Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 [snips] On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:36:14 -0800, Jason wrote: > Jim, > I should have been more clear. I had in mind a relative that was in a > coma. The relatives in that sort of case would have to decide whether or > not to allow the doctors to unhook any machines that were keeping the > relative alive. In that case, I would vote to unhook the machines. The > people that were not in favor of mercy killing would vote to keep all of > those machines hooked up. I have a living will so I would never end up in > that sort of situation. Except that you just might, anyhow. All it tales is some meddling God-addled nutjob with some sort of relevant claim - spouse, parent, what have you - and all of a sudden your living will means squat, unless and until fought and won in court. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 Mike wrote: > Jason wrote: >> The 10 commandments are the only laws from the Old Testament that most >> Christians pay any attention to. Most of those laws are unrelated to life >> in America. For example, many of the laws are related to animals. Imagine >> the trouble that Christians could get into if we stoned someone to death >> for committing adultery. > > Ok, Jason, let's see how much attention you pay to the 10 commandments > (and possibly get you to finally understand that there is no "one right > answer" in all circumstances.) > > There is a religious group (doesn't matter who other than they aren't > xians) who have become convinced that a 2 year old living in NY is the > "antichrist" of their religion. They are desperate to kill this child or > have it killed. They don't care about what penalty they'd pay and, other > than this, they are a very peaceful group. They have repeatly tried, at > great expense of money and life, to kill this child. > > They have taken control of a nuclear sub and have several children as > hostages in the sub. The sub is in 300' of water off the coast of NY. > They know the launch codes for the nukes. There is no way possible to > get the children out of the sub and dropping depth charges will kill all > on board. You are in charge of the naval ships that could drop such > charges. > > They have sent a demand to you: Personally kill the child on live TV by > 5:00pm, at which time we will surface the sub and surrender, or we > launch a nuke on NYC which will kill the child and then we will surface > and surrender. Based on your knowledge of the religion, etc. you know > that they will keep their word on the surrender. > > Now your only options are: > > 1: Kill the child yourself. > > 2: Drop depth charges on the sub, killing them but also killing several > children on board. > > 3: Do nothing and let them nuke NYC, thus killing the child as well as > many others. > > NO other options (such as "we won't vote at all and just pray that a > rescue ship comes by and gets us before we all die of thirst." or "I'll > wait to see if I can get a clear shot.") are available. > > What are you going to do? > > Personally, I'd kill the child. I wouldn't be happy at all about it and > would probably need therapy for the rest of my life, but I'd see no > other choice. > > Occasionally, you have no other choice but to kill an innocent person. Yes. Sometimes it is that way. This is not really one of the questions that come out the same no matter who you ask. I would blow that sub out of the water. No negotiating with blackmailers. Never. If you start at one place to give in, more will follow. Hit them hard, hit them fast. I would mourn the dead kids, of course. And if I was the statesman that ordered that attack I would immediatley resign after the success of that mission, take full responsibility and face whatever charges are put to me. You simply cannot cave in to blackmailers, hostage takers and such creeps. If you give in once, there is no telling where it stops. Well, that would be my reaction. In theory. Never have been in such a situation and hopefully, never will be. Tokay -- Rule of Feline Frustration: When your cat has fallen asleep on your lap and looks utterly content and adorable, you will suddenly have to go to the bathroom. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <8MqdnQZ7eIgkT7vanZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo > Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> Prove that there was a primordial pond. Tell me the exact location of the >>>>>>> primordial pond. >>>>>> Earth. >>>>> >>>>> Be more specific. >>>> Third planet from the Sun, Solar system, Milky Way Galaxy. >>> >>> If you can't tell me the location of the primordial pond, don't expect me >>> to tell you the location of heaven. >> I gave you the location. What do you expect me to do, give you coordinates >> of an event that happened before the continents formed, merged, separated, >> merged again, separated again, etc? >> >> Now that you have the location of the primordial pond neatly narrowed down >> to a particular planet out of the Universe billions of light years across, >> give me a rough idea where "heaven" is. Next door to Nirvana? Two blocks >> south of Hades? Three miles NE of Valhalla, exit 167? > > Heaven is in another dimension. > > Ah, he gets specific. Now we are into the sci-fi realm. And/or actual science. So far, the best "idea" ("M-theory") is that there are 11 dimensions. But I guess you don't even know what a "dimension" is? Used in the sci-fi-sense, it is a different place. Which is bullshit, of course. Scientifically or better yet, mathematically, it is rather easy (for mathematicians at least. Not for me) to calculate many dimensions. Ok, lets say, we mix up the dimensions of M-theory with the sci-fi-dimensions. You have 7 to choose from (four are already taken). Which one? Tokay -- Rule of Feline Frustration: When your cat has fallen asleep on your lap and looks utterly content and adorable, you will suddenly have to go to the bathroom. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fg6k9n$i7e$03$3@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <8YmdnUGVWrg5ULvanZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo >>> Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> Prove that there was a primordial pond. Tell me the exact location > of the >>>>>>> primordial pond. >>>>>> Earth. >>>>> Be more specific. >>>> Third planet from the Sun, Solar system, Milky Way Galaxy. >>> If you can't tell me the location of the primordial pond, don't expect me >>> to tell you the location of heaven. >>> >>> >> He did. And I did. Earth. The ocean. Which then pretty much covered the >> whole globe. I'd have thought you'd jump at that. Big flood and all. >> >> Tokay > > Heaven is in another dimension. > > What is a dimension? Tokay -- Rule of Feline Frustration: When your cat has fallen asleep on your lap and looks utterly content and adorable, you will suddenly have to go to the bathroom. