Jump to content

Evolution is Just Junk Science


Recommended Posts

Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman
Posted

Jason wrote:

 

> That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back in those

> days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a violation of

> the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

 

Did you learn this in your Bullshit Interpretation 101 class?

 

 

 

--

Come down off the cross

We can use the wood

 

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House

  • Replies 19.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Charles & Mambo Duckman
Posted

Jason wrote:

 

> The Bible does not state that killing people is a sin. The Bible states

> that murdering people is a sin.

 

Right. So on "Judgment Day" all that homicidal maniacs have to tell your god

is "But, God, I didn't murder those 45 prostitutes - I killed them".

Off they go to heaven, eh?

 

 

 

--

Come down off the cross

We can use the wood

 

Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House

Guest hhyapster@gmail.com
Posted

On Nov 9, 3:42 pm, Charles & Mambo Duckman <duck...@gfy.slf> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back in those

> > days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a violation of

> > the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

>

> Did you learn this in your Bullshit Interpretation 101 class?

>

> --

> Come down off the cross

> We can use the wood

>

> Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House

 

Why would ancient people advised others not to murder?

It can only mean that the is a lot of MURDER going on.

Real barbaric culture of these ancient people.......no wonder they do

need to be commanded.

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <lhhvi31cf4fquef710o0vrihftgg63m8m6@4ax.com>, stoney

> <stoney@the.net> wrote:

>

>> On 31 Oct 2007 15:23:56 -0500, The Chief Instigator

>> <patrick@eris.io.com> wrote:

>>

>>> "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> writes:

>>>

>>>> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:Jason-3010071234070001@66-53-215-221.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...

>>>>> 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

>>>> Prove it.

>>> Jason apparently spends most of his average day in an unknown dimension.

>> Unfortunately, its this one.

>

> I will be glad when I am in the dimension that heaven is located.

>

>

You might be already...

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <faOYi.1583$sm1.1412@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, 655321

> <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

>

>> Mike wrote:

>>> Jason wrote:

>>>> In article <fgv416$im5$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

>>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>>> I feel the same way about the stupid people that repeat over and

>>>>>> over and

>>>>>> over that Iran is developing nuclear materials that will be used for

>>>>>> peaceful purposes. Every intelligent person knows that Iran could

>>>>>> use oil

>>>>>> to produce all of the electric power that is needed.

>>>>> No, every INTELLIGENT person (which leaves you out) knows that you

>>>>> need to diversify your energy sources since oil won't last forever

>>>>> (and since nuclear power can't be used to grease axles with and make

>>>>> plastics, etc. I.e. if you have an alternative, use it and save the

>>>>> oil for those things that we don't have alternatives for.)

>>>> You left out one of the uses for nuclear materials---nuclear weapons.

>>> You left out one of the uses for a brain--thinking.

>>>

>>> I didn't leave anything out. I simply pointed out why a country that has

>>> oil might want to generate power using nuclear reactors.

>> Besides which, pretending to know the ins and outs of another country's

>> energy needs, when one is a marginally educated and sub-marginally

>> thoughtful wingnut, is symptomatic of an intellectual coma. All this is

>> empirical evidence that arrogance can survive -- and even thrive -- in

>> such an environment.

>> --

>> 655321

>

> The president of Iran and one of the chief clerics in Iran has already

> stated that their goal is for Muslims to take over Israel. Intelligent

> people know the real reason that Iran is developing nuclear materials. The

> Muslims want to take over the earth.

 

Intelligent people would have evidence for their claims. Your evidence is?

Posted

Al Klein wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:34:38 -0500, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>

> wrote:

>

>> Al Klein wrote:

>>> Most of it is based on the writings of people who were witnesses

>>> (there's NO eyewitness testimony of Jesus), and most of that is

>>> backed up by OBJECTIVE evidence (there's objective evidence that the

>>> Biblical Jesus - as defined in the Bible - never existed.)

>> <devil's advocate>

>>

>> An alien comes to earth with the ability to transmute elements,

>> transport in things, advanced medical abilities, etc. and no honesty at

>> all. This alien could have performed the miracles that were mentioned in

>> the bible.

>

> There was a sci-fi story, many years ago, about a human visiting a

> primitive alien culture, and acting as their Jesus - being crucified,

> etc. (Of course he had some pretty good painkillers to help him.)

 

Seems like I read that story as well. Can't recall who it was by, etc.

>

> JESUS was the one who claimed he was the son of god so that

>> was a case of him describing himself that way and not the bible

>> describing him (likewise for the "believe in me and your sins are

>> forgiven", etc.) So I don't see anything in the bible's new testament

>> that couldn't have been done by an alien with "sufficiently advanced

>> technology." That's the problem with trying to prove something didn't

>> happen. Even the exodus could have happened and still left no traces,

>> etc. if there were BEM's with super-advances porti-potties, etc.

>

> He couldn't have come from Nazareth because there was no human

> habitation there until centuries later.

 

Just about any history text is going to have some inaccuracies, etc. I

wouldn't expect any to be perfectly flawless. So I wouldn't take that as

invalidating the Jesus story any more than I'd take a history book that

says George Washington was from the state of Washington as proof that

George never lived (although, a blunder that huge would make me wonder

about the rest of the 'facts' in the book.)

>

>> Now do I believe that such aliens exist? Of course not. But it doesn't

>> prove that they don't.

>

>> Generally, we can't ever prove that something didn't exist/happen.

>

> But we can prove that some very well-defined something didn't. For

> instance, if someone were to claim, in a millennium or two, that he

> visited the World Trade Center in 2005 (or in 1958).

