| |
Main
Date: 26 Oct 2006 13:05:46
From: annika1980
Subject: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Deal with it.
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 20:43:05
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Carbon wrote:
> One man's religion is another man's mythology. Personally I prefer the
> Norse religion, Thor and his mighty hammer. Plus I hear he puts on a hell
> of a tunamint every year.
I didn't know until I watched Jeopardy tonight that Thor was the "God
of Thunder."
I can believe that!
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/49468274
|
| | |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 21:15:57
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
>> One man's religion is another man's mythology. Personally I prefer the
>> Norse religion, Thor and his mighty hammer. Plus I hear he puts on a hell
>> of a tunamint every year.
>
> I didn't know until I watched Jeopardy tonight that Thor was the "God
> of Thunder."
> I can believe that!
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/49468274
>
it's funny that I didn't meet you at RSG-NW '06
:)
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 22:52:13
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Deal with it.
This Jesus guy - any empirical evidence of his existance? Better yet;
any empirical evidence of the things that his followers allege that he did?
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 05:11:01
From: Michel Oui
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Head Shot wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
>> Deal with it.
>
> This Jesus guy - any empirical evidence of his existance? Better yet;
> any empirical evidence of the things that his followers allege that he did?
His followers say Jesus walked on water. Here is a published scientific
theory that potentially explains how He did it:
http://doronnof.net/walking-on-ice.php
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 17:33:50
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 27--2006, Michel Oui <GGOAT@example.com > wrote:
> His followers say Jesus walked on water. Here is a published scientific
> theory that potentially explains how He did it:
What I don't understand is all the bloody tussle between rationalism and
religion. In my mind rationalism, including but not limited to the
scientific method, deals with all that can be observed, measured, tested and
proven, empirical evidence as Head Job said. Religion on the other hand
deals with that beyond Man's understanding. Many moderns are so arrogant to
believe that there is nothing beyond our understanding and that anything
that can't be proven doesn't exist. It seems like a impoverised existence.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 17:34:36
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
bill-o wrote:
> What I don't understand is all the bloody tussle between rationalism
> and religion. In my mind rationalism, including but not limited to the
> scientific method, deals with all that can be observed, measured,
> tested and proven, empirical evidence as Head Job said. Religion on
> the other hand deals with that beyond Man's understanding. Many
> moderns are so arrogant to believe that there is nothing beyond our
> understanding and that anything that can't be proven doesn't exist.
> It seems like a impoverised existence.
Moved into name calling? I hereby dub thee Billdo.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 05:33:28
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 27--2006, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
> Moved into name calling? I hereby dub thee Billdo.
All in fun Head (and head usually is!). You should know to bring a thick
skin to Usenet.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 22:27:29
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
bill-o wrote:
> On 27--2006, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>> Moved into name calling? I hereby dub thee Billdo.
>
> All in fun Head (and head usually is!). You should know to bring a
> thick skin to Usenet.
Personally; I thought Billdo was funny. You didn't like it? Not that it
was incredibly creative or anything; but I thought it was smooth.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 03:02:03
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: One Iron from a tight lie
|
On 26--2006, larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> >Sparky wrote:
> >>
> >> On 25--2006, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Rob Davis wrote:
> >> > > > In that context ... it makes perfect sense to brag about hitting
> >> > > a
> >> > > 1-iron 230 yds and dead straight "every" time.
> >> > >
> >> > And who wouldn´t brag about that? F
> >>
> >> That's a bit short for a 1 iron...
> >>
> >> me
> >
> >I agree; I consider that short for my 3 iron.
>
> Lets hear how far you hit your 1i when you're 65 and have a 95 MPH
> clubhead speed.
95 MPH?? That's kinda slow don'tcha think? Heck, I'm a 44yr old heart
patient with a pacemaker and even I can exceed 120 MPH.... If you learned
a better technique perhaps you could speed that up a bit..
me
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 20:31:35
From: long&left
Subject: Re: One Iron from a tight lie
|
Sparky wrote:
> On 26--2006, larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>=20
>>> Sparky wrote:
>>>> On 25--2006, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rob Davis wrote:
>>>>>>> In that context ... it makes perfect sense to brag about hitting
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> 1-iron 230 yds and dead straight "every" time.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And who wouldn=B4t brag about that? F
>>>> That's a bit short for a 1 iron...
>>>>
>>>> me
>>> I agree; I consider that short for my 3 iron.
>> Lets hear how far you hit your 1i when you're 65 and have a 95 MPH
>> clubhead speed.
>=20
> 95 MPH?? That's kinda slow don'tcha think? Heck, I'm a 44yr old hea=
rt
> patient with a pacemaker and even I can exceed 120 MPH.... If you lea=
rned
> a better technique perhaps you could speed that up a bit..
>=20
>=20
> me
you assholes with fast twitch wrist muscles really piss me off. The rest =
of us old fucks deal with our 85mph swing speeds...
:)
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 07:54:56
From: Matt 'Ocho' Aamold
Subject: Re: One Iron from a tight lie
|
"long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com > wrote in message
news:r4f0h.73$ka7.16@newsfe04.lga...
you assholes with fast twitch wrist muscles really piss me off. The rest
of us old fucks deal with our 85mph swing speeds...
:)
Your welcome :-)
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 14:44:53
From: Sparky
Subject: Re: One Iron from a tight lie
|
On 26--2006, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com > wrote:
> you assholes with fast twitch wrist muscles really piss me off. The rest
> of us old fucks deal with our 85mph swing speeds...
> :)
Here's a hint.... If you're actually using any muscles around your wrist,
you're doing it wrong...
me
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 07:37:39
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Head Shot wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
>> Deal with it.
>
>
> This Jesus guy - any empirical evidence of his existance? Better yet;
> any empirical evidence of the things that his followers allege that he did?
>
>
Prove that 1 = 1 and while you are at it prove that 1 = 2.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 11:42:23
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On Fri, 27 2006 07:37:39 -0400, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:
>> This Jesus guy - any empirical evidence of his existance? Better yet;
>> any empirical evidence of the things that his followers allege that he did?
There is the old story about Jesus and St. Peter playing golf. Jesus
tees off on the first hole and hits the ball well to the left. Just
then, a bolt of lightning hits the ball and it land rights in the
middle of the fairway. Then an eagle swoops down and picks up the
ball and flies towards the green. When the eagle reaches the green it
drops the ball and it lands two inches from the cup. Then a rabbit
runs up and knocks the ball into the cup. Jesus has a big smile on
his face as he looks at St. Peter. "Alright," says St. Peter, "do you
want to play golf or do you want to fuck around?"
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:49:51
From:
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Deal with it.
He was a punk rocker with flowers in his hair apperently.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 23:00:50
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
twoofdem@gmail.com wrote:
> with flowers in his hair
Someone should write a song about that.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 13:54:37
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
dugjustdug wrote:
> How did you determine this? By interviewing The Oldest Member?
>
Funny you mentioned that since The Oldest Member and I were talking
about that very thing just the other day. Theology happens to be one
of his fields of expertise, along with jazz music and golf. On a
normal golf trip to Augusta or East Lake we're liable to end up
discussing everything from Deism to Leo Diegel's putting stroke to the
life of Django Rhinehart. Fortunately, he does 99% of the talking.
