m2n8@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:56:39 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2605070156390001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <1180162865.376213.180240@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > >> >gudloos@yahoo.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 25 Maj, 20:21, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> > In article <k0kd53hr57pjc5uouol048lefn61546...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:39:15 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> > > J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> > > <Jason-2505070039150...@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> > > >In article <jctc53tufh7gtmk44632l3e7q7cmdj5...@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> >> > > ><l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> On 21 May 2007 20:33:50 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> > > >> Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> >> > > >> <1179804830.804769.229...@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com>: > >> >> > > >> >On May 22, 6:53 am, Free Lunch <l...@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:49:05 -0700, in alt.talk.creationism > >> >> > > >> >> J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> > > >> >> <Jason-2105071149050...@66-52-22-82.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> > > >> >> ... > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >Martin, > >> >> > > >> >> >No--that happened to another person. That was the teacher that > >> >> > divided the > >> >> > > >> >> >class into 5 small groups. We done the lifeboat scenario. Each > >> >> > group had > >> >> > > >> >> >to decide which person to cast overboard. Of course, she wanted > >> >> > each group > >> >> > > >> >> >to conclude that the elderly sick man would be cast > >overboard so= > >> >> that > >> >> > > >> >> >there would be more water for everyone else on the > >lifeboat to s= > >> >> hare. A > >> >> > > >> >> >group of mostly Christians decided to NOT cast anyone overboard > >> >> > since we > >> >> > > >> >> >viewed it as murder. She humiliated us and told us that the > >> >> > logical thing > >> >> > > >> >> >to do was to murder that old man. Of course, she did not > >use the= > >> >> term > >> >> > > >> >> >"murder". I lost my respect for her on that day. One young > >> >> > Christian man > >> >> > > >> >> >dropped out of the class because of that professor. As I stated, > >> >> > the other > >> >> > > >> >> >atheist professors treated the Christians in their classes > >the s= > >> >> ame way > >> >> > > >> >> >that they treated the non-Christians. In fact, I respected > >all of > >> >> > > >> >> >them--except for that lady that humiliated us. > >> >> > > >> >> >Jason > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> So, in your mind everyone should be 'murdered' because you > >are in= > >> >> capable > >> >> > > >> >> of deciding who is least valuable when one has to go > >overboard an= > >> >> d you > >> >> > > >> >> are unwilling to go over voluntarily. It's your selfishness > >that = > >> >> causes > >> >> > > >> >> all to die. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >It's not a real life scenario. In real life, the greater good is > >> >> > > >> >served from cooperation rather than competition. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >Martin > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> Of course it's not a real life scenario, but Jason-the-selfish > >is the > >> >> > > >> one who insists on wallowing in it. I merely note that even if > >I hav= > >> >> e to > >> >> > > >> buy into his nonsense, he isn't making Christians look good with his > >> >> > > >> willingness to kill everyone. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >Are you saying that you would murder an elderly sick man in > >order to l= > >> >> ive > >> >> > > >several extra days? I would not do that. > >> >> > > >> >> > > I see that you selectively ignored the option that you sacrifice > >> >> > > yourself. Apparently you have decided that everyone should die because > >> >> > > you are neither capable of sacrificing yourself nor making a rational > >> >> > > decision about who else might be the best choice in this circumstance. > >> >> > > >> >> > > For what it's worth, the US is particularly bad in this area. We shower > >> >> > > billions on desperate measures for those who are dying anyway while we > >> >> > > allow children to die because their parents cannot afford health care > >> >> > > for them. > >> >> > > >> >> > The commandment states: Thou shall not kill--that includes killing > >yourse= > >> >> lf.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn - > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Now you are calling Jesus a sinner. Shame on you! > >> > > >> >Jesus did not kill himself. > >> > >> That's the only possible conclusion you can draw from the stories. > > > >For God so loved the world that he gave us his only begotten Son that > >whosoever believes in Him whould not perish but have eternal life. > > > >God send his son to die for us so that we could have eternal life. Jesus > >was crucified and died on a cross. He did not kill himself. What is your > >evidence that Jesus killed himself? > > According to the stories, Jesus was completely capable of avoiding > capture and crucifixion. His decisions were no different than those > today of people who commit suicide by cop. > > > >See John 19:16-38 > >vs. 30 Jesus stated, "it is finished"--"he bowed his head and gave up his > >spirit." > >vs. 34 "and one of the soldiers pirced his side with a spear and > >immediately there came out boood and water." > > If he was willing to tell lies, he could have avoided being crucified. He refused to lie. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 In article <qjjh531dfc2hk1r2bc7o6kfi16il7selj9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:16:15 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2605071516160001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <656h539up887rtunifvms152avmt2pfs6v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:54:49 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2605070154500001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > > ... > > >> >That might also been an exercise designed to cause children and young > >> >adults to become advocates of euthanasia > >> > >> What's wrong with euthenasia? Remember that tribes or societies have > >> limited resources. Resources spent on the old will be taken away from > >> others, often the youngest who need it as much but will be able to help > >> the society in the future. > >> > >> I think its absolutely wonderful that I live in a country that can > >> afford to spend billions keeping people alive who are very old or unable > >> ever to take care of themselves, but I know that this is something we > >> want to do because we can. Sadly, we do take resources from children to > >> do this, because our society is too selfish to make certain that every > >> child is healthy and well-educated. We have our priorities screwed up, > >> particularly since we are easily able to afford both. > > > >Are you in favor of teaching children in our public schools to become > >advocates of euthanasia so that when they all become adults that they will > >vote in favor of laws related to euthanasia? > > I am in favor of teaching children to think for themselves rather than > being sheep who are easily duped by conmen, even the conmen who hide > behind God to tell their lies. > > You have started with an unsupportable premise and a simplistic > understanding of the world. Should I ask you if you support killing > children by refusing to provide adequate health care for them? I live in California. Many members of the lower class in this state can receive Medicade which is similar to Medicare. I think that program is wonderful and I am glad that lower class families get excellent health care in California. I care about children regardless of their age. Would you be happier if there were no advocates for unwanted unborn babies? In other words, would you be pleased if all pro-life organizations stopped protesting in front of abortion clinics? Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 In article <3ckh535fhnv0ajb7clfgpnomj01590adcu@4ax.com>, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:02:42 -0700, in alt.atheism > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > <Jason-2605071502430001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >In article <cs6h535dkikcgnpijc347tbrn6j7snknk2@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 22:18:09 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> <Jason-2505072218090001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >In article <s5bf531184gghqsgln6gggss9h668uoi3u@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 21:27:33 -0700, in alt.atheism > >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in > >> >> <Jason-2505072127340001@66-52-22-84.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: > >> >> >In article <1180146027.923202.127550@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >> >> >Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On May 25, 12:49 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> >> >> > In article <1180062824.128380.135...@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, > >> >Martin > >> >> > >> >> ... > >> >> >> > > Scientists had predicted that the warming would peak but they > >now say > >> >> >> > > that the warming is accelerating. They point to the burning > >of fossil > >> >> >> > > fuels and the subsequent increase in greenhouse gases as being the > >> >> >> > > cause. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Not all scientists. There are some scientists that believe it is a > >> >natural > >> >> >> > cycle. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> But based on the theory that the warming was simply a natural process, > >> >> >> scientists were expecting the Earth to start getting cooler again. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Martin > >> >> > > >> >> >Martin, > >> >> >Some scientists believe that it will start getting cooler again but they > >> >> >are not sure when the cooling cycle will kick in. > >> >> >Jason > >> >> > >> >> You don't seem to understand the problem. Yes, there has been a > >> >> long-term climate cycle. What we are seeing right now is not part of > >> >> that cycle, it is a result of human activity. > >> > > >> >I know that is what many scientists believe. > >> > >> Scientists gather evidence. It's not about belief in the way religion > >> is. > >> > >> >However, there are other > >> >scientists that believe it is a natural cycle but that human activity is > >> >playing a role in making the natural cycle worse than it would have been > >> >if humans were not on this planet. I agree with the scientists that > >> >believe that it is a natural cycle. > >> > >> Yet you ignore that humans are exacerbating the problem. The only > >> 'scientists' who deny it are the anti-science fools in the Bush > >> administration. > > > >I disagree. Some of the scientists that are of the opinion (based on > >research) that the primary reason for global warming is because it's a > >natural cycle. Many of those scientists that have that point of view do > >not work for the Bush administration. > > > I see that you omitted the important part that you had provided earlier: > > >> >but that human activity is > >> >playing a role in making the natural cycle worse than it would have been > >> >if humans were not on this planet. > > Whatever that place we are in the natural cycle, human activity has made > the earth warm more than it would have. Got it? Yes--I agree. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:08:23 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2605071908230001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <qjjh531dfc2hk1r2bc7o6kfi16il7selj9@4ax.com>, Free Lunch ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 15:16:15 -0700, in alt.atheism >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> <Jason-2605071516160001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >In article <656h539up887rtunifvms152avmt2pfs6v@4ax.com>, Free Lunch >> ><lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 26 May 2007 01:54:49 -0700, in alt.atheism >> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in >> >> <Jason-2605070154500001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >> >> ... >> >> >> >That might also been an exercise designed to cause children and young >> >> >adults to become advocates of euthanasia >> >> >> >> What's wrong with euthenasia? Remember that tribes or societies have >> >> limited resources. Resources spent on the old will be taken away from >> >> others, often the youngest who need it as much but will be able to help >> >> the society in the future. >> >> >> >> I think its absolutely wonderful that I live in a country that can >> >> afford to spend billions keeping people alive who are very old or unable >> >> ever to take care of themselves, but I know that this is something we >> >> want to do because we can. Sadly, we do take resources from children to >> >> do this, because our society is too selfish to make certain that every >> >> child is healthy and well-educated. We have our priorities screwed up, >> >> particularly since we are easily able to afford both. >> > >> >Are you in favor of teaching children in our public schools to become >> >advocates of euthanasia so that when they all become adults that they will >> >vote in favor of laws related to euthanasia? >> >> I am in favor of teaching children to think for themselves rather than >> being sheep who are easily duped by conmen, even the conmen who hide >> behind God to tell their lies. >> >> You have started with an unsupportable premise and a simplistic >> understanding of the world. Should I ask you if you support killing >> children by refusing to provide adequate health care for them? > >I live in California. Many members of the lower class in this state can >receive Medicade which is similar to Medicare. I think that program is >wonderful and I am glad that lower class families get excellent health >care in California. I care about children regardless of their age. Would >you be happier if there were no advocates for unwanted unborn babies? In >other words, would you be pleased if all pro-life organizations stopped >protesting in front of abortion clinics? Yes. Since they are not the ones who are pregnant or responsible for the child when it is born, they should shut up and mind their own business. Quote
Guest Free Lunch Posted May 27, 2007 Posted May 27, 2007 On Sat, 26 May 2007 18:57:12 -0700, in alt.atheism Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in <Jason-2605071857120001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>: >In article <f3abu2$be9$2@news04.infoave.net>, Mike ><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> > In article <f3a9gk$8pn$3@news04.infoave.net>, Mike >> > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: >> > >> >> I.e. that law about killing is NOT an absolute? There ARE cases when >> >> killing is allowed? There ARE times, such as when you kill the person >> >> right before he pushes the button that would blow up the school full of >> >> kids, when killing another person is OK? Well, I'll be damned. Sounds >> >> like "situational ethics" to me. >> > >> > Yes, but that is different from brainwashing children to become suicide >> > bombers or to become advocates of euthanasia. I understand your point. I >> > have no problem with teaching children to care about people. Can you >> > understand that situational ethics classes could be used to brainwash >> > children to believe in almost anything such as abortion and euthanasia. >> >> I never said they couldn't be. But the same could be said for classes on >> religion. ANYTHING could be used to "brainwash children." > >That is true. In addition, and atheist parents or teachers could brainwash >children into becoming atheist. High Scoool and College Biology professors >could brainwash students into believing that life can evolve from non-life >despite the lack of proof that it happened. There is overwhelming evidence that it happened and there is no evidence that the method by which it happened had anything to do with a supernatural being. Sorry, but your hatred of science causes you to tell repeated falsehoods. Why would a loving God turn you into a liar? 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.