 

But that wouldn't prove the person never lived at all. It'd just show

that some facts about him as described weren't quite correct. There's

nothing that you could define with such precision that every single bit

of data about it is complete and totally inclusive/exclusive (in that it

completely distinguishes it from other things like it) and is totally

accurate. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle sees to that.

 

Now you could say "The person who claimed to have visited the WTC in

2005 did NOT live, even if someone else described exactly the same with

the exception of some trifling details such as the claimed visit did"

but, IMHO, that's splitting hairs. If we can point to an entity and say

"that's the entity that was being referred to", even if some detail

isn't exactly as described, and point to all another entities and say

"that's not the entity that was being described" then I'd say the entity

being spoken about did exist, even if some details aren't exactly

correct. Did we know the exact temperature of Mars in 1900? No. Does

that mean the planet didn't exist? No.

Posted

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

> [snips]

>

> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:14:59 -0500, Mike wrote:

>

>> False quadricotomy<g>

>

> Okay, what has wheat-like grain got to do with anything?

>

>> There's also the 5th possibility: you ask for forgiveness for all future

>> since when you're "saved." So that would mean a person could become

>> "saved" and then go out and commit all kinds of mayhem and be

>> protected/forgiven for it. But that would leave us "poor atheists"

>> screwed.

>

> Actually, that - according to many - wouldn't work, as to be forgiven you

> need to honestly repent (i.e. be sorry you did it) and, depending who

> you ask, also atone.

 

But some do believe that. Not all but not everyone believes all of the

other 4 possibilities that you gave, either. The key phrase above was

"according to many" and not "according to all." It might not be a

majority view but it is held by some.

> To say "please forgive me for what I'm _going_ to do" wouldn't work, as if

> you were honestly repentant, you simply wouldn't do it in the first place.

 

It's not "forgive me for what I'm GOING to do" but "forgive me for what

I MIGHT do." I.e. the future sins aren't planned but it's simply

acknowledging that we're all human and no matter how repetent we are, we

still might wind up sinning in the future. Basically, it's the "once

saved, always saved even if you do backslide some" doctrine.

 

Note that I don't agree with it (I don't agree that there's even a god

to begin with) but there are those who think that way.

>> Also Jason HAS basically said that suicide IS a mortal sin when he said

>> "but a person could take some pills and then ask for forgiveness before

>> they take full effect" (or words to that effect. I don't have the exact

>> quote at hand.) If suicide isn't a mortal sin (i.e. one that will send

>> you to hell if not forgiven) then why would the person need to worry

>> about such?

>

> Expecting Jason to be consistent - or even coherent - is a touch silly.

 

I don't expect such. I'm just smearing his face in it when he isn't.

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <u6c7j3t3rabnvbv368oljamch4a2e19e9s@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:19:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>>> In article <mup805-6vq.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

>>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>

>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Jason wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6ji75@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy

> killings. They

>>>>>>> are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal.

>>>>>>> Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state.

>>>>>> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to commit suicide?

>>>>> I believe that option should be available for everyone that is on their

>>>>> death beds and in terrible pain.

>>>> But suicide, according to many, is the one unpardonable sin. So you're

>>>> arguing for the sending of such people straight into the torments of

>>>> hell and eternal damnation, and probably taking the doctor with them.

>>>>

>>>> Why do you hate people so much you'd want to see them suffer eternally,

>>>> simply because they're suffering here and want to end it?

>>> I never stated that suicide is an unpardonable sin. I believe that is a

>>> teaching of the Catholic church. I am not a Catholic.

>>>

>> The Ten Commandments are accepted not only by ALL Christians, but by

>> Jews, as well. And the 6th commandment (the RC 5th commandment)

>> prohibits killing people.

>

> That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back in those

> days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a violation of

> the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

 

Now define "murder" and "kill" so that we can point to any given act and

say "that was murder" or "that was simply a killing and not murder."

Posted

Jason wrote:

> In article <PnRYi.5629$b%1.2150@trnddc01>, Richard Clayton

> <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>> In article <zINYi.13084$h17.8834@trnddc04>, Richard Clayton

>>> <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>> In article <T1vYi.5441$b%1.2615@trnddc01>, Richard Clayton

>>>>> <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Jason wrote:

>>>>>>> In article <mep4j3hac8g27vdpp9rnt4hb7gkak7jmjg@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>>>>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6ji75@4ax.com>, Al Klein

>>>>>>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy

>>> killings. They

>>>>>>>>>>> are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal.

>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state.

>>>>>>>>>> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to commit suicide?

>>>>>>>>> I believe that option should be available for everyone that is

> on their

>>>>>>>>> death beds and in terrible pain. I have watched a close relative

> die and

>>>>>>>>> that relative had great amounts of pain and suffering. If you

> have NEVER

>>>>>>>>> watched a relative die in that sort of situation--I don't expect

> you to

>>>>>>>>> agree with me.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> You're claiming to be in favor of it, but you keep making posts

>>>>>>>> against it.

>>>>>>> Each case is different. I have stating in several posts that mercy

> killing

>>>>>>> should only be performed on people that are on their death beds and in

>>>>>>> severe pain. In addition, that person should have told the doctor

> that he

>>>>>>> wants to be mercy killed. Those are the mercy killings that I am

> in favor

>>>>>>> of.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Of course, I am not in favor of the mercy killing of healthy people.

>>>>>> Does a person own his own life? Does he have the right to choose

>>>>> not to

>>>>>> live any longer, even if in perfect physical health?

>>>>> According to the 2005 edition of the Time Almanac--30,622 Americans

>>>>> committed suicide in 2001.

>>>>>

>>>>> If people want to kill themselves, there is not much anyone can do about

>>>>> it. It's my opinion that doctors should not help healthy people to commit

>>>>> suicide. There is one famous book that provides detailed instuctions on

>>>>> various ways to commit suicide.