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 Robibnikoff wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > > snip > >> If you can't tell me the location of the primordial pond, don't expect me >> to tell you the location of heaven. > > Jason, you can't tell us the location of heaven because you know it doesn't > exist. Just admit it. Actually, I think he believes it exists. He just can prove it. Of course he can't. So, strictly speaking, he is not a liar. He is deluded, but not a liar. By the way, to compare the primal pond scenario (it is a scenario, a "happening" if you will and not really a place at all), that has experiments that show that scenario to be possible with "heaven", which has no experiments, tests, facts, whatever in its favour, is really bullshit and nothing but. It creates the impression that this is a scientific debate, which it is not. Of course he can't answer where heaven is. "In another dimension" is bullshit, it is sitting in a corner and no way out. He believes it to exist, well, that's his privilege, but he can't expect us to take his word for it. And there is NOTHING BUT his word (and the words of other bible thumpers). Tokay -- Rule of Feline Frustration: When your cat has fallen asleep on your lap and looks utterly content and adorable, you will suddenly have to go to the bathroom. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fg6ker$i7e$03$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <fg62qn$gno$03$4@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <fg5te3$89h$02$3@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>>>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>> In article <MPG.218fd28dceffbf7f98a275@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >>>>>>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In article <Jason-2610071454470001@67-150-120-210.lsan.mdsg- >>>>>>>> pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... >>>>>>>>> In article > <MPG.218bea98da6359c298a270@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James >>>>>>>>> Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In article <fft631$on4$1@news04.infoave.net>, > prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com >>>>>>>>>> says... >>>>>>>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I guess they could move to that state where doctors are allowed >>>>>>> to legally >>>>>>>>>>>> kill them. Is the name of that state Oregon? They are trying to >>>>>>> pass that >>>>>>>>>>>> same law in California. Believe it or not, I hope they make it >>>>>>> legal for >>>>>>>>>>>> doctors to kill patients that are in terrible pain that want to >>>>>>> die. Of >>>>>>>>>>>> course, the patients should sign legal forms indicating they >>>>>>> want to die. >>>>>>>>>>> Let me get this straight: it's OK for a doctor to prescribe an >>> overdose >>>>>>>>>>> of painkiller to kill someone in pain but it's not OK for others >>>>>>> to kill >>>>>>>>>>> someone (aka "murder is a sin") AND it's not OK for someone to kill >>>>>>>>>>> themselves, no matter how much pain, right? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Doctor kills you: OK. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I kill you: bad. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You kill yourself: bad. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Got it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you go to the doctor to get killed, that is still suicide. >>>>>>>>>> You sought the doctor, he didn't come for you like some kind of soul >>>>>>>>>> hunter. >>>>>>>>>> Jason's convoluted thought processes are a wonder to behold. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>>>> Google "mercy killing". It's very different than a young healty person >>>>>>>>> committing suicide or 1st degree murder. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Split hairs all you want. >>>>>>>> Your good book says suicide is wrong. >>>>>>>> Seeking out someone to kill you is suicide. >>>>>>>> Plain and simple. >>>>>>>> If I pull a gun on a cop with the intention of having him/her > kill me it >>>>>>>> is called suicide by cop. Is it any different if it is some other >>>>>>>> person I use? No, and you know it. You have just been subjected to a >>>>>>>> situation in your life that has made you reconsider some of the >>>>>>>> teachings of your book. You have modified your beliefs based on some >>>>>>>> pain and suffering you have seen. Maybe it is time to reconsider some >>>>>>>> of your other beliefs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jim >>>>>>> The option is for people to watch their relatives spend several weeks or >>>>>>> even several months dying in terrible pain and agony. I watched my > father >>>>>>> die in pain and agony of lung cancer. I wish that a doctor would have >>>>>>> committed a mercy killing. >>>>>> Why didn't you do it? >>>>> I was 12 years old. There were several people in the hospital room. If I >>>>> had been an adult, I probably would have found a way to do it--perhaps by >>>>> unhooking one of the machines that were keeping him alive. >>>> Therefor killing him and therefor going to your "hell". Not my >>>> reasoning. Yours. >>>> >>>> >>>> Tokay >>> My daddy was dying in terrible pain and agony. If you have never been in >>> that sort of situation, I don't expect you to understand. >> Don't you DARE. >> You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. >> >> I have never >>> killed anyone or ever helped anyone commit suicide. I hope I am never in >>> that situation. >> So, but your sky pixie says killing is wrong and that you will go to >> hell for it. No matter how you rationalize it or apply reason to >> specific cases. You still would kill, and you still would go to hell. >> Your reasoning. Not mine. >> >> >> Tokay > > There is at least one case were murder is not a crime and in my opinion is > not a sin. That case is justifiable homicide. Not a word about that in your book. I believe that mercy killing > by a medical doctor should be considered to be justifiable homicide. In > one state, it's legal for doctors to conduct mercy killings. That is LAW. And says nothing about what that sky pixie of yours does to the one that kills. According to that book of yours, GOD HIMSELF belongs in hell... "You shall not kill" or some such. He killed quite a few. And a lot of them were innocent (well, it is in that book of yours....) Tokay -- Rule of Feline Frustration: When your cat has fallen asleep on your lap and looks utterly content and adorable, you will suddenly have to go to the bathroom. Quote
Guest Mike Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 Tokay Pino Gris wrote: > Mike wrote: >> Jason wrote: >>> The 10 commandments are the only laws from the Old Testament that most >>> Christians pay any attention to. Most of those laws are unrelated to >>> life >>> in America. For example, many of the laws are related to animals. >>> Imagine >>> the trouble that Christians could get into if we stoned someone to death >>> for committing adultery. >> >> Ok, Jason, let's see how much attention you pay to the 10 commandments >> (and possibly get you to finally understand that there is no "one >> right answer" in all circumstances.) >> >> There is a religious group (doesn't matter who other than they aren't >> xians) who have become convinced that a 2 year old living in NY is the >> "antichrist" of their religion. They are desperate to kill this child >> or have it killed. They don't care about what penalty they'd pay and, >> other than this, they are a very peaceful group. They have repeatly >> tried, at great expense of money and life, to kill this child. >> >> They have taken control of a nuclear sub and have several children as >> hostages in the sub. The sub is in 300' of water off the coast of NY. >> They know the launch codes for the nukes. There is no way possible to >> get the children out of the sub and dropping depth