The Oldest Member often comments on the irony of the Republicans
claiming to be the party of Jesus when Jesus himself would oppose
almost everything they stand for.
Jesus was about helping the poor, not the rich. Jesus wouldn't do
backflips when Exxon Mobil announced another +$10 Billion quarterly
profit as they did today. And according to the Oldest Member, Jesus
was opposed to organized religion.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 04:59:13
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 26--2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> Jesus was about helping the poor, not the rich.
But how do you help the poor? By giving them fish or by teaching them how to
fish?
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 22:59:37
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Jesus was about helping the poor, not the rich.
Empirical proof? I mean other than the Bible that talks about him helping
a rich person raise his slave from the dead. Photo's of him helping a poor
person while the rich guy looks on - that sort of empirical evidence.
Better yet - a document written by observers that were there when Jesus was
alive. Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention Jesus; and no copies of the New
Testament exist that are from 30 AD; so do not point to those either.
> Jesus wouldn't do
> backflips when Exxon Mobil announced another +$10 Billion quarterly
> profit as they did today.
I never saw mention of Exxon Mobil in the new testament. Or corporation in
general, for that matter.
> And according to the Oldest Member, Jesus
> was opposed to organized religion.
Other than all those stories about him preaching at temples and being a
rabbi?
Your vision of this Jesus guy is not in the least bit backed by biblical
statements. Additionally; there is still no empirical evidence for his
existance; let alone the ability to pull off miracles.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 16:01:47
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1161896077.525708.283250@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Jesus was about helping the poor, not the rich. Jesus wouldn't do
> backflips when Exxon Mobil announced another +$10 Billion quarterly
> profit as they did today.
If he owned their stock he would.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 21:58:18
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?
|
On Thu, 26 2006 10:01:12 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>The democrats simply remind the nation that they are not ready to
>govern-- dishonest and irresponsible.
Ads by both sides are telling us that this is what the other side is
like. We have no doubt that the incumbents are that way, and have
little doubt that their opponents are that way.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 07:34:16
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: OT Patti Smith (Was Re: Jesus was a Liberal!)
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
> > >Even people from Chattanowhere can appreciate Patti Smith, Oingo
> >Boingo, The Ramones, Talking Heads .... you know .... the classics.
> >
> >-Annika -----> punk rocker from way back
>
> You need to listen to the Oldest Member more. He's got it right about
> music.
I confess I don't know too much about Jazz, although I like some of the
old stuff.
A few of my faves are "Tears" by Django Rhinehart and the great "Take
5" by Dave Brubeck.
The Oldest Member probably knows more about Duke Ellington than any man
alive.
I can play any old jazz tune for him and within seconds he can tell me
who is playing it and name all the band members on that session. It's
kinda scary.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:29:53
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: OT Patti Smith (Was Re: Jesus was a Liberal!)
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>>>> Even people from Chattanowhere can appreciate Patti Smith, Oingo
>>> Boingo, The Ramones, Talking Heads .... you know .... the classics.
>>>
>>> -Annika -----> punk rocker from way back
>>
>> You need to listen to the Oldest Member more. He's got it right
>> about music.
>
> I confess I don't know too much about Jazz, although I like some of
> the old stuff.
> A few of my faves are "Tears" by Django Rhinehart and the great "Take
> 5" by Dave Brubeck.
> The Oldest Member probably knows more about Duke Ellington than any
> man alive.
> I can play any old jazz tune for him and within seconds he can tell me
> who is playing it and name all the band members on that session. It's
> kinda scary.
The only jazz I know is Chick Corea and Return to Forever; or I think you
could call Carlos Santana jazz, no? Oh, I like Weather Report - they are
jazz. Talking Heads had like 3 or 4 hits; but I think The Ramones only
had one.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 09:41:50
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: OT Patti Smith (Was Re: Jesus was a Liberal!)
|
On 30 2006 07:34:16 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>Bobby Knight wrote:
>> > >Even people from Chattanowhere can appreciate Patti Smith, Oingo
>> >Boingo, The Ramones, Talking Heads .... you know .... the classics.
>> >
>> >-Annika -----> punk rocker from way back
>>
>> You need to listen to the Oldest Member more. He's got it right about
>> music.
>
>I confess I don't know too much about Jazz, although I like some of the
>old stuff.
>A few of my faves are "Tears" by Django Rhinehart and the great "Take
>5" by Dave Brubeck.
>The Oldest Member probably knows more about Duke Ellington than any man
>alive.
>I can play any old jazz tune for him and within seconds he can tell me
>who is playing it and name all the band members on that session. It's
>kinda scary.
Kinda neat.
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:38:15
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: OT Patti Smith (Was Re: Jesus was a Liberal!)
|
Head Shot wrote:
. Talking Heads had like 3 or 4 hits; but I think The Ramones only
had one.
And McDonalds sells the most burgers.
I don't keep up with such things but I'd guess Brittany Spears sells
more records than all the artists I've mentioned. And probably more
than all jazz artists combined.
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 13:44:00
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Deal with it.
First it was child molesting, now it is blasphemy - what will it be
next? Voting for the commies? F
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 13:29:57
From: dugjustdug
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
How did you determine this? By interviewing The Oldest Member?
On 26, 1:05 pm, "annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com > wrote:
> Deal with it.
|
| |
Date: 26 Oct 2006 15:23:33
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1161893145.937461.138390@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Deal with it.
>
Dang'd long hair hippies.
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 10:40:57
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Tex wrote:
> > > > Jesus was about helping the poor, not the rich.
> > >
> > > But how do you help the poor? By giving them fish or by teaching them how to
> > > fish?
> >
> > FUck'm, they can have the fish heads I throw on the floor.
> > :-D
> >
> > Tex
>
> Thanks, Tex.
> I think you just summed up the Republican philosophy better than I ever
> could.
Did you lose your humor bone in your last beating?
Tex
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 08:05:44
From: Thor
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Thu, 26 2006 22:52:13 -0400, Head Shot wrote:
> > annika1980 wrote:
>
> >> Deal with it.
> >
> > This Jesus guy - any empirical evidence of his existance? Better yet;
> > any empirical evidence of the things that his followers allege that he
> > did?
>
> One man's religion is another man's mythology. Personally I prefer the
> Norse religion, Thor and his mighty hammer. Plus I hear he puts on a hell
> of a tunamint every year.
Is there any empirical evidence of my existence? I mean, after
all, I am dead to Pflum 3 times.
-- Thor
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 07:50:10
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
MnMikew wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1161955201.646505.165890@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > As a former teacher,
>
> Now that's frightening!
Bill-o is the former teacher, not me.
I never could make it past the restraining orders.
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 07:44:11
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Tex wrote:
> > > Jesus was about helping the poor, not the rich.
> >
> > But how do you help the poor? By giving them fish or by teaching them how to
> > fish?
>
> FUck'm, they can have the fish heads I throw on the floor.
> :-D
>
> Tex
Thanks, Tex.
I think you just summed up the Republican philosophy better than I ever
could.
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 06:27:53
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Prove that 1 = 1 and while you are at it prove that 1 = 2.