>>>> You didn't answer my questions.

>>>>

>>>> Does a person own his own life? Does he have the right to choose

>>> not to

>>>> live any longer, even if in perfect physical health?

>>> Yes--a person does own his own life. Yes--a person does have the right to

>>> choose not to live any longer, even if in perfect physical health.

>>>

>>> Summary: A person does have free will.

>> Okay, so you stipulate that a man's life is his own. If he wants to

>> throw it away, then, as is his right, why do you feel others should not

>> be expected to respect his wishes?

>

> Now you know the reason that millions of people are not in favor of mercy

> killing. It's called the "slippery slope".

 

But yet you said that if you'd been in the room alone with your father,

you would have pulled the plug.

> When "mercy killings" becomes a law--only people on their death beds that

> have signed the proper forms will be mercy killed.

 

What is "on your death bed?" Does that mean "only 4 hours to live?" what

about "only 4 days to live?" What about "only 4 months/years/decades to

live?" Where do we draw the line? Also who decides if there's only 4

months or if there's actually 6 months left? We might find a cure for

that cancer in the next month but you killed the person who "only had 4

months to live." God might have cured the person tomorrow but you killed

the person who "only has 4 days left to live."

> After several more years, people like you file law suits and demand that

> the law should also apply to anyone that wants to die.

>

> After several more years, a 20 year person that is depressed because they

> failed a college exam can legally be mercy killed.

>

> After several more years, the relatives of a sick old rich man will demand

> that that the old rich man should be mercy killed so they can get the old

> man's money ASAP. The rich old man may not even want to be mercy killed

> but that will not matter.

>

> We are now at the bottom of the slippery slope:

 

And you started that decline by killing your father.

> A new law is past which states that all people will me mercy killed when

> they become 70 years old.

>

> Is it any wonder why mercy killing is only legal in one state? It's

> because millions of people realize what will happen 20 years from now

> after mercy killing becomes a law in their states.

 

Mercy killing is NOT legal even in that one state. Providing a person

with the means to kill THEIR SELF is.

Guest Robibnikoff
Posted

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-0811071123590001@67-150-120-192.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...

> In article <p256j3djt7cg4phherkgk6dva7svqjui6k@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:27:00 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>> >In article <MPG.219bee4e977e1c5998a2d4@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>, James

>> >Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote:

>> >> In article

>> >> <Jason-0711071218260001@66-53-212-85.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

>> >> Jason@nospam.com says...

>>

>> >> > > > Mercy killings are performed every day in America. I don't know

> how many

>> >> > > > are performed each day.

>>

>> >> > > Then why did you assert that "many different doctors perform

> mercy killings

>> >> > > every day"?

>>

>> >> > Because I believe that statement.

>>

>> >> Just like your belief in the old man in the sky, believing it does not

>> >> make it so. I believe in facts, not feelings.

>>

>> >Mercy killing is legal in one state. Mercy killing is legal in various

>> >countries. Therefore, many different doctors perform mercy killings

>> >every

>> >day.

>>

>> You already said, "I don't know how many are performed each day", so

>> how can you now say that you DO know? You're directly contradicting

>> your own statement.

>

> Not really. Let's use other examples. I don't know how many stars that are

> in the sky but I know there are at least some stars in sky. I don't know

> how many colleges there are in America but I know there are at least some

> colleges in America. I don't know how many medical doctors there are in

> America but I know there are some doctors in America. I could go on and on

> and on but I hope that you got have already got my point.

 

That you don't make any sense? Yep, got it.

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

Guest Robibnikoff
Posted

"Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote

 

snip

> I don't believe you are correct. In the state that mercy killing is

> legal--the rules are probably spelled out. For example, a doctor is not

> allowed to mercy kill a person unless the patient signes the proper forms.

 

My dad was "mercy killed" and I don't live in a state where assisted suicide

is legal. However, what was done to my dad was perfectly legal. Explain.

--

Robyn

Resident Witchypoo

BAAWA Knight!

#1557

Guest Richard Clayton
Posted

On Nov 9, 12:29 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <PnRYi.5629$b%1.2150@trnddc01>, Richard Clayton

>

>

>

>

>

> <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <zINYi.13084$h17.8834@trnddc04>, Richard Clayton

> > > <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net> wrote:

>

> > >> Jason wrote:

> > >>> In article <T1vYi.5441$b%1.2615@trnddc01>, Richard Clayton

> > >>> <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net> wrote:

>

> > >>>> Jason wrote:

> > >>>>> In article <mep4j3hac8g27vdpp9rnt4hb7gkak7j...@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> > >>>>> <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

> > >>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > >>>>>>> In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6j...@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> > >>>>>>> <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > >>>>>>>>> In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy

> > > killings. They

> > >>>>>>>>> are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal.

> > >>>>>>>>> Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state.

> > >>>>>>>> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to commit suicide?

> > >>>>>>> I believe that option should be available for everyone that is

> on their

> > >>>>>>> death beds and in terrible pain. I have watched a close relative

> die and

> > >>>>>>> that relative had great amounts of pain and suffering. If you

> have NEVER

> > >>>>>>> watched a relative die in that sort of situation--I don't expect

> you to

> > >>>>>>> agree with me.

>

> > >>>>>> You're claiming to be in favor of it, but you keep making posts

> > >>>>>> against it.

> > >>>>> Each case is different. I have stating in several posts that mercy

> killing

> > >>>>> should only be performed on people that are on their death beds and in

> > >>>>> severe pain. In addition, that person should have told the doctor

> that he

> > >>>>> wants to be mercy killed. Those are the mercy killings that I am

> in favor

> > >>>>> of.