charges will kill >> all on board. You are in charge of the naval ships that could drop >> such charges. >> >> They have sent a demand to you: Personally kill the child on live TV >> by 5:00pm, at which time we will surface the sub and surrender, or we >> launch a nuke on NYC which will kill the child and then we will >> surface and surrender. Based on your knowledge of the religion, etc. >> you know that they will keep their word on the surrender. >> >> Now your only options are: >> >> 1: Kill the child yourself. >> >> 2: Drop depth charges on the sub, killing them but also killing >> several children on board. >> >> 3: Do nothing and let them nuke NYC, thus killing the child as well as >> many others. >> >> NO other options (such as "we won't vote at all and just pray that a >> rescue ship comes by and gets us before we all die of thirst." or >> "I'll wait to see if I can get a clear shot.") are available. >> >> What are you going to do? >> >> Personally, I'd kill the child. I wouldn't be happy at all about it >> and would probably need therapy for the rest of my life, but I'd see >> no other choice. >> >> Occasionally, you have no other choice but to kill an innocent person. > > Yes. Sometimes it is that way. > > This is not really one of the questions that come out the same no matter > who you ask. Yes, there'll be lots of differences in opinion on this. I'm just trying to get Jason to actually THINK for a change (yeah, I know, it's hopeless. But one can try.) > > I would blow that sub out of the water. > > No negotiating with blackmailers. Never. Remember, there's also kids on the sub (although I understand the "no negotiating" part.) > If you start at one place to give in, more will follow. Hit them hard, > hit them fast. I would mourn the dead kids, of course. And if I was the > statesman that ordered that attack I would immediatley resign after the > success of that mission, take full responsibility and face whatever > charges are put to me. > > You simply cannot cave in to blackmailers, hostage takers and such > creeps. If you give in once, there is no telling where it stops. > > Well, that would be my reaction. In theory. Never have been in such a > situation and hopefully, never will be. > > > Tokay > Quote
Guest James Beck Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 In article <fg7l98$h1k$00$1@news.t-online.com>, tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net says... > Jason wrote: > > In article <8MqdnQZ7eIgkT7vanZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo > > Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >> > >> > >>>>>>> Prove that there was a primordial pond. Tell me the exact location of the > >>>>>>> primordial pond. > >>>>>> Earth. > >>>>> > >>>>> Be more specific. > >>>> Third planet from the Sun, Solar system, Milky Way Galaxy. > >>> > >>> If you can't tell me the location of the primordial pond, don't expect me > >>> to tell you the location of heaven. > >> I gave you the location. What do you expect me to do, give you coordinates > >> of an event that happened before the continents formed, merged, separated, > >> merged again, separated again, etc? > >> > >> Now that you have the location of the primordial pond neatly narrowed down > >> to a particular planet out of the Universe billions of light years across, > >> give me a rough idea where "heaven" is. Next door to Nirvana? Two blocks > >> south of Hades? Three miles NE of Valhalla, exit 167? > > > > Heaven is in another dimension. > > > > > > Ah, he gets specific. Now we are into the sci-fi realm. And/or actual > science. So far, the best "idea" ("M-theory") is that there are 11 > dimensions. > > But I guess you don't even know what a "dimension" is? > > Used in the sci-fi-sense, it is a different place. Which is bullshit, of > course. Scientifically or better yet, mathematically, it is rather > easy (for mathematicians at least. Not for me) to calculate many > dimensions. > > Ok, lets say, we mix up the dimensions of M-theory with the > sci-fi-dimensions. You have 7 to choose from (four are already taken). > Which one? > > Tokay > Time isn't REALLY a dimension. Not a spatial one, like you guys are referring to. Calling it the 4th dimension was just a mental crutch to make things easier to explain. Jim Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 Mike wrote: > Tokay Pino Gris wrote: >> Mike wrote: >>> Jason wrote: >>>> The 10 commandments are the only laws from the Old Testament that most >>>> Christians pay any attention to. Most of those laws are unrelated to >>>> life >>>> in America. For example, many of the laws are related to animals. >>>> Imagine >>>> the trouble that Christians could get into if we stoned someone to >>>> death >>>> for committing adultery. >>> >>> Ok, Jason, let's see how much attention you pay to the 10 >>> commandments (and possibly get you to finally understand that there >>> is no "one right answer" in all circumstances.) >>> >>> There is a religious group (doesn't matter who other than they aren't >>> xians) who have become convinced that a 2 year old living in NY is >>> the "antichrist" of their religion. They are desperate to kill this >>> child or have it killed. They don't care about what penalty they'd >>> pay and, other than this, they are a very peaceful group. They have >>> repeatly tried, at great expense of money and life, to kill this child. >>> >>> They have taken control of a nuclear sub and have several children as >>> hostages in the sub. The sub is in 300' of water off the coast of NY. >>> They know the launch codes for the nukes. There is no way possible to >>> get the children out of the sub and dropping depth charges will kill >>> all on board. You are in charge of the naval ships that could drop >>> such charges. >>> >>> They have sent a demand to you: Personally kill the child on live TV >>> by 5:00pm, at which time we will surface the sub and surrender, or we >>> launch a nuke on NYC which will kill the child and then we will >>> surface and surrender. Based on your knowledge of the religion, etc. >>> you know that they will keep their word on the surrender. >>> >>> Now your only options are: >>> >>> 1: Kill the child yourself. >>> >>> 2: Drop depth charges on the sub, killing them but also killing >>> several children on board. >>> >>> 3: Do nothing and let them nuke NYC, thus killing the child as well >>> as many others. >>> >>> NO other options (such as "we won't vote at all and just pray that a >>> rescue ship comes by and gets us before we all die of thirst." or >>> "I'll wait to see if I can get a clear shot.") are available. >>> >>> What are you going to do? >>> >>> Personally, I'd kill the child. I wouldn't be happy at all about it >>> and would probably need therapy for the rest of my life, but I'd see >>> no other choice. >>> >>> Occasionally, you have no other choice but to kill an innocent person. >> >> Yes. Sometimes it is that way. >> >> This is not really one of the questions that come out the same no >> matter who you ask. > > Yes, there'll be lots of differences in opinion on this. I'm just trying > to get Jason to actually THINK for a change (yeah, I know, it's > hopeless. But one can try.) Well. I think you are correct. >> >> I would blow that sub out of the water. >> >> No negotiating with blackmailers. Never. > > Remember, there's also kids on the sub (although I understand the "no > negotiating" part.) I know. But they are already IN