1=1 is a gimme and proving 2=1 is easy. If you like mathematics check
the following - if not, skip over it. Read: xexp2 =x in the second
power. Since xexp2-xexp2=(x+x)(x-x) and since also xexp2-xexp2=x(x-x)
you have (x+x)(x-x)=x(x-x); divide with (x-x) and you have x+x=x;
divide with x and you have 2=1. QED. F
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 06:20:01
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
bill-o wrote:
>>
> But how do you help the poor? By giving them fish or by teaching them how to
> fish?
>
As a former teacher, I don't have to tell you the value of education.
I think that should be priority #1 in the USA. If I was in charge I'd
start with that and then maybe tackle the drug problem in America.
Bringing Democracy to Iraq would be pretty far down the list.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 17:24:00
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 27--2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> bill-o wrote:
> >>
> > But how do you help the poor? By giving them fish or by teaching them
> > how to
> > fish?
> >
>
> As a former teacher, I don't have to tell you the value of education.
> I think that should be priority #1 in the USA. If I was in charge I'd
> start with that and then maybe tackle the drug problem in America.
> Bringing Democracy to Iraq would be pretty far down the list.
Tackle it heh, would you declare war on it too? :-)
One thing is for sure, our current "war on drugs" makes Iraq look like a
roaring success.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 17:16:29
From: multi
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On Fri, 27 2006 17:24:00 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org >
wrote:
>> As a former teacher, I don't have to tell you the value of education.
>> I think that should be priority #1 in the USA. If I was in charge I'd
>> start with that and then maybe tackle the drug problem in America.
>> Bringing Democracy to Iraq would be pretty far down the list.
>
>Tackle it heh, would you declare war on it too? :-)
>One thing is for sure, our current "war on drugs" makes Iraq look like a
>roaring success.
I don't know which is harder to understand --- spending billions on
the war on drugs, after seeing what happened during Prohibition, or
spending billions on the war in Iraq, after seeing what happened in
Vietnam.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 09:48:18
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1161955201.646505.165890@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> As a former teacher,
Now that's frightening!
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 06:15:32
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Dene wrote:
> Ever hear of a Jewish historian named Josephus, a contemporary of
> Christ?
>
Long hitter, that Young Josephus. Flowing robes .... striking.
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 04:41:04
From: Tex
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
bill-o wrote:
> On 26--2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Jesus was about helping the poor, not the rich.
>
> But how do you help the poor? By giving them fish or by teaching them how to
> fish?
FUck'm, they can have the fish heads I throw on the floor.
:-D
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 17:21:05
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 27--2006, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> bill-o wrote:
> > On 26--2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Jesus was about helping the poor, not the rich.
> >
> > But how do you help the poor? By giving them fish or by teaching them
> > how to
> > fish?
>
> FUck'm, they can have the fish heads I throw on the floor.
> :-D
That's what we love about you Tex, your compassion!
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 00:27:39
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote in message
news:45423fff$0$17459$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> On 27--2006, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> bill-o wrote:
>> > On 26--2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Jesus was about helping the poor, not the rich.
>> >
>> > But how do you help the poor? By giving them fish or by teaching them
>> > how to
>> > fish?
>>
>> FUck'm, they can have the fish heads I throw on the floor.
>> :-D
>
> That's what we love about you Tex, your compassion!
Compassionate conservatism at its finest.
Randy
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 00:34:55
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Empirical proof? I mean other than the Bible that talks about him helping
> a rich person raise his slave from the dead. Photo's of him helping a poor
> person while the rich guy looks on - that sort of empirical evidence.
Got a picture of Cleopatra?
> Better yet - a document written by observers that were there when Jesus was
> alive.
Josephus. Read about him. Don't believe him, then you have no
evidence to believe the story of Masada, the Roman occupation of Judea,
King Herod, etc.
>Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention Jesus;
Because they were compiled and stashed a 100 years before Christ was
born. Don't believe me, look it up in Wikipedia, 1st paragraph.
and no copies of the New
> Testament exist that are from 30 AD; so do not point to those either.
Perhaps because they were written and compiled 10-20 years after His
death.
> > Jesus wouldn't do
> > backflips when Exxon Mobil announced another +$10 Billion quarterly
> > profit as they did today.
>
> I never saw mention of Exxon Mobil in the new testament. Or corporation in
> general, for that matter.
You ever read the New Testament? Great stories about King David in it.
The Book of Hezekiah is my fav.
> Other than all those stories about him preaching at temples and being a
> rabbi?
>
> Your vision of this Jesus guy is not in the least bit backed by biblical
> statements. Additionally; there is still no empirical evidence for his
> existance; let alone the ability to pull off miracles.
If you apply the same emperical standard to other ancient historical
figures, you'd have to conclude that they didn't exist either.
Some advice. How about doing some homework on your OWN, honestly and
thoroughly drawing your OWN conclusions, before spouting off what some
cynic spoon fed you.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 17:41:05
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Dene wrote:
> Some advice. How about doing some homework on your OWN, honestly and
> thoroughly drawing your OWN conclusions, before spouting off what some
> cynic spoon fed you.
>
> -Greg
Better advice, Greg. Before you go around believing that Jeebus actually
existed and did the things that Old Testament predicted and New Testament
credits him with; you might want to read those books.
First of all, he must be Jewish - "...you may appoint a king over you,
whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall
you set as king over you." (Deuteronomy 17:15)
He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart
from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." (Genesis 49:10)
He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his
son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep
with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue
from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a
house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom
forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)
He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel
-"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the
outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the
four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)
He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my
sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.."
(Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)
He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their
swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation
shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war
anymore." (Micah 4:3)
He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's
commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall
all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to
observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)
He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and
serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to
another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship
before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)
All of these criteria are best stated in the book of Ezekiel Chapter 37
verses 24-28:
And David my servant shall be king over them; and they shall all
have one shepherd. they shall also follow My judgments and observe My
statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have
given to Yaakov my servant, in which your fathers have dwelt and they
shall dwell there, they and their children, and their children's
children forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever.
Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an
everlasting covenant with them, which I will give them; and I will
multiply them and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them
forevermore. And my tabernacle shall be with them: and I will be their
G-d and they will be my people. Then the nations shall know that I am
the L-rd who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary will be in the midst
of them forevermore.
If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he
cannot be "The Messiah." A careful analysis of these criteria shows us
that to date, no one has fulfilled every condition.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:46:29
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Don't forget Rick Wakeman and his Journey to the Center of the Earth album.
> That was amazing. Speaking of amazing; let's not forget to give honorable
> mention to the greatest 3 man band ever, ELP.
God, next you'll be telling us about the greatness of Air Supply and
Abba.
>
> B52's are Atlanta. :-)
Actually, they're from Athens. But there will never be another band as
great as Pylon.
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 06:00:46
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 30--2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> > B52's are Atlanta. :-)
>
> Actually, they're from Athens. But there will never be another band as
> great as Pylon.
Turn up the VOL-yume!
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:38:59
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
bill-o wrote:
> On 30--2006, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> B52's are Atlanta. :-)
>>
>> Actually, they're from Athens. But there will never be another band
>> as great as Pylon.
>
> Turn up the VOL-yume!