>

> > >>>>> Of course, I am not in favor of the mercy killing of healthy people.

> > >>>> Does a person own his own life? Does he have the right to choose

> > >>> not to

> > >>>> live any longer, even if in perfect physical health?

> > >>> According to the 2005 edition of the Time Almanac--30,622 Americans

> > >>> committed suicide in 2001.

>

> > >>> If people want to kill themselves, there is not much anyone can do about

> > >>> it. It's my opinion that doctors should not help healthy people to commit

> > >>> suicide. There is one famous book that provides detailed instuctions on

> > >>> various ways to commit suicide.

> > >> You didn't answer my questions.

>

> > >> Does a person own his own life? Does he have the right to choose

> > > not to

> > >> live any longer, even if in perfect physical health?

>

> > > Yes--a person does own his own life. Yes--a person does have the right to

> > > choose not to live any longer, even if in perfect physical health.

>

> > > Summary: A person does have free will.

>

> > Okay, so you stipulate that a man's life is his own. If he wants to

> > throw it away, then, as is his right, why do you feel others should not

> > be expected to respect his wishes?

>

> Now you know the reason that millions of people are not in favor of mercy

> killing. It's called the "slippery slope".

 

Once again, that's not an answer to my question.

> When "mercy killings" becomes a law--only people on their death beds that

> have signed the proper forms will be mercy killed.

 

But, as you agreed, they own their own lives and are allowed to choose

death, if they wish.

> After several more years, people like you file law suits and demand that

> the law should also apply to anyone that wants to die.

 

And I agree. It's your life, and if you want to die, it's arrogant and

presumptuous of me to think the law should stop you. And, as you

agreed, they own their own lives and are allowed to choose death, if

they wish.

> After several more years, a 20 year person that is depressed because they

> failed a college exam can legally be mercy killed.

 

And why not? It's his life. As you agreed, he owns his own life and is

allowed to choose death, if they wish.

> After several more years, the relatives of a sick old rich man will demand

> that that the old rich man should be mercy killed so they can get the old

> man's money ASAP. The rich old man may not even want to be mercy killed

> but that will not matter.

 

Ridiculous. Do you not see the clear distinction between a person

CHOOSING to die, and somebody else choosing it for him? You might as

well argue that once the law allows a person to choose to do a thing,

soon it will mandate that everybody MUST do a thing.

> We are now at the bottom of the slippery slope:

>

> A new law is past which states that all people will me mercy killed when

> they become 70 years old.

>

> Is it any wonder why mercy killing is only legal in one state? It's

> because millions of people realize what will happen 20 years from now

> after mercy killing becomes a law in their states.

 

This is alarmist, reactionary garbage, and completely unsupported by

the facts. Do you have any evidence that ANYBODY is pushing for

mandatory euthanasia at age 70?

Posted

In article <1194627003.704446.81270@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Richard

Clayton <rich.e.clayton@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 9, 12:29 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <PnRYi.5629$b%1.2150@trnddc01>, Richard Clayton

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > > Jason wrote:

> > > > In article <zINYi.13084$h17.8834@trnddc04>, Richard Clayton

> > > > <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >

> > > >> Jason wrote:

> > > >>> In article <T1vYi.5441$b%1.2615@trnddc01>, Richard Clayton

> > > >>> <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >

> > > >>>> Jason wrote:

> > > >>>>> In article <mep4j3hac8g27vdpp9rnt4hb7gkak7j...@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> > > >>>>> <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> >

> > > >>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > >>>>>>> In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6j...@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> > > >>>>>>> <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

> >

> > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com

(Jason) wrote:

> >

> > > >>>>>>>>> In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy

> > > > killings. They

> > > >>>>>>>>> are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal.

> > > >>>>>>>>> Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state.

> > > >>>>>>>> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to

commit suicide?

> > > >>>>>>> I believe that option should be available for everyone that is

> > on their

> > > >>>>>>> death beds and in terrible pain. I have watched a close relative

> > die and

> > > >>>>>>> that relative had great amounts of pain and suffering. If you

> > have NEVER

> > > >>>>>>> watched a relative die in that sort of situation--I don't expect

> > you to

> > > >>>>>>> agree with me.

> >

> > > >>>>>> You're claiming to be in favor of it, but you keep making posts

> > > >>>>>> against it.

> > > >>>>> Each case is different. I have stating in several posts that mercy

> > killing

> > > >>>>> should only be performed on people that are on their death

beds and in

> > > >>>>> severe pain. In addition, that person should have told the doctor

> > that he

> > > >>>>> wants to be mercy killed. Those are the mercy killings that I am

> > in favor

> > > >>>>> of.

> >

> > > >>>>> Of course, I am not in favor of the mercy killing of healthy people.

> > > >>>> Does a person own his own life? Does he have the right

to choose

> > > >>> not to

> > > >>>> live any longer, even if in perfect physical health?

> > > >>> According to the 2005 edition of the Time Almanac--30,622 Americans

> > > >>> committed suicide in 2001.

> >

> > > >>> If people want to kill themselves, there is not much anyone can

do about

> > > >>> it. It's my opinion that doctors should not help healthy people

to commit

> > > >>> suicide. There is one famous book that provides detailed

instuctions on

> > > >>> various ways to commit suicide.

> > > >> You didn't answer my questions.

> >

> > > >> Does a person own his own life? Does he have the right to

choose

> > > > not to

> > > >> live any longer, even if in perfect physical health?

> >

> > > > Yes--a person does own his own life. Yes--a person does have the

right to

> > > > choose not to live any longer, even if in perfect physical health.

> >

> > > > Summary: A person does have free will.

> >

> > > Okay, so you stipulate that a man's life is his own. If he

wants to

> > > throw it away, then, as is his right, why do you feel others should not

> > > be expected to respect his wishes?