the situation while the single kid is not. Not an easy decision. Doing nothing is bad. So not an option. Killing an uninvolved kid actively... No. Not for me. I'd stick with the "not giving in". I'd probably hate myself afterwards. But I see no other way. There are some quite similar questions in a test that was set up to determine whether people react "morally" regardless of religion. Let's see if I can get them together. Scenario A: Train roll towards a track switch. If you do nothing, five people tied to the tracks will die. If you flip the switch, one will die, standing on the alternate track (not tied to it, but can't evade). IIRC over 95% decided to throw the switch. Scenario B: Train rolls towards five people tied to the tracks. You stand on a bridge and there is a very fat guy just sitting there. You could stop the train if you push the fat guy off the bridge. The result was not so clear, but still (IIRC) over 80% decided NOT to throw him off. (I think the problems/questions posed get more complicated and more difficult to answer) So, where is the difference? Head count is the same. Many theories about that, but mostly it is said that the man in scenario A is "collateral damage" and the fat guy in scenario B is a complete innocent bystander. (I'd have to look that up. It was in Dawkins book, I think, "The God Delusion", at least it was explained there. An explanation why morals are morals and that they do not derive from a book) So, that kid those terrorists want dead is in my eyes the innocent bystander while the kids in the sub are "collateral". Plus the point that these are terrorists. You can't negotiate with terrorists. Or blackmailers. Oh, you can, of course, but imagine what would happen afterwards? How soon will the next terrorist group kidnap more kids to get their goals? Maybe they would not want ONE kid to be dead but a thousand? All firstborns of egypt? Where to draw the line? How much are you willing to give those terrorists? One kid? Two? Ten? A hundred? Would you do a head count? "If you have five kids kidnapped, I am willing to kill four?" Well. I wouldn't. One is one to many. Very sad about the kidnapped. Very very sad indeed. But in the long run, this works out. It is not nice, it is not a happy decision. It is not an easy decision. But make it you must and I think there is really not much of a choice. Tokay -- Rule of Feline Frustration: When your cat has fallen asleep on your lap and looks utterly content and adorable, you will suddenly have to go to the bathroom. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 James Beck wrote: > In article <fg7l98$h1k$00$1@news.t-online.com>, tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net > says... >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <8MqdnQZ7eIgkT7vanZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo >>> Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Prove that there was a primordial pond. Tell me the exact location of the >>>>>>>>> primordial pond. >>>>>>>> Earth. >>>>>>> Be more specific. >>>>>> Third planet from the Sun, Solar system, Milky Way Galaxy. >>>>> If you can't tell me the location of the primordial pond, don't expect me >>>>> to tell you the location of heaven. >>>> I gave you the location. What do you expect me to do, give you coordinates >>>> of an event that happened before the continents formed, merged, separated, >>>> merged again, separated again, etc? >>>> >>>> Now that you have the location of the primordial pond neatly narrowed down >>>> to a particular planet out of the Universe billions of light years across, >>>> give me a rough idea where "heaven" is. Next door to Nirvana? Two blocks >>>> south of Hades? Three miles NE of Valhalla, exit 167? >>> Heaven is in another dimension. >>> >>> >> Ah, he gets specific. Now we are into the sci-fi realm. And/or actual >> science. So far, the best "idea" ("M-theory") is that there are 11 >> dimensions. >> >> But I guess you don't even know what a "dimension" is? >> >> Used in the sci-fi-sense, it is a different place. Which is bullshit, of >> course. Scientifically or better yet, mathematically, it is rather >> easy (for mathematicians at least. Not for me) to calculate many >> dimensions. >> >> Ok, lets say, we mix up the dimensions of M-theory with the >> sci-fi-dimensions. You have 7 to choose from (four are already taken). >> Which one? >> >> Tokay >> > > Time isn't REALLY a dimension. > Not a spatial one, Of course it is not spatial. There are only 3 spatial dimensions. like you guys are referring to. > Calling it the 4th dimension was just a mental crutch to make things > easier to explain. It works out quite well in spacetime of Einstein... But ok. He can chose from eight, if he likes, because three are taken. And ignore time as a dimension. (I rather think that time works as a dimension. Well, in theory of spacetime. Maybe you are correct and it just makes things easier to explain. But I don't see any other way to explain the phenomena we see regarding light. But well, I am no astrophysicist) Tokay -- Rule of Feline Frustration: When your cat has fallen asleep on your lap and looks utterly content and adorable, you will suddenly have to go to the bathroom. Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:12:55 -0800, Jason wrote: > In article <oothv4-o1n.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason > <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:18:04 -0400, James Beck wrote: >> >> > In article <Jason-2910071114400001@67-150-122-25.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, >> > Jason@nospam.com says... >> >> In article <5omfbiFnmodfU2@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" >> >> <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote >> >> > >> >> > snip >> >> > > >> >> > > There is a heaven and there is a hell. >> >> > >> >> > Then prove it. >> >> >> >> Prove that there was a primordial pond. Tell me the exact location of the >> >> primordial pond. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Seen an ocean? >> > Do you think those just popped up recently? >> >> Well yes, actually, about 4004 BC. It was a Tuesday, if I recall >> correctly... > > Can I use your time machine? Unnecessary; those are calculations by your boys, based on your pet book. -- He’s showing signs of CranialRectumitas, for which the only known cure is a good swift kick in the pants. -- David Strickland Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:29:21 -0800, Jason wrote: > In article <5v6dnQXOHJlXTbvanZ2dnUVZ_oaonZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo > Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >> >> > The 10 commandments are the only laws from the Old Testament that most >> > Christians pay any attention to. >> >> Not true. There are other biblical "laws" that Christians are way more >> obsessed with. For example, homosexuality and pretty much any sexual >> activity that any given Christian does not acknowledge to be practicing. >> >> Then there are "laws" Christians are obsessed with that are never so much as >> mentioned in the Bible, like abortion and drug use. >> >> < Most of those laws are unrelated to life >> > in America. > >> You finally get something right. Cue the balloons. >> >> > For example, many of the laws are related to animals. Imagine >> > the trouble that Christians could get into if we stoned someone to death >> > for committing adultery. >> >> Or for practicing homosexuality, albeit on the sly. Or for having abortions, >> on the sly. Or for working on Sunday. Or for not being a virgin before >> marriage (women only). And so on, ad nauseam, praise Jeesus. > > Yes, some denominations pay attention to various laws and scriptures in > the Old Testament. I have read the Old Testament and enjoyed the stories > but did not enjoy reading the longs lists of laws that made a lot of sense > in those days but don't make much sense today. Christians pay attention to > the 10 commandments since they came directly from God. Those other laws > were (in my opinion) written by men. Much of that is from Leviticus. Let's see... And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. 