I have never even heard of Pylon. Probably some warm-up band for Journey.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 07:21:31
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 31--2006, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
> I have never even heard of Pylon. Probably some warm-up band for Journey.
Nope, they would never open for a hair band. Last time I saw them they
opened for Talking Heads on the tour that produced the double live album.
They came out of Athens about the same time as REM and the B-52s. They and
Love Tractor, aka F**k Truck, never got the commercial success of the more
famous pair.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 21:53:12
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> Don't forget Rick Wakeman and his Journey to the Center of the Earth
>> album. That was amazing. Speaking of amazing; let's not forget to
>> give honorable mention to the greatest 3 man band ever, ELP.
>
> God, next you'll be telling us about the greatness of Air Supply and
> Abba.
What kind of crack abuser would ever associate Air Supply and Abba with ELP
or Wakeman (of Yes fame)?
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 08:03:50
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
bill-o wrote:
> >
> > But there will never be another band as great as Pylon.
>
> Turn up the VOL-yume!
>
http://members.aol.com/annika1980/volume.wma
(Paste that URL into your Windows Media Player. Mac Users .... bite me.)
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 16:21:07
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
:
: bill-o wrote:
: > >
: > > But there will never be another band as great as Pylon.
: >
: > Turn up the VOL-yume!
: >
:
: http://members.aol.com/annika1980/volume.wma
:
: (Paste that URL into your Windows Media Player. Mac Users .... bite me.)
Macs have WMP, dude.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 19:01:22
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Head Shot wrote:
> >
> I have never even heard of Pylon. Probably some warm-up band for Journey.
>
>
No, but I did see them with R.E.M. one time.
And please never mention the great Pylon in the same sentence with that
wiener band, Journey ever again!
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 22:18:29
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>>>
>> I have never even heard of Pylon. Probably some warm-up band for
>> Journey.
>>
>>
>
> No, but I did see them with R.E.M. one time.
>
> And please never mention the great Pylon in the same sentence with
> that wiener band, Journey ever again!
Only if you refrain from naming Punk Rock in the same thread as Rock and
Roll. LOL
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 00:15:27
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Head Shot wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > Deal with it.
>
>
> This Jesus guy - any empirical evidence of his existance? Better yet;
> any empirical evidence of the things that his followers allege that he did?
Ever hear of a Jewish historian named Josephus, a contemporary of
Christ?
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 17:35:49
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Dene wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> annika1980 wrote:
>>> Deal with it.
>>
>>
>> This Jesus guy - any empirical evidence of his existance? Better
>> yet; any empirical evidence of the things that his followers allege
>> that he did?
>
> Ever hear of a Jewish historian named Josephus, a contemporary of
> Christ?
Josephus has photographs or directions to the buried body? Jeebus should be
easy to find; considering that he would have non-human DNA.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 16:50:39
From: Fairway
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Ersatz wrote:
> Fairway wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> > > Prove that 1 = 1 and while you are at it prove that 1 = 2.
> > 1=1 is a gimme and proving 2=1 is easy. If you like mathematics check
> > the following - if not, skip over it. Read: xexp2 =x in the second
> > power. Since xexp2-xexp2=(x+x)(x-x) and since also xexp2-xexp2=x(x-x)
> > you have (x+x)(x-x)=x(x-x); divide with (x-x) and you have x+x=x;
> > divide with x and you have 2=1. QED. F
>
> Dividing by zero again are we?
> rog
Yep. F
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 15:00:12
From: Ersatz
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Fairway wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
> > Prove that 1 = 1 and while you are at it prove that 1 = 2.
> 1=1 is a gimme and proving 2=1 is easy. If you like mathematics check
> the following - if not, skip over it. Read: xexp2 =x in the second
> power. Since xexp2-xexp2=(x+x)(x-x) and since also xexp2-xexp2=x(x-x)
> you have (x+x)(x-x)=x(x-x); divide with (x-x) and you have x+x=x;
> divide with x and you have 2=1. QED. F
Dividing by zero again are we?
rog
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 12:21:05
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
bill-o wrote:
> On 27--2006, Michel Oui <GGOAT@example.com> wrote:
>
> > His followers say Jesus walked on water. Here is a published scientific
> > theory that potentially explains how He did it:
>
> What I don't understand is all the bloody tussle between rationalism and
> religion. In my mind rationalism, including but not limited to the
> scientific method, deals with all that can be observed, measured, tested and
> proven, empirical evidence as Head Job said. Religion on the other hand
> deals with that beyond Man's understanding.
Good distinctions between the two, Bill. I would only add that there
is some blending between the two in terms of historical facts. Christ
did exist, same as Ceasar, Cyrus, Solomon, etc. What Christ did isn't
purely matter of faith. There are written documents from a variety of
sources who claim that he was crucified and rose from the dead. To say
otherwise is to claim that a significant number of people are lying,
and furthermore, an even larger number of witnesses, like his
disciples, died horrifics deaths while spreading a lie. Some will die
for the truth...few if any will die for what they know to be a lie.
Many moderns are so arrogant to
> believe that there is nothing beyond our understanding and that anything
> that can't be proven doesn't exist. It seems like a impoverised existence.
>
Did you mean impoverished? If so, well put. What I find so remarkable
about the "modern" perspective is their faith, i.e. something came from
nothing, then the somethings randomly got organized. When I think of
the intricacy of life, the universe, etc., I'm forced to believe that a
higher power both created it and maintains it. No other conclusion
makes sense to me. Given this, I chose to believe in most aspects of
Christianity, for two reasons. It makes the most sense and secondly,
my experience with it, the latter which cannot be emperically proven.
But then again, who can measure the existence of love?
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 17:45:39
From: multi
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 27 2006 12:21:05 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>
>bill-o wrote:
>> On 27--2006, Michel Oui <GGOAT@example.com> wrote:
>>
>> > His followers say Jesus walked on water. Here is a published scientific
>> > theory that potentially explains how He did it:
>>
>> What I don't understand is all the bloody tussle between rationalism and
>> religion. In my mind rationalism, including but not limited to the
>> scientific method, deals with all that can be observed, measured, tested and
>> proven, empirical evidence as Head Job said. Religion on the other hand
>> deals with that beyond Man's understanding.
>
>Good distinctions between the two, Bill. I would only add that there
>is some blending between the two in terms of historical facts. Christ
>did exist, same as Ceasar, Cyrus, Solomon, etc. What Christ did isn't
>purely matter of faith. There are written documents from a variety of
>sources who claim that he was crucified and rose from the dead. To say
>otherwise is to claim that a significant number of people are lying,
>and furthermore, an even larger number of witnesses, like his
>disciples, died horrifics deaths while spreading a lie. Some will die
>for the truth...few if any will die for what they know to be a lie.
>
> Many moderns are so arrogant to
>> believe that there is nothing beyond our understanding and that anything
>> that can't be proven doesn't exist. It seems like a impoverised existence.
>>
>
>Did you mean impoverished? If so, well put. What I find so remarkable
>about the "modern" perspective is their faith, i.e. something came from
>nothing, then the somethings randomly got organized. When I think of
>the intricacy of life, the universe, etc., I'm forced to believe that a
>higher power both created it and maintains it. No other conclusion
>makes sense to me. Given this, I chose to believe in most aspects of
>Christianity, for two reasons. It makes the most sense and secondly,
>my experience with it, the latter which cannot be emperically proven.