> >

> > Now you know the reason that millions of people are not in favor of mercy

> > killing. It's called the "slippery slope".

>

> Once again, that's not an answer to my question.

>

> > When "mercy killings" becomes a law--only people on their death beds that

> > have signed the proper forms will be mercy killed.

>

> But, as you agreed, they own their own lives and are allowed to choose

> death, if they wish.

>

> > After several more years, people like you file law suits and demand that

> > the law should also apply to anyone that wants to die.

>

> And I agree. It's your life, and if you want to die, it's arrogant and

> presumptuous of me to think the law should stop you. And, as you

> agreed, they own their own lives and are allowed to choose death, if

> they wish.

>

> > After several more years, a 20 year person that is depressed because they

> > failed a college exam can legally be mercy killed.

>

> And why not? It's his life. As you agreed, he owns his own life and is

> allowed to choose death, if they wish.

>

> > After several more years, the relatives of a sick old rich man will demand

> > that that the old rich man should be mercy killed so they can get the old

> > man's money ASAP. The rich old man may not even want to be mercy killed

> > but that will not matter.

>

> Ridiculous. Do you not see the clear distinction between a person

> CHOOSING to die, and somebody else choosing it for him? You might as

> well argue that once the law allows a person to choose to do a thing,

> soon it will mandate that everybody MUST do a thing.

 

What if the old man is in a comma and has not signed the mercy killing

legal forms?

>

> > We are now at the bottom of the slippery slope:

> >

> > A new law is past which states that all people will me mercy killed when

> > they become 70 years old.

> >

> > Is it any wonder why mercy killing is only legal in one state? It's

> > because millions of people realize what will happen 20 years from now

> > after mercy killing becomes a law in their states.

>

> This is alarmist, reactionary garbage, and completely unsupported by

> the facts. Do you have any evidence that ANYBODY is pushing for

> mandatory euthanasia at age 70?

 

Not yet--but it could happen about 20 years after mercy killing is legal

in all states. The government may want to do it since it would save the

government billions of dollars related to health care costs and social

security costs.

Posted

In article <5pjdd3Frneb3U1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff"

<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote

>

> snip

> > I don't believe you are correct. In the state that mercy killing is

> > legal--the rules are probably spelled out. For example, a doctor is not

> > allowed to mercy kill a person unless the patient signes the proper forms.

>

> My dad was "mercy killed" and I don't live in a state where assisted suicide

> is legal. However, what was done to my dad was perfectly legal. Explain.

 

I believe you--esp. if the doctors unhooked all machines that were keeping

your father alive. In some states, that is NOT considered to be mercy

killing. I believe that it is mercy killing. Do you?

Posted

In article <I9OdneObIsbLkqnanZ2dnUVZ_vPinZ2d@comcast.com>, Charles & Mambo

Duckman <duckman@gfy.slf> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

>

>

> > That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back in those

> > days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a violation of

> > the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

>

> Did you learn this in your Bullshit Interpretation 101 class?

 

No--I have a copy of the New American Standard version of the Bible. It

clearly states in Exodus 20:13 Do Not Murder

Posted

In article <fh1s6j$b37$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <u6c7j3t3rabnvbv368oljamch4a2e19e9s@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> > <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

> >

> >> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 12:19:54 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >>

> >>> In article <mup805-6vq.ln1@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason

> >>> <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Jason wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>>> In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6ji75@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> >>>>> <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

> >>>>>

> >>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> >>>>>>

> >>>>>>> In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy

> > killings. They

> >>>>>>> are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal.

> >>>>>>> Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state.

> >>>>>> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to commit suicide?

> >>>>> I believe that option should be available for everyone that is on their

> >>>>> death beds and in terrible pain.

> >>>> But suicide, according to many, is the one unpardonable sin. So you're

> >>>> arguing for the sending of such people straight into the torments of

> >>>> hell and eternal damnation, and probably taking the doctor with them.

> >>>>

> >>>> Why do you hate people so much you'd want to see them suffer eternally,

> >>>> simply because they're suffering here and want to end it?

> >>> I never stated that suicide is an unpardonable sin. I believe that is a

> >>> teaching of the Catholic church. I am not a Catholic.

> >>>

> >> The Ten Commandments are accepted not only by ALL Christians, but by

> >> Jews, as well. And the 6th commandment (the RC 5th commandment)

> >> prohibits killing people.

> >

> > That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back in those

> > days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a violation of

> > the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

>

> Now define "murder" and "kill" so that we can point to any given act and

> say "that was murder" or "that was simply a killing and not murder."

 

Murdering is similar to what is now called "first degree murder".

 

Killing is what we now call "the death penalty". When that inmate is

eventully put to death--it's not call "murder". The word is capital

punishment.

 

When people were legally stoned to death--it was NOT called "murder".

Posted

In article <fh1plq$848$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

<prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > In article <faOYi.1583$sm1.1412@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, 655321

> > <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:

> >

> >> Mike wrote:

> >>> Jason wrote:

> >>>> In article <fgv416$im5$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

> >>>> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>>> Jason wrote:

> >>>>>> I feel the same way about the stupid people that repeat over and

> >>>>>> over and

> >>>>>> over that Iran is developing nuclear materials that will be used for

> >>>>>> peaceful purposes. Every intelligent person knows that Iran could

> >>>>>> use oil

> >>>>>> to produce all of the electric power that is needed.

> >>>>> No, every INTELLIGENT person (which leaves you out) knows that you

> >>>>> need to diversify your energy sources since oil won't last forever

> >>>>> (and since nuclear power can't be used to grease axles with and make

> >>>>> plastics, etc. I.e. if you have an alternative, use it and save the

> >>>>> oil for those things that we don't have alternatives for.)