3 Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat. 10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And on and on and on. So, you are circumcised, right? And you have never eaten shellfish, right? Meanwhile we might point out that each chapter starts off with "And the Lord spake..." making it pretty damn clear that it is, in fact, God talking, not some local yip-yo, so your "written by man" doesn't apply, you are bound by command of God Himself to follow those rules. -- A lemming on full afterburners. -- Marty Leipzig Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:06:13 -0800, Jason wrote: > In article <abrci39nhdmdq7cs3fbja5rdpnelq1vc21@4ax.com>, Free Lunch > <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote: > >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:08:16 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism >> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in >> <5om7n0FnkallU1@mid.individual.net>: >> > >> >"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> >> > >> >snip >> >> I know that God is the true God and that Jesus (his son) is my savior. >> > >> >You think you know anyway. >> >> And he ignores all other gods. > > They are false gods so why should anyone pay attention to them. And the followers of Bast and Baal and Odin and Ra can say the exact same thing about your god. Here's the kicker: they have just as much justification to say this about your god as you do to say it about theirs: none whatsoever. -- A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearanging their prejudices. -- David Rice Quote
Guest James Beck Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 In article <fg7q88$9kt$02$1@news.t-online.com>, tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net says... > James Beck wrote: > > In article <fg7l98$h1k$00$1@news.t-online.com>, tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net > > says... > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <8MqdnQZ7eIgkT7vanZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo > >>> Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>>>> Prove that there was a primordial pond. Tell me the exact location of the > >>>>>>>>> primordial pond. > >>>>>>>> Earth. > >>>>>>> Be more specific. > >>>>>> Third planet from the Sun, Solar system, Milky Way Galaxy. > >>>>> If you can't tell me the location of the primordial pond, don't expect me > >>>>> to tell you the location of heaven. > >>>> I gave you the location. What do you expect me to do, give you coordinates > >>>> of an event that happened before the continents formed, merged, separated, > >>>> merged again, separated again, etc? > >>>> > >>>> Now that you have the location of the primordial pond neatly narrowed down > >>>> to a particular planet out of the Universe billions of light years across, > >>>> give me a rough idea where "heaven" is. Next door to Nirvana? Two blocks > >>>> south of Hades? Three miles NE of Valhalla, exit 167? > >>> Heaven is in another dimension. > >>> > >>> > >> Ah, he gets specific. Now we are into the sci-fi realm. And/or actual > >> science. So far, the best "idea" ("M-theory") is that there are 11 > >> dimensions. > >> > >> But I guess you don't even know what a "dimension" is? > >> > >> Used in the sci-fi-sense, it is a different place. Which is bullshit, of > >> course. Scientifically or better yet, mathematically, it is rather > >> easy (for mathematicians at least. Not for me) to calculate many > >> dimensions. > >> > >> Ok, lets say, we mix up the dimensions of M-theory with the > >> sci-fi-dimensions. You have 7 to choose from (four are already taken). > >> Which one? > >> > >> Tokay > >> > > > > Time isn't REALLY a dimension. > > Not a spatial one, > > Of course it is not spatial. There are only 3 spatial dimensions. Maybe...... > > like you guys are referring to. > > Calling it the 4th dimension was just a mental crutch to make things > > easier to explain. > > It works out quite well in spacetime of Einstein... Yep, and he admitted that the usage was playing a bit fast and loose with terminology. > > But ok. He can chose from eight, if he likes, because three are taken. > And ignore time as a dimension. Well, if he chooses the 11th, he better lose some weight. According to one of the brane theorists, the 11th is where gravity leaks to us from. In that dimension, gravity would be the dominant force and over ride electrical forces. > > (I rather think that time works as a dimension. Well, in theory of > spacetime. Maybe you are correct and it just makes things easier to > explain. But I don't see any other way to explain the phenomena we see > regarding light. But well, I am no astrophysicist) > > Tokay If time is occurring in quanta then the speed of light is just because you can only travel a maximum of one Planck length per tick....hmmmmmm crazy idea number 335. Maybe we are in "The Matrix"......... Jim Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 James Beck wrote: > In article <fg7q88$9kt$02$1@news.t-online.com>, tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net > says... >> James Beck wrote: >>> In article <fg7l98$h1k$00$1@news.t-online.com>, tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net >>> says... >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <8MqdnQZ7eIgkT7vanZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo >>>>> Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Prove that there was a primordial pond. Tell me the exact location of the >>>>>>>>>>> primordial pond. >>>>>>>>>> Earth. >>>>>>>>> Be more specific. >>>>>>>> Third planet from the Sun, Solar system, Milky Way Galaxy. >>>>>>> If you can't tell me the location of the primordial pond, don't expect me >>>>>>> to tell you the location of heaven. >>>>>> I gave you the location. What do you expect me to do, give you coordinates >>>>>> of an event that happened before the continents formed, merged, separated, >>>>>> merged again, separated again, etc? >>>>>> >>>>>> Now that you have the location of the primordial pond neatly narrowed down >>>>>> to a particular planet out of the Universe billions of light years across, >>>>>> give me a rough idea where "heaven" is. Next door to Nirvana? Two blocks >>>>>> south of Hades? Three miles NE of Valhalla, exit 167? >>>>> Heaven is in another dimension. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Ah, he gets specific. Now we are into the sci-fi realm. And/or actual >>>> science. So far, the best "idea" ("M-theory") is that there are 11 >>>> dimensions. >>>> >>>> But I guess you don't even know what a "dimension" is? >>>> >>>> Used in the sci-fi-sense, it is a different place. Which is bullshit, of >>>> course. Scientifically or better yet, mathematically, it is rather >>>> easy (for mathematicians at least. Not for me) to calculate many >>>> dimensions. >>>> >>>> Ok, lets say, we mix up the dimensions of M-theory with the >>>> sci-fi-dimensions. You have 7 to choose from (four are already taken). >>>> Which one? >>>> >>>> Tokay >>>> >>> Time isn't REALLY a dimension. >>> Not a spatial one, >> Of course it is not spatial. There are only 3 spatial dimensions. > Maybe...... > >> like you guys are referring to. >>> Calling it the 4th dimension was just a mental crutch to make things >>> easier to explain. >> It works out quite well in spacetime of Einstein... > Yep, and he admitted that the usage was playing a bit fast and loose > with terminology. > >> But ok. He can chose from eight, if he likes, because three are taken. >> And ignore time as a dimension. > Well, if he chooses the 11th, he better lose some weight. > According to one of the brane theorists, the 11th is where gravity leaks > to us from. In that dimension, gravity would be the dominant force and > over ride electrical forces. I stand corrected. You obviously know more about it than I do. I watched a BBC-documentary about M-theory, but that is about my knowledge or it. (I NEED more time to read all the stuff I want to read and learn all the stuff I want to learn...) >> (I rather think that time works as a dimension. Well, in theory of >> spacetime. Maybe you are correct and it just makes things easier to >> explain. But I don't see any other way to explain the phenomena we see >> regarding light. But well, I am no astrophysicist) >> >> Tokay > > If time is occurring in quanta then the speed of light is just because > you can only travel a maximum of one Planck length per tick....hmmmmmm > crazy idea number 335. Maybe we are in "The Matrix"......... I am a certified SciFi-nut. And a sometime (though nothing published) writer. This could actually be used in a novel... hm. Time in quanta... hm. That would mean that there is a "smallest, indivisible part of time"... which COULD mean, that there is another world slightly offset... which could open up an nice background piece... have to think about it... Like in this TV-series "sliders" or in "The Number of the Beast" from Heinlein or even .... Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <fg7la3$h1k$00$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> In article <fg6k9n$i7e$03$3@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris >>> <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Jason wrote: >>>>> In article <8YmdnUGVWrg5ULvanZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo >>>>> Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jason wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Prove that there was a primordial pond. Tell me the exact location >>> of the >>>>>>>>> primordial pond. >>>>>>>> Earth. >>>>>>> Be more specific. >>>>>> Third planet from the Sun, Solar system, Milky Way Galaxy. >>>>> If you can't tell me the location of the primordial pond, don't expect me >>>>> to tell you the location of heaven. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> He did. And I did. Earth. The ocean. Which then pretty much covered the >>>> whole globe. I'd have thought you'd jump at that. Big flood and all. >>>> >>>> Tokay >>> Heaven is in another dimension. >>> >>> >> What is a dimension? >> >> Tokay > > Google dimension > > I KNOW what a dimension is. Do you? Tokay -- Rule of Feline Frustration: When your cat has fallen asleep on your lap and looks utterly content and adorable, you will suddenly have to go to the bathroom. Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 In article <5ooqf6Fnh429U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2910071114400001@67-150-122-25.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... > > In article <5omfbiFnmodfU2@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > >> > >> snip > >> > > >> > There is a heaven and there is a hell. > >> > >> Then prove it. > > > > Prove that there was a primordial pond. Tell me the exact location of the > > primordial pond. > > Since I never claimed there was a primordial pond, I don't have to prove > anything. > > YOU made the assertion about heaven and hell. YOU prove it. The location: another dimension Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 In article <5ooqgmFnnh1aU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > > snip > > > If you can't tell me the location of the primordial pond, don't expect me > > to tell you the location of heaven. > > Jason, you can't tell us the location of heaven because you know it doesn't > exist. Just admit it. location: another dimension Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 In article <fg7la3$h1k$00$2@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <fg6k9n$i7e$03$3@news.t-online.com>, Tokay Pino Gris > > <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <8YmdnUGVWrg5ULvanZ2dnUVZ_uninZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo > >>> Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>> Prove that there was a primordial pond. Tell me the exact location > > of the > >>>>>>> primordial pond. > >>>>>> Earth. > >>>>> Be more specific. > >>>> Third planet from the Sun, Solar system, Milky Way Galaxy. > >>> If you can't tell me the location of the primordial pond, don't expect me > >>> to tell you the location of heaven. > >>> > >>> > >> He did. And I did. Earth. The ocean. Which then pretty much covered the > >> whole globe. I'd have thought you'd jump at that. Big flood and all. > >> > >> Tokay > > > > Heaven is in another dimension. > > > > > > What is a dimension? > > Tokay Google dimension Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 In article <5ooqbvFnuhjhU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-2910071116020001@67-150-122-25.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com... > > In article <5omeutFngaf1U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > > > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > >> > >> snip> Not really, if a person was told by their doctor that they only had > >> two > >> > months to live--I would not have any negative things to say to that > >> > person > >> > if that person told me that he planned to commit suicide since he was > >> > had > >> > terrible pain and agony. > >> > >> What makes you think it has anything to do with you? > > > > I was responding to a question. > > And I was asking one. I was stating my opinion. Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 In article <MPG.219117c26e2a8e498a285@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > In article <Jason-2910072136140001@67-150-124-88.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, > Jason@nospam.com says... > > In article <MPG.219023969df0b0cc98a27f@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > > Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <Jason-2910071125370001@67-150-122-25.