>But then again, who can measure the existence of love?
Um, Mark Foley was pretty good with a tape measure. But your last two
sentences are the only ones in your whole post that aren't complete
rubbish.
The rest is argument from ignorance: "I can't figure out how life
evolved over billions of years, therefore the answer must be that an
omnipotent being popped out of nowhere and created it" (or an
omnipotent being always existed and one day decided to create it ---
just as illogical).
Or bandwagon: "Jesus disciples (allegedly) died for him, so he must
have walked on water." Well, Jesus had eleven disciples when he died,
and although the Gospels contradict each other about many details
regarding his death, they all agree that the disciples were highly
skeptical about the resurrection, even when their own mothers swore
that it was true. As for the idea that dying for their belief proves
anything, like I said, he had 11 disciples. I don't remember
offhand exactly how many of Jesus disciples actually died for him, but
I know it was less than David Koresh had, and way less than Jim Jones,
and way way less than Hitler. It might have been more than Charlie
Manson, though.
Or just complete non-sequitur: "I believe in a higher power, therefore
Christianity is true." Dude, the Gospels are full of promises that
you can test right away. Anything you ask for will be given. You can
cast mountains into the sea. How's that working for you? Oh, I know,
you can't ask for anything that God doesn't want. Well, the same goes
for me. You can ask me for anything, and if it's according to my
will, like you giving me money, I'll say yes; otherwise I'll say no.
If you're not happy with that, why are you happy with a system where
you don't even get a yes or no, you just have to wait and see what
happens, and then interpret it somehow as a yes or no?
You say Christianity makes the most sense. I say the Greek myths make
the most sense. In them, the gods play favorites, and are generous,
vindictive, or capricious, as their moods change. But at least they
are up front about it, unlike the God of the Bible, who also plays
favorites, and is capricious and vindictive, but hypocritically claims
to be a god of pure love.
Like I said, your last two sentences are OK. If it works for you, and
you have faith in it, fine. Just don't pretend that it's anything
like objective truth, or that you arrived at your belief through any
kind of logic or reasoning, except the bad kind.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:52:34
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
multi wrote:
> The rest is argument from ignorance: "I can't figure out how life
> evolved over billions of years, therefore the answer must be that an
> omnipotent being popped out of nowhere and created it" (or an
> omnipotent being always existed and one day decided to create it ---
> just as illogical).
What caused the big bang?
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 08:28:51
From: multi
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On Sat, 28 2006 10:52:34 -0400, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:
>multi wrote:
>> The rest is argument from ignorance: "I can't figure out how life
>> evolved over billions of years, therefore the answer must be that an
>> omnipotent being popped out of nowhere and created it" (or an
>> omnipotent being always existed and one day decided to create it ---
>> just as illogical).
>
>What caused the big bang?
I explained my relationship with Salma Hayek in another thread.
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 22:26:39
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> multi wrote:
>> The rest is argument from ignorance: "I can't figure out how life
>> evolved over billions of years, therefore the answer must be that an
>> omnipotent being popped out of nowhere and created it" (or an
>> omnipotent being always existed and one day decided to create it ---
>> just as illogical).
>
> What caused the big bang?
Since it was a creation event, it might have been a Creator. But how can
you get outside of the experiment to observe it? And besides, the
creator of that creation event could have been random and without any higher
intelligence. Personally; I will go with random. I will also side with
those who think this is just a child universe in a megaverse.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 08:08:33
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
multi wrote:
> On 29 2006 20:17:10 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> ><Multi wrote:>
> >> So, with all respect, is what you have really a personal relationship,
> >> or is it more along the lines of a good feeling?
> >
> >Personal. Feelings come and go. His presence has been with me since
> >1973. Prior to that, a gnawing sense of emptiness.
>
> Well, you said it was hard to explain, but the way you explained it,
> it sure sounds more like a good feeling to me. But that's good,
> because I would question your sanity if you said that God actually
> talked to you.
It's like the song...."More than a feeling."
> I'll end it here, but I would ask you to seriously consider whether
> you see a contradiction in the fact that although he obviously could,
> God doesn't seem to talk to anyone, or at least not anyone very
> credible. The Bible is full of accounts of him talking to people
> about all kinds of things, and even actively forcing them to do things
> (e.g. Jonah), yet somehow Christians today act like God is much too
> polite to give anything beyond the most subtle hint, even though many
> of them believe that he has already sentenced billions of people to
> eternal torment.
> I think you should ask yourself which is more probable, given the
> undeniable fact that millions (or billions) of people, of all
> different faiths, are sure that they are in touch with God, and yet
> only the lunatics offer testable proof, i.e. only they are willing to
> say that God has revealed to them that X will happen in the future.
> Has God really changed his nature so much since the Biblical days when
> he spoke unambiguously to those he had a personal relationship with,
> or is it more likely that what you feel is simply part of an innate
> human need to be part of something larger than yourself?
He has tried through various ways to connect with mankind. See below a
reference to a book that does a nice job explaining this.
> In fact, forget all the other religions, and just take Christianity.
> I have in mind the two most famous Christians of 2003, namely George
> W. Bush, and Pope John Paul II. Both claimed a close personal
> relationship with God. And yet, after careful and prayerful
> consideration, Bush believed that God told him to invade Iraq, while
> the Pope believed that God told him the invasion was wrong. Was God
> lying to one of them? Was one of them deceived by Satan? Or were both
> of them just deceiving themselves?
I cannot comment authoratively on either man's relationship with
God....just my own. However, you've raised excellent questions.
Can I suggest Disappointment with God from Phillip Yancey? He, unlike
most Christian authors, has my complete respect. He's a theologian
with courage to take on the hard questions. Even better, he's writes
well.
I read his book during that awful summer. I'd be happy to loan you a
copy. My e-mail address is dene at ipns dot com.
Oh....here is what the book is about. Basically he takes on 3 hard
questions that few Christians like to address.
"In Disappointment with God, Yancey tackles the questions caused by a
God who doesn't always do what we think he's supposed to do. Insightful
and deeply personal, Yancey points to the odd disparity between our
concept of God and the realities of life. Why, if God is so hungry for
relationship with us, does he seem so distant? Why, if he cares for us,
do bad things happen? What can we expect from him after all? Yancey
answers these questions with clarity, richness, and biblical
assurance."
Take care!
-Greg
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:08:41
From: multi
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 30 2006 08:08:33 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>Can I suggest Disappointment with God from Phillip Yancey? He, unlike
>most Christian authors, has my complete respect. He's a theologian
>with courage to take on the hard questions. Even better, he's writes
>well.
Thanks for the tip; I'll get it from the library.
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:00:18
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
multi wrote:
> On 27 2006 23:24:35 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >multi wrote:
> >> The rest is argument from ignorance: "I can't figure out how life
> >> evolved over billions of years, therefore the answer must be that an
> >> omnipotent being popped out of nowhere and created it" (or an
> >> omnipotent being always existed and one day decided to create it ---
> >> just as illogical).
> >
> >And your theory is???