> >>>> You left out one of the uses for nuclear materials---nuclear weapons.

> >>> You left out one of the uses for a brain--thinking.

> >>>

> >>> I didn't leave anything out. I simply pointed out why a country that has

> >>> oil might want to generate power using nuclear reactors.

> >> Besides which, pretending to know the ins and outs of another country's

> >> energy needs, when one is a marginally educated and sub-marginally

> >> thoughtful wingnut, is symptomatic of an intellectual coma. All this is

> >> empirical evidence that arrogance can survive -- and even thrive -- in

> >> such an environment.

> >> --

> >> 655321

> >

> > The president of Iran and one of the chief clerics in Iran has already

> > stated that their goal is for Muslims to take over Israel. Intelligent

> > people know the real reason that Iran is developing nuclear materials. The

> > Muslims want to take over the earth.

>

> Intelligent people would have evidence for their claims. Your evidence is?

 

Do you want me to repeat what the president of Iran stated about how he

feels about Israel?

 

I'll quote a scripture from the Quran to let you know how Muslims feel

about Israel?

Surah 5:33

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his Messenger...is

execution, or crucifixion or the cutting off of hand and feet--or exile

from the land....

Guest Richard Clayton
Posted

On Nov 9, 2:03 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1194627003.704446.81...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Richard

>

> Clayton <rich.e.clay...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Nov 9, 12:29 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <PnRYi.5629$b%1.2150@trnddc01>, Richard Clayton

>

> > > <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > > > Jason wrote:

> > > > > In article <zINYi.13084$h17.8834@trnddc04>, Richard Clayton

> > > > > <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net> wrote:

>

> > > > >> Jason wrote:

> > > > >>> In article <T1vYi.5441$b%1.2615@trnddc01>, Richard Clayton

> > > > >>> <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net> wrote:

>

> > > > >>>> Jason wrote:

> > > > >>>>> In article <mep4j3hac8g27vdpp9rnt4hb7gkak7j...@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> > > > >>>>> <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

> > > > >>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:16:11 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>

> > > > >>>>>>> In article <pe62j31r05im470hi9ce847l9gf9v6j...@4ax.com>, Al Klein

> > > > >>>>>>> <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

> > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:00:22 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com

> (Jason) wrote:

>

> > > > >>>>>>>>> In one state, it's now legal for doctors to conduct mercy

> > > > > killings. They

> > > > >>>>>>>>> are now trying to make mercy killings in Californa to be legal.

> > > > >>>>>>>>> Eventually, mercy killings will be legal in almost every state.

> > > > >>>>>>>> Why are you against making it easier for the dying to

> commit suicide?

> > > > >>>>>>> I believe that option should be available for everyone that is

> > > on their

> > > > >>>>>>> death beds and in terrible pain. I have watched a close relative

> > > die and

> > > > >>>>>>> that relative had great amounts of pain and suffering. If you

> > > have NEVER

> > > > >>>>>>> watched a relative die in that sort of situation--I don't expect

> > > you to

> > > > >>>>>>> agree with me.

>

> > > > >>>>>> You're claiming to be in favor of it, but you keep making posts

> > > > >>>>>> against it.

> > > > >>>>> Each case is different. I have stating in several posts that mercy

> > > killing

> > > > >>>>> should only be performed on people that are on their death

> beds and in

> > > > >>>>> severe pain. In addition, that person should have told the doctor

> > > that he

> > > > >>>>> wants to be mercy killed. Those are the mercy killings that I am

> > > in favor

> > > > >>>>> of.

>

> > > > >>>>> Of course, I am not in favor of the mercy killing of healthy people.

> > > > >>>> Does a person own his own life? Does he have the right

> to choose

> > > > >>> not to

> > > > >>>> live any longer, even if in perfect physical health?

> > > > >>> According to the 2005 edition of the Time Almanac--30,622 Americans

> > > > >>> committed suicide in 2001.

>

> > > > >>> If people want to kill themselves, there is not much anyone can

> do about

> > > > >>> it. It's my opinion that doctors should not help healthy people

> to commit

> > > > >>> suicide. There is one famous book that provides detailed

> instuctions on

> > > > >>> various ways to commit suicide.

> > > > >> You didn't answer my questions.

>

> > > > >> Does a person own his own life? Does he have the right to

> choose

> > > > > not to

> > > > >> live any longer, even if in perfect physical health?

>

> > > > > Yes--a person does own his own life. Yes--a person does have the

> right to

> > > > > choose not to live any longer, even if in perfect physical health.

>

> > > > > Summary: A person does have free will.

>

> > > > Okay, so you stipulate that a man's life is his own. If he

> wants to

> > > > throw it away, then, as is his right, why do you feel others should not

> > > > be expected to respect his wishes?

>

> > > Now you know the reason that millions of people are not in favor of mercy

> > > killing. It's called the "slippery slope".

>

> > Once again, that's not an answer to my question.

>

> > > When "mercy killings" becomes a law--only people on their death beds that

> > > have signed the proper forms will be mercy killed.

>

> > But, as you agreed, they own their own lives and are allowed to choose

> > death, if they wish.

>

> > > After several more years, people like you file law suits and demand that

> > > the law should also apply to anyone that wants to die.

>

> > And I agree. It's your life, and if you want to die, it's arrogant and

> > presumptuous of me to think the law should stop you. And, as you

> > agreed, they own their own lives and are allowed to choose death, if

> > they wish.

>

> > > After several more years, a 20 year person that is depressed because they

> > > failed a college exam can legally be mercy killed.

>

> > And why not? It's his life. As you agreed, he owns his own life and is

> > allowed to choose death, if they wish.