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, > > > Jason@nospam.com says... > > > > In article <MPG.218fd28dceffbf7f98a275@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > > > > Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <Jason-2610071454470001@67-150-120-210.lsan.mdsg- > > > > > pacwest.com>, Jason@nospam.com says... > > > > > > In article <MPG.218bea98da6359c298a270@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James > > > > > > Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > In article <fft631$on4$1@news04.infoave.net>, > > prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com > > > > > > > says... > > > > > > > > Jason wrote: > > > > > > > > > I guess they could move to that state where doctors are allowed > > > > to legally > > > > > > > > > kill them. Is the name of that state Oregon? They are trying to > > > > pass that > > > > > > > > > same law in California. Believe it or not, I hope they make it > > > > legal for > > > > > > > > > doctors to kill patients that are in terrible pain that want to > > > > die. Of > > > > > > > > > course, the patients should sign legal forms indicating they > > > > want to die. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me get this straight: it's OK for a doctor to prescribe an > > overdose > > > > > > > > of painkiller to kill someone in pain but it's not OK for others > > > > to kill > > > > > > > > someone (aka "murder is a sin") AND it's not OK for someone to kill > > > > > > > > themselves, no matter how much pain, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doctor kills you: OK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I kill you: bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You kill yourself: bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Got it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you go to the doctor to get killed, that is still suicide. > > > > > > > You sought the doctor, he didn't come for you like some kind of soul > > > > > > > hunter. > > > > > > > Jason's convoluted thought processes are a wonder to behold. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > > > Google "mercy killing". It's very different than a young healty person > > > > > > committing suicide or 1st degree murder. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Split hairs all you want. > > > > > Your good book says suicide is wrong. > > > > > Seeking out someone to kill you is suicide. > > > > > Plain and simple. > > > > > If I pull a gun on a cop with the intention of having him/her kill me it > > > > > is called suicide by cop. Is it any different if it is some other > > > > > person I use? No, and you know it. You have just been subjected to a > > > > > situation in your life that has made you reconsider some of the > > > > > teachings of your book. You have modified your beliefs based on some > > > > > pain and suffering you have seen. Maybe it is time to reconsider some > > > > > of your other beliefs. > > > > > > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > The option is for people to watch their relatives spend several weeks or > > > > even several months dying in terrible pain and agony. I watched my father > > > > die in pain and agony of lung cancer. I wish that a doctor would have > > > > committed a mercy killing. People that are not in favor of mercy killing > > > > should not authorize doctors or nurses to conduct mercy killings on their > > > > relatives. I have signed legal forms (living will) that orders doctors to > > > > not resuscitate me or hook me up to machines that keep me alive unless > > > > Sarah or myself gives the doctors permission to use those machines. > > > > Millions of people have legal living wills on file with their mates and > > > > lawyers. > > > > Jason > > > > > > > I would think it would be up to the person in pain to make that call. > > > The entire line "People that are not in favor of mercy killing should > > > not authorize doctors or nurses to conduct mercy killings on their > > > relatives" is very disturbing to me, but no doubt totally fine to your > > > skewed sense of morality. I would never assume to make that call for > > > another person. > > > That aside, a do not resuscitate or do not use extraordinary means to > > > support life, is a LOT different than go ahead and give grandma an > > > overdose, she looks uncomfortable! Everyone should have a living will. > > > Look, I have no personal need to force ANYONE to stay alive, period. > > > You are the one splitting hairs on what is a sin by christian standards > > > and what is not. I was just pointing out your continued lack of > > > consistency when it comes to your little black book. > > > > > > Jim > > > > Jim, > > I should have been more clear. I had in mind a relative that was in a > > coma. The relatives in that sort of case would have to decide whether or > > not to allow the doctors to unhook any machines that were keeping the > > relative alive. In that case, I would vote to unhook the machines. The > > people that were not in favor of mercy killing would vote to keep all of > > those machines hooked up. I have a living will so I would never end up in > > that sort of situation. Sarah and my doctor both have copies of my living > > will. > > Jason > > > > Oh, I agree. > I don't want to end up some rotting pinata either. > Remember who it was that went running to the Terry Shiavo cause, the > christians. The woman was a carrot with eyes and yet christians from > around the country were convinced that by some miracle her brain was > going to grow back. How did all that praying work out for her? > > Jim The problem in that case was that Terry Shiavo did NOT have a living will and also failed to tell the many members of her family what she wanted the members of her family to do if she was ever in a comma. I did not make that mistake. I have a living will and told Sarah that if I was in a comma to order the doctors to unhook any machines that were keeping me alive. Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 In article <5ooq5lFnlvkbU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote > > snip] > > > > no--as you probably know--Christians don't follow all of the laws in the > > Old Testament. > > Thank goodness for that. > > BTW, if all the world was christian, what would be your plans for stopping > the different sects of christianity from making war upon each other? There may be some wars but nothing like the wars that envolve the use of nuclear weapons. Iran is presently making nuclear materials and once they start making several nuclear weapons per year--not a single large city in the world is safe to live in. It would be very easy to smuggle a nuclear weapon into America and even easier to smuggle a nuclear weapon into England or France. Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 In article <fg7drc$dk7$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > Yes, some denominations pay attention to various laws and scriptures in > > the Old Testament. I have read the Old Testament and enjoyed the stories > > but did not enjoy reading the longs lists of laws that made a lot of sense > > in those days but don't make much sense today. Christians pay attention to > > the 10 commandments since they came directly from God. Those other laws > > were (in my opinion) written by men. > > You need to re-read them. The book of Leviticus starts out: > > Leviticus 1 > The Burnt Offering > 1 The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting. > He said, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'When any of you > brings an offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from > either the herd or the flock. > > And then it goes on outlining law after law after law. Let's re-read > that again. "The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of > Meeting. He said, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them..." The > LORD called to Moses. Moses didn't sit down and say "Hmm, I'll make up > some laws." It says the Lord told him this specifically and told him to > pass it along to the Israelites. > > Nice try, however. Those laws were for those people--not the people that are alive today. If you read those laws, you will realize that I am correct. I read all of those laws. Quote