>
> Like most intelligent and educated people, I accept the neo-Darwinist
> theory of evolution as the explanation of the diversity of life. As
> for how life itself began, I don't know, just as someone living 500
> years ago had no idea what made the sun shine. I expect that science
> will find the answer to the origin of life in much less than 500 years
> from now.
"Most intelligent and educated people accept neo-Darwinism, i.e.
atheism. That's a crock.
Plenty of these people accept/embrace a higher power.
> The point is, I don't really care.
That's the most intellectually honest thing you've said.
I think it's an interesting
> question, and I hope we find the answer, but I'd rather find a cure
> for cancer, or a cure for stupidity. I don't know why some people
> can't live with uncertainty, but it doesn't bother me. I would rather
> say "I don't know" than embrace something that makes no sense, or
> doesn't explain anything.
And yet you ridicule me for believing in something I don't understand.
As for your faith in science, grasp this. The constant of the universe
is decay, i.e. complicated matter like life forms devolving into the
simplest elements, unless there is interfering forces (maintenance).
Yet your faith is in the contrary, that something came nothing, then
got organized. A cell was form, survived, reproduced, and then
eventually got busy forming an eye.
You criticize me for being irrational?
I bet you believe in mutation, i.e. the notion that a simple species
evolved into a complicated one. Where's the fossil evidence? The
mutated species should outweigh the final product, millions to one.
What does the fossil evidence reveal? Change within a species,
certainly, but no change from one to another.
More about your faith below.
> You would have fit right in with the old Anglo-Saxons. When they
> invaded England and saw Stonehenge, they couldn't believe that it had
> been built by the primitive Celts, so they decided that it must have
> been magically constructed by Merlin.
>
> And if it did turn out that life required a higher power, so what?
> That is in accord with thousands of religions, and most of their
> creation myths are not as ridiculously easy to disprove as the one in
> Genesis, which has fruit trees growing before the sun was created.
> You seem to think that the only two choices are atheism and
> Christianity, but there are an infinite number of choices. In fact,
> the number of choices is larger than the number of integers.
I don't believe in the literal Genesis account.
> >> Or bandwagon: "Jesus disciples (allegedly) died for him, so he must
> >> have walked on water." Well, Jesus had eleven disciples when he died,
> >> and although the Gospels contradict each other about many details
> >> regarding his death, they all agree that the disciples were highly
> >> skeptical about the resurrection, even when their own mothers swore
> >> that it was true. As for the idea that dying for their belief proves
> >> anything, like I said, he had 11 disciples. I don't remember
> >> offhand exactly how many of Jesus disciples actually died for him, but
> >> I know it was less than David Koresh had, and way less than Jim Jones,
> >> and way way less than Hitler. It might have been more than Charlie
> >> Manson, though.
>
> >John died a natural death. The rest died horrifically.
>
> That didn't sound right, so I looked it up. Guess what? Of the
> eleven, the New Testament only tells how one of them died, namely
> James, who was killed by King Herod, and even that is in a chapter
> which is obviously a fairy tale, because it then talks about an angel
> getting Peter out of prison. Of the other ten, all we have are
> legends collected by various monks, just as we have stories about
> Washington chopping down a cherry tree, or throwing a dollar across
> the Potomac. In the Dark Ages, almost every church in Europe claimed
> to have a bone from some saint or another as a sacred relic. That was
> crap, too.
Using your logic, none of the disciples existed too. Everybody is a
liar except those who think like you.
> If the resurrection wasn't a lie, then why didn't anybody in Jerusalem
> believe it? Why did the apostles have such limited success converting
> Jews, who knew all the Old Testament prophecies that supposedly proved
> Jesus was the Messiah, and who should have seen, or known people who
> had seen, some of his miracles? Why did the vast majority of
> conversions occur in Greece, Rome, and Asia Minor, among people who
> knew nothing about the prophecies, and nothing about Jesus, but simply
> believed what they were told, just like you? After his alleged
> resurrection, Jesus obviously couldn't be killed again (I guess), so
> instead of skulking around in hidden rooms, or out in the mountains
> where nobody but his homies could see him, why didn't he walk up the
> steps of the temple and show his wounds to the high priest? Why
> didn't he go to the public square and proclaim his resurrection to the
> masses, instead of just 11 people?
Why the Jewish disbelief. Read my responding post to Head Shot. Also,
Christ fully predicted the Jewish disbelief. He came for the world,
not just the Jewish one.
> In fact, forget Jesus, because like I said, he only had 11 followers,
> so hardly anybody would have recognized him. But what about King
> David, and Solomon, and Isaiah, and the other great prophets?
> Wouldn't they have caused a little discussion if they suddenly
> appeared in 1st century Jerusalem? Most Christians don't know much
> about the Bible, but if you read it, you'll see that there wasn't just
> one resurrection, there were dozens.
>
> "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept
> arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went
> into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
> Matthew 27:52-53
>
> So I have to explain why 11 guys, who suddenly lost their meal ticket,
> said he came back to life. Here it is: they lied.
Why would they lie? As for meal ticket, at least half of the bunch
were well off. Following Jesus, risking their lives, was hardly a meal
ticket.
> Now you have to explain why all the other Jewish saints came back to
> life, and went into Jerusalem, and appeared to many, and NOBODY
> thought that was important enough to comment on but Matthew. Not
> Josephus, not any other historian, not the Temple scribes, not anybody
> who saw them. Not even Mark, Luke, or John, who normally devoted
> whole chapters to repeating the same mundane events that Matthew
> described. Good luck.
How many accounts are required? Apply this standard to other ancient
historians and pretty soon you'd have to discredit the existence of
many people.
> You know what, Christians (including you, farther down) always say
> that heathens like me just have closed minds; that there is nothing
> that would convince us. Well, that would convince me. If the graves
> opened up, and a bunch of very famous dead people came to life and
> walked around a big city where everybody could see them, wild horses
> could not keep me out of church.
I don't think that's an honest statement. I think you would latch on
to the quickest scientific explanation you could find.
And even more important question....why do you require a miracle like
this one? Look outside....see the the complexity of the universe.
Honestly ask yourself if this is all random. Why do you have to see an
unusual miracle when you got the miracle of creation right in front of
you, pointing you in an obvious direction.
> >> Like I said, your last two sentences are OK. If it works for
you, and
> >> you have faith in it, fine. Just don't pretend that it's anything
> >> like objective truth, or that you arrived at your belief through any
> >> kind of logic or reasoning, except the bad kind.
Fine, but don't pretend that your faith in science is objective or
rational either.
> >It's a mixture of reasoning and experience, the latter I cannot prove.
> >The former you refuse to believe, regardless of my reasoning or others
> >who are far smarter than me (e.g. C.S. Lewis).
>
> Other people who are far smarter than you include Jews, Muslims,
> Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists. All it proves is that no matter how
> smart you are, you aren't immune to irrationality.
>
> > I presume you prefer a
> >life without a personal creator,
>
> Actually, I prefer a life based on reason.
A life based on ducking the big question.
> > because he doesn't fit in your view of
> >life. That's your choice, albeit an impoverished choice.