>

> > > After several more years, the relatives of a sick old rich man will demand

> > > that that the old rich man should be mercy killed so they can get the old

> > > man's money ASAP. The rich old man may not even want to be mercy killed

> > > but that will not matter.

>

> > Ridiculous. Do you not see the clear distinction between a person

> > CHOOSING to die, and somebody else choosing it for him? You might as

> > well argue that once the law allows a person to choose to do a thing,

> > soon it will mandate that everybody MUST do a thing.

>

> What if the old man is in a comma and has not signed the mercy killing

> legal forms?

 

Then nothing happens. Nobody is arguing that people who haven't

expressed a clear desire to die should be executed. It's HIS life;

nobody else has the authority to make that decision for him.

> > > We are now at the bottom of the slippery slope:

>

> > > A new law is past which states that all people will me mercy killed when

> > > they become 70 years old.

>

> > > Is it any wonder why mercy killing is only legal in one state? It's

> > > because millions of people realize what will happen 20 years from now

> > > after mercy killing becomes a law in their states.

>

> > This is alarmist, reactionary garbage, and completely unsupported by

> > the facts. Do you have any evidence that ANYBODY is pushing for

> > mandatory euthanasia at age 70?

>

> Not yet--but it could happen about 20 years after mercy killing is legal

> in all states.

 

Do you have any evidence that it WILL? Argument from imaginary

consequences isn't particularly convincing.

> The government may want to do it since it would save the

> government billions of dollars related to health care costs and social

> security costs.

 

Gee, then I guess we should abolish prisons as well, since those are

expensive. If we set the legal precedent of allowing prison to exist,

then in 20 years the government may start machine-gunning inmates to

save the costs of incarcerating them!

Guest Al Klein
Posted

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 21:29:23 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>In article <PnRYi.5629$b%1.2150@trnddc01>, Richard Clayton

><pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>> > In article <zINYi.13084$h17.8834@trnddc04>, Richard Clayton

>> > <pockZIGetnZIGerd@verizon.net> wrote:

>> >>Does a person own his own life? Does he have the right to choose not to

>> >> live any longer, even if in perfect physical health?

>> > Yes--a person does own his own life. Yes--a person does have the right to

>> > choose not to live any longer, even if in perfect physical health.

>> > Summary: A person does have free will.

>>Okay, so you stipulate that a man's life is his own. If he wants to

>> throw it away, then, as is his right, why do you feel others should not

>> be expected to respect his wishes?

>

>Now you know the reason that millions of people are not in favor of mercy

>killing. It's called the "slippery slope".

>

>When "mercy killings" becomes a law--only people on their death beds that

>have signed the proper forms will be mercy killed.

>

>After several more years, people like you file law suits and demand that

>the law should also apply to anyone that wants to die.

 

But you just said that anyone who wants to die DOES have that right.

"Yes--a person does have the right to choose not to live any longer,

even if in perfect physical health."

>After several more years, a 20 year person that is depressed because they

>failed a college exam can legally be mercy killed.

 

If that's what they want, what business is it of yours?

>After several more years, the relatives of a sick old rich man will demand

>that that the old rich man should be mercy killed

 

"Mercy killing" is a misnomer (yours, btw) for assisted suicide, and

no one can "demand that someone else be suicided". We call committing

suicide for someone else "murder".

 

You seem to think that laws that allow assisted suicide (there are no

"mercy killing" laws) allow the assistant to decide who dies and when.

>We are now at the bottom of the slippery slope:

>

>A new law is past which states that all people will me mercy killed when

>they become 70 years old.

 

The law should allow for assisted suicide for ANY competent adult.

Didn't YOU say, "A person does have free will"?

>Is it any wonder why mercy killing is only legal in one state?

 

Yes, it should be legal all over the world. ANY competent adult

should be able to commit suicide, with or without assistance, whenever

he or she wants.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social

ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he

had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

- Albert Einstein

Guest Al Klein
Posted

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:03:44 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>In article <1194627003.704446.81270@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Richard

>Clayton <rich.e.clayton@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Ridiculous. Do you not see the clear distinction between a person

>> CHOOSING to die, and somebody else choosing it for him? You might as

>> well argue that once the law allows a person to choose to do a thing,

>> soon it will mandate that everybody MUST do a thing.

>What if the old man is in a comma and has not signed the mercy killing

>legal forms?

 

They're called "do not resuscitate" forms. And, if they're not

sighed, and there's no signed health proxy, no one has the right to

terminate the patient's life, assisted suicide laws or not.

>> This is alarmist, reactionary garbage, and completely unsupported by

>> the facts. Do you have any evidence that ANYBODY is pushing for

>> mandatory euthanasia at age 70?

>Not yet--but it could happen about 20 years after mercy killing is legal

>in all states.

 

How? Killing someone without his permission is murder, whether he's

7, 27 or 77.

> The government may want to do it since it would save the

>government billions of dollars related to health care costs and social

>security costs.

 

What does killing SOMEONE ELSE have to do with suicide, which is what

we're discussing?

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity

himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.

- Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)

Guest Al Klein
Posted

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:22:26 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>In article <7dc7j3dpdttlmapdlnc3rmf1kpd9ev14iv@4ax.com>, Al Klein

><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>> Turning off the machines doesn't come under the assisted suicide laws,

>> which is what's being discussed here. "Mercy killing" is too vague to

>> have any legal meaning.

>I don't believe you are correct. In the state that mercy killing is

>legal--the rules are probably spelled out. For example, a doctor is not

>allowed to mercy kill a person unless the patient signes the proper forms.