Guest Jason Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 In article <fg7db2$d3d$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > The 10 commandments are the only laws from the Old Testament that most > > Christians pay any attention to. Most of those laws are unrelated to life > > in America. For example, many of the laws are related to animals. Imagine > > the trouble that Christians could get into if we stoned someone to death > > for committing adultery. > > Ok, Jason, let's see how much attention you pay to the 10 commandments > (and possibly get you to finally understand that there is no "one right > answer" in all circumstances.) > > There is a religious group (doesn't matter who other than they aren't > xians) who have become convinced that a 2 year old living in NY is the > "antichrist" of their religion. They are desperate to kill this child or > have it killed. They don't care about what penalty they'd pay and, other > than this, they are a very peaceful group. They have repeatly tried, at > great expense of money and life, to kill this child. > > They have taken control of a nuclear sub and have several children as > hostages in the sub. The sub is in 300' of water off the coast of NY. > They know the launch codes for the nukes. There is no way possible to > get the children out of the sub and dropping depth charges will kill all > on board. You are in charge of the naval ships that could drop such charges. > > They have sent a demand to you: Personally kill the child on live TV by > 5:00pm, at which time we will surface the sub and surrender, or we > launch a nuke on NYC which will kill the child and then we will surface > and surrender. Based on your knowledge of the religion, etc. you know > that they will keep their word on the surrender. > > Now your only options are: > > 1: Kill the child yourself. > > 2: Drop depth charges on the sub, killing them but also killing several > children on board. > > 3: Do nothing and let them nuke NYC, thus killing the child as well as > many others. > > NO other options (such as "we won't vote at all and just pray that a > rescue ship comes by and gets us before we all die of thirst." or "I'll > wait to see if I can get a clear shot.") are available. > > What are you going to do? > > Personally, I'd kill the child. I wouldn't be happy at all about it and > would probably need therapy for the rest of my life, but I'd see no > other choice. > > Occasionally, you have no other choice but to kill an innocent person. I would do nothing. Quote
Guest James Beck Posted October 30, 2007 Posted October 30, 2007 In article <fg839s$fa9$00$1@news.t-online.com>, tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net says... > James Beck wrote: > > In article <fg7q88$9kt$02$1@news.t-online.com>, tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net > > says... > >> James Beck wrote: > >>> In article <fg7l98$h1k$00$1@news.t-online.com>, tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net > >>> says... > >>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>> In article <8MqdnQZ7eIgkT7vanZ2dnUVZ_sWdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo > >>>>> Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Jason wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Prove that there was a primordial pond. Tell me the exact location of the > >>>>>>>>>>> primordial pond. > >>>>>>>>>> Earth. > >>>>>>>>> Be more specific. > >>>>>>>> Third planet from the Sun, Solar system, Milky Way Galaxy. > >>>>>>> If you can't tell me the location of the primordial pond, don't expect me > >>>>>>> to tell you the location of heaven. > >>>>>> I gave you the location. What do you expect me to do, give you coordinates > >>>>>> of an event that happened before the continents formed, merged, separated, > >>>>>> merged again, separated again, etc? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Now that you have the location of the primordial pond neatly narrowed down > >>>>>> to a particular planet out of the Universe billions of light years across, > >>>>>> give me a rough idea where "heaven" is. Next door to Nirvana? Two blocks > >>>>>> south of Hades? Three miles NE of Valhalla, exit 167? > >>>>> Heaven is in another dimension. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Ah, he gets specific. Now we are into the sci-fi realm. And/or actual > >>>> science. So far, the best "idea" ("M-theory") is that there are 11 > >>>> dimensions. > >>>> > >>>> But I guess you don't even know what a "dimension" is? > >>>> > >>>> Used in the sci-fi-sense, it is a different place. Which is bullshit, of > >>>> course. Scientifically or better yet, mathematically, it is rather > >>>> easy (for mathematicians at least. Not for me) to calculate many > >>>> dimensions. > >>>> > >>>> Ok, lets say, we mix up the dimensions of M-theory with the > >>>> sci-fi-dimensions. You have 7 to choose from (four are already taken). > >>>> Which one? > >>>> > >>>> Tokay > >>>> > >>> Time isn't REALLY a dimension. > >>> Not a spatial one, > >> Of course it is not spatial. There are only 3 spatial dimensions. > > Maybe...... > > > >> like you guys are referring to. > >>> Calling it the 4th dimension was just a mental crutch to make things > >>> easier to explain. > >> It works out quite well in spacetime of Einstein... > > Yep, and he admitted that the usage was playing a bit fast and loose > > with terminology. > > > >> But ok. He can chose from eight, if he likes, because three are taken. > >> And ignore time as a dimension. > > Well, if he chooses the 11th, he better lose some weight. > > According to one of the brane theorists, the 11th is where gravity leaks > > to us from. In that dimension, gravity would be the dominant force and > > over ride electrical forces. > > I stand corrected. You obviously know more about it than I do. I watched > a BBC-documentary about M-theory, but that is about my knowledge or it. > > (I NEED more time to read all the stuff I want to read and learn all the > stuff I want to learn...) > > >> (I rather think that time works as a dimension. Well, in theory of > >> spacetime. Maybe you are correct and it just makes things easier to > >> explain. But I don't see any other way to explain the phenomena we see > >> regarding light. But well, I am no astrophysicist) > >> > >> Tokay > > > > If time is occurring in quanta then the speed of light is just because > > you can only travel a maximum of one Planck length per tick....hmmmmmm > > crazy idea number 335. Maybe we are in "The Matrix"......... > > I am a certified SciFi-nut. And a sometime (though nothing published) > writer. This could actually be used in a novel... hm. Time in quanta... > hm. That would mean that there is a "smallest, indivisible part of > time"... which COULD mean, that there is another world slightly > offset... which could open up an nice background piece... have to think > about it... > > Like in this TV-series "sliders" or in "The Number of the Beast" from > Heinlein or even .... 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.