>
> It is not my choice, and that is not my reason. My choice is to
> believe only in things that either can be proven, or that are
> indicated by a preponderance of evidence. There is no evidence for a
> god or gods. The vast majority of people who say they have arrived at
> their religion through reason don't seem to notice that by an amazing
> coincidence, it is the religion they were raised in. Most of the rest
> are just afraid to die.
Neither apply to me. I wasn't raised a Christian, nor am I afraid to
die. I fear dying horribly or outliving my kids, but as for the end of
this existence, no fear. I experienced this first hand when I had a
sawed off shotgun pointed at me, then subsequently was beaten, during
an armed robbery. As soon as they left, I went back to eating my
hamburger, whereas my fellow employees had the shakes the rest of the
evening.
Wait a second....you weren't there, so that event didn't happen.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 12:35:03
From: multi
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 28 2006 10:00:18 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>
>multi wrote:
>> On 27 2006 23:24:35 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >multi wrote:
>> >> The rest is argument from ignorance: "I can't figure out how life
>> >> evolved over billions of years, therefore the answer must be that an
>> >> omnipotent being popped out of nowhere and created it" (or an
>> >> omnipotent being always existed and one day decided to create it ---
>> >> just as illogical).
>> >
>> >And your theory is???
>>
>> Like most intelligent and educated people, I accept the neo-Darwinist
>> theory of evolution as the explanation of the diversity of life. As
>> for how life itself began, I don't know, just as someone living 500
>> years ago had no idea what made the sun shine. I expect that science
>> will find the answer to the origin of life in much less than 500 years
>> from now.
>
>"Most intelligent and educated people accept neo-Darwinism, i.e.
>atheism. That's a crock.
If you're talking about equating neo-Darwinism with atheism, you're
right.
>Plenty of these people accept/embrace a higher power.
Yes, they do. Neo-Darwinism says nothing about the existence or
nonexistence of God. It simply assumes that biological processes
follow consistent physical laws. If you want to say God created those
laws, nobody objects, as long as you don't insist that others believe
it.
>> The point is, I don't really care.
>
>That's the most intellectually honest thing you've said.
I would be offended by that, if I hadn't read elsewhere that your
ideal of intellectual honesty is Bill O'Reilly.
>
>I think it's an interesting
>> question, and I hope we find the answer, but I'd rather find a cure
>> for cancer, or a cure for stupidity. I don't know why some people
>> can't live with uncertainty, but it doesn't bother me. I would rather
>> say "I don't know" than embrace something that makes no sense, or
>> doesn't explain anything.
>
>And yet you ridicule me for believing in something I don't understand.
I don't recall ridiculing you for any reason, although I realize that
you may consider any implication that yours is not the one true faith
as ridicule, and I definitely would not criticize you for believing in
something you don't understand. It's impossible to understand most of
what we see. My problem with you is that you believe in things for
which you have no evidence at all, except maybe the word of someone
you know absolutely nothing about, except his name. And for some New
Testament books, even the author is in dispute.
>As for your faith in science,
I don't have faith in science the way you have faith in religion. I
have confidence in it, based on its track record. Religion makes
obviously false claims. Science produces results.
> grasp this. The constant of the universe
>is decay, i.e. complicated matter like life forms devolving into the
>simplest elements, unless there is interfering forces (maintenance).
You have no idea what goes on in the universe, except for an
infinitesimally small slice of space and time. And even in that, it
seems to me that it would be just as valid to say that the constant
around me is growth. Nearly every plant and animal I see is growing
either up or out. In fact, I would not have believed how easily weeds
can grow in the most seemingly inhospitable places, if I hadn't seen
it in my own yard.
>Yet your faith is in the contrary, that something came nothing, then
>got organized. A cell was form, survived, reproduced, and then
>eventually got busy forming an eye.
I have never said that something came from nothing. I said I don't
know how things got started. If I did know, I wouldn't be able to
explain it to you, because that's Stephen Hawking stuff.
But as far as animals without eyes evolving into animals with eyes,
that is not too hard for a layman to understand. Read "Climbing Mount
Improbable," by Richard Dawkins.
>You criticize me for being irrational?
I point it out, and you take it as criticism. I guess you missed it
when I said it has nothing to do with intelligence.
>I bet you believe in mutation, i.e. the notion that a simple species
>evolved into a complicated one. Where's the fossil evidence? The
>mutated species should outweigh the final product, millions to one.
>What does the fossil evidence reveal? Change within a species,
>certainly, but no change from one to another.
I suggest you steer away from this line of argument until you learn
more about evolution.
>
>More about your faith below.
>
> > You would have fit right in with the old Anglo-Saxons. When they
>> invaded England and saw Stonehenge, they couldn't believe that it had
>> been built by the primitive Celts, so they decided that it must have
>> been magically constructed by Merlin.
>>
>> And if it did turn out that life required a higher power, so what?
>> That is in accord with thousands of religions, and most of their
>> creation myths are not as ridiculously easy to disprove as the one in
>> Genesis, which has fruit trees growing before the sun was created.
>> You seem to think that the only two choices are atheism and
>> Christianity, but there are an infinite number of choices. In fact,
>> the number of choices is larger than the number of integers.
>
>I don't believe in the literal Genesis account.
I see. You not only know which one of the thousands of Holy
Scriptures is the true word of God, but you know when it means what it
says, and when it doesn't.
>> >> Or bandwagon: "Jesus disciples (allegedly) died for him, so he must
>> >> have walked on water." Well, Jesus had eleven disciples when he died,
>> >> and although the Gospels contradict each other about many details
>> >> regarding his death, they all agree that the disciples were highly
>> >> skeptical about the resurrection, even when their own mothers swore
>> >> that it was true. As for the idea that dying for their belief proves
>> >> anything, like I said, he had 11 disciples. I don't remember
>> >> offhand exactly how many of Jesus disciples actually died for him, but
>> >> I know it was less than David Koresh had, and way less than Jim Jones,
>> >> and way way less than Hitler. It might have been more than Charlie
>> >> Manson, though.
>>
>> >John died a natural death. The rest died horrifically.
>>
>> That didn't sound right, so I looked it up. Guess what? Of the
>> eleven, the New Testament only tells how one of them died, namely
>> James, who was killed by King Herod, and even that is in a chapter
>> which is obviously a fairy tale, because it then talks about an angel
>> getting Peter out of prison. Of the other ten, all we have are
>> legends collected by various monks, just as we have stories about
>> Washington chopping down a cherry tree, or throwing a dollar across
>> the Potomac. In the Dark Ages, almost every church in Europe claimed
>> to have a bone from some saint or another as a sacred relic. That was
>> crap, too.
>
>Using your logic, none of the disciples existed too. Everybody is a
>liar except those who think like you.
You seem to think it's bizarre that I don't believe tales from
anonymous sources. I think it's bizarre that you do. I agree to
disagree.
>> If the resurrection wasn't a lie, then why didn't anybody in Jerusalem
>> believe it? Why did the apostles have such limited success converting
>> Jews, who knew all the Old Testament prophecies that supposedly proved
>> Jesus was the Messiah, and who should have seen, or known people who
>> had seen, some of his miracles? Why did the vast majority of
>> conversions occur in Greece, Rome, and Asia Minor, among people who
>> knew nothing about the prophecies, and nothing about Jesus, but simply
>> believed what they were told, just like you? After his alleged
>> resurrection, Jesus obviously couldn't be killed again (I guess), so
>> instead of skulking around in hidden rooms, or out in the mountains
>> where nobody but his homies could see him, why didn't he walk up the
>> steps of the temple and show his wounds to the high priest? Why
>> didn't he go to the public square and proclaim his resurrection to the
>> masses, instead of just 11 people?