 

Stop saying "mercy kill" - the person is committing suicide. Assisting

someone to commit suicide is illegal in 49 states. That's the only

thing that would change - the deceased would still have had to commit

suicide. No law is going to give any doctor the right to kill any

patient unless the patient asks to be assisted in dying.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of

magic and religion. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the

price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, quite intelligent

enough."

- Aldous Leonard Huxley

Guest Al Klein
Posted

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:25:03 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>That commandent is "Do Not Murder". It is not "Do Not kill". Back in those

>days, it was legal to stone people to death. That was not a violation of

>the commandment since it was not considered to be "murder".

 

You should really learn Hebrew (and ancient custom) better before you

argue about what Hebrew words and ancient Hebrew custom meant.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus

was not born of a virgin."

- Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]

Guest Al Klein
Posted

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:14:51 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>In article <fh1s6j$b37$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike

><prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:

>> Now define "murder" and "kill" so that we can point to any given act and

>> say "that was murder" or "that was simply a killing and not murder."

>

>Murdering is similar to what is now called "first degree murder".

>

>Killing is what we now call "the death penalty". When that inmate is

>eventully put to death--it's not call "murder". The word is capital

>punishment.

>

>When people were legally stoned to death--it was NOT called "murder".

>

Those are a couple of examples - Mike asked for definitions that would

apply to ALL examples. Just off the top of my head, I can think of a

lot more than 2 you haven't covered.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.

When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand

why I dismiss yours."

- Stephen F. Roberts

Guest Al Klein
Posted

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:27:31 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>In article <lac7j39n7hl73vcihi0nf4urd7n3a3ks25@4ax.com>, Al Klein

><rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

>

>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 13:22:23 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>

>> >The Catholics base many of their beliefs on church tradition.

>>

>> So do all Christian sects.

>>

>> > Most non-Catholics base their beliefs on the Bible--not church tradition.

>>

>> ALL Christian sects do. MOST of Christianity isn't found in the

>> Bible.

>>

>> > The Bible does NOT state that suicide is an unpoardonable sin.

>>

>> But killing people is, and assisted suicide is killing someone.

>

>The Bible does not state that killing people is a sin. The Bible states

>that murdering people is a sin.

>

Define "murder" as it's used in the commandment.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"

- Treaty with Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress, signed by John Adams

Guest Al Klein
Posted

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:32:15 -0500, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>

wrote:

>Al Klein wrote:

>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:34:38 -0500, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>

>> wrote:

>>

>>> Al Klein wrote:

>>>> Most of it is based on the writings of people who were witnesses

>>>> (there's NO eyewitness testimony of Jesus), and most of that is

>>>> backed up by OBJECTIVE evidence (there's objective evidence that the

>>>> Biblical Jesus - as defined in the Bible - never existed.)

>>> <devil's advocate>

>>>

>>> An alien comes to earth with the ability to transmute elements,

>>> transport in things, advanced medical abilities, etc. and no honesty at

>>> all. This alien could have performed the miracles that were mentioned in

>>> the bible.

>>

>> There was a sci-fi story, many years ago, about a human visiting a

>> primitive alien culture, and acting as their Jesus - being crucified,

>> etc. (Of course he had some pretty good painkillers to help him.)

>

>Seems like I read that story as well. Can't recall who it was by, etc.

>

>>

>> JESUS was the one who claimed he was the son of god so that

>>> was a case of him describing himself that way and not the bible

>>> describing him (likewise for the "believe in me and your sins are

>>> forgiven", etc.) So I don't see anything in the bible's new testament

>>> that couldn't have been done by an alien with "sufficiently advanced

>>> technology." That's the problem with trying to prove something didn't

>>> happen. Even the exodus could have happened and still left no traces,

>>> etc. if there were BEM's with super-advances porti-potties, etc.

>>

>> He couldn't have come from Nazareth because there was no human

>> habitation there until centuries later.

>

>Just about any history text is going to have some inaccuracies, etc. I

>wouldn't expect any to be perfectly flawless. So I wouldn't take that as

>invalidating the Jesus story any more than I'd take a history book that

>says George Washington was from the state of Washington as proof that

>George never lived (although, a blunder that huge would make me wonder

>about the rest of the 'facts' in the book.)

>

>>

>>> Now do I believe that such aliens exist? Of course not. But it doesn't

>>> prove that they don't.

>>

>>> Generally, we can't ever prove that something didn't exist/happen.

>>

>> But we can prove that some very well-defined something didn't. For

>> instance, if someone were to claim, in a millennium or two, that he

>> visited the World Trade Center in 2005 (or in 1958).

>

>But that wouldn't prove the person never lived at all. It'd just show

>that some facts about him as described weren't quite correct. There's

>nothing that you could define with such precision that every single bit

>of data about it is complete and totally inclusive/exclusive (in that it

>completely distinguishes it from other things like it) and is totally

>accurate. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle sees to that.

>

>Now you could say "The person who claimed to have visited the WTC in

>2005 did NOT live, even if someone else described exactly the same with

>the exception of some trifling details such as the claimed visit did"

>but, IMHO, that's splitting hairs. If we can point to an entity and say

>"that's the entity that was being referred to", even if some detail

>isn't exactly as described, and point to all another entities and say

>"that's not the entity that was being described" then I'd say the entity

>being spoken about did exist, even if some details aren't exactly

>correct. Did we know the exact temperature of Mars in 1900? No. Does

>that mean the planet didn't exist? No.

 

Add the contradictory claims about the rulers at the time of his

birth, the totally made-up story about having to go to your place of

birth for the census, the sheep being out at night in winter, etc., ad

almost infinitum, and you have a story that may just barely have a

tiny thread of truth buried in it somewhere, but I wouldn't bet an old

penny on it.

--

Al at Webdingers dot com

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds

are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her

tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the

existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of

the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...