>
>Why the Jewish disbelief. Read my responding post to Head Shot. Also,
>Christ fully predicted the Jewish disbelief. He came for the world,
>not just the Jewish one.
OK, I read it. I don't see any answers. Head Shot is absolutely
right --- the important thing about the Messiah is that he has a
glorious reign over Israel. If he doesn't do that, then it doesn't
matter where he was born, or what his lineage is. It would be like me
saying, "I'm the President of the US, and here's the proof: I am a
native-born American, and I am over 35. What are the odds, out of all
the times and places I could have been born, that I would meet those
requirements? And never mind that nobody elected me, that will happen
3,000 years from now." I would be locked up in a padded cell.
>> In fact, forget Jesus, because like I said, he only had 11 followers,
>> so hardly anybody would have recognized him. But what about King
>> David, and Solomon, and Isaiah, and the other great prophets?
>> Wouldn't they have caused a little discussion if they suddenly
>> appeared in 1st century Jerusalem? Most Christians don't know much
>> about the Bible, but if you read it, you'll see that there wasn't just
>> one resurrection, there were dozens.
>>
>> "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept
>> arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went
>> into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
>> Matthew 27:52-53
>>
>> So I have to explain why 11 guys, who suddenly lost their meal ticket,
>> said he came back to life. Here it is: they lied.
>
>Why would they lie? As for meal ticket, at least half of the bunch
>were well off. Following Jesus, risking their lives, was hardly a meal
>ticket.
Why would Madonna go to Africa and adopt a black baby? You never
heard of people who want to feel important? But maybe they didn't
lie. Maybe they didn't say anything at all. All we know is that four
people claimed they did. Or maybe they took the long view. The
Catholic Church alone is worth trillions of dollars today.
>
>> Now you have to explain why all the other Jewish saints came back to
>> life, and went into Jerusalem, and appeared to many, and NOBODY
>> thought that was important enough to comment on but Matthew. Not
>> Josephus, not any other historian, not the Temple scribes, not anybody
>> who saw them. Not even Mark, Luke, or John, who normally devoted
>> whole chapters to repeating the same mundane events that Matthew
>> described. Good luck.
>
>How many accounts are required? Apply this standard to other ancient
>historians and pretty soon you'd have to discredit the existence of
>many people.
Oh, grow up. In the first place, people do read ancient historians
critically. It is widely accepted that Herodotus included all kinds
of tales and legends that were obviously false. And in the second
place, any intelligent person has a higher standard for extraordinary
claims than for mundane ones. If I read that Cleopatra fooled around
with Antony and then killed herself, why shouldn't I believe it? But
if I read that she flew through the air and shot lightning out of her
eyes, I wouldn't believe it if a thousand ancient historians said it
was true. The major difference between the Bible and the Iliad is
that millions of people are taught that the things in the Bible
actually happened. It is a great mystery to me that so few outgrow
this belief.
>> You know what, Christians (including you, farther down) always say
>> that heathens like me just have closed minds; that there is nothing
>> that would convince us. Well, that would convince me. If the graves
>> opened up, and a bunch of very famous dead people came to life and
>> walked around a big city where everybody could see them, wild horses
>> could not keep me out of church.
>
>I don't think that's an honest statement. I think you would latch on
>to the quickest scientific explanation you could find.
>And even more important question....why do you require a miracle like
>this one? Look outside....see the the complexity of the universe.
>Honestly ask yourself if this is all random.
Like I said, stay away from scientific argument. No offense meant,
but you don't know what you're talking about. The only people who
think that science says everything is random are the people who get
their science from the little Christian comic books that are left all
over campus.
> Why do you have to see an
>unusual miracle when you got the miracle of creation right in front of
>you, pointing you in an obvious direction.
First, since you like to talk about universal trends, the trend is
that science has explained many phenomena that were taken to be acts
of God a few centuries ago, like lightning bolts. Second, even if the
stars rearranged themselves one night to spell out "God Exists!!",
what obvious direction would they be pointing? Which God? Which
religion? Get it through your head that Christianity is not the only
alternative to atheism; it's one of millions.
> > >> Like I said, your last two sentences are OK. If it works for
>you, and
>> >> you have faith in it, fine. Just don't pretend that it's anything
>> >> like objective truth, or that you arrived at your belief through any
>> >> kind of logic or reasoning, except the bad kind.
>
>Fine, but don't pretend that your faith in science is objective or
>rational either.
As I said, I don't have faith in science; I have confidence, based on
my experience that it works. Every time I flip the switch, the light
goes on. If it doesn't go on, I can find a reason for it --- a burned
out bulb, or a broken wire, or something. There are many things that
I accept from scientists without proof, but it's completely different
from accepting things on faith in religion. In religion, you have no
choice --- you MUST take it on faith that, say, belief in Christ is
necessary to go to heaven, because there is not the tiniest bit of
evidence for that, and there is no way to find any. There is not a
man alive on the planet who actually knows anything about the
afterlife --- he just believes it. On the other hand, when I accept a
scientist's word for something, it's not because I have to, it's
because it's convenient. But if I didn't want to, and if I was smart
enough and had the time, I could learn exactly what the scientist
knows, and understand exactly how whatever phenomenon works. If it's
theoretical physics, it might take me 15 years, but I could do it.
And if it's something that isn't completely understood, then I accept
that, and note that new evidence may be revealed that changes the
consensus scientific opinion.
>
>> >It's a mixture of reasoning and experience, the latter I cannot prove.
>> >The former you refuse to believe, regardless of my reasoning or others
>> >who are far smarter than me (e.g. C.S. Lewis).
>>
>> Other people who are far smarter than you include Jews, Muslims,
>> Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists. All it proves is that no matter how
>> smart you are, you aren't immune to irrationality.
>>
>> > I presume you prefer a
>> >life without a personal creator,
>>
>> Actually, I prefer a life based on reason.
>
>A life based on ducking the big question.
Excuse me, but science is working constantly to try to find out how
life originated and developed, while fundies say "God did it, that's
all I need to know." Who's ducking the question?
>
>> > because he doesn't fit in your view of
>> >life. That's your choice, albeit an impoverished choice.
>>
>> It is not my choice, and that is not my reason. My choice is to
>> believe only in things that either can be proven, or that are
>> indicated by a preponderance of evidence. There is no evidence for a
>> god or gods. The vast majority of people who say they have arrived at
>> their religion through reason don't seem to notice that by an amazing
>> coincidence, it is the religion they were raised in. Most of the rest
>> are just afraid to die.
>
>Neither apply to me.
Swell. But you must have noticed that most of the people in the
Middle East are Muslims, while most of the people in the US are
Christians. Do you think that's random chance, or do you think that
most people just believe the religion they were taught as children, no
matter how smart they are in other areas?
> I wasn't raised a Christian, nor am I afraid to
>die. I fear dying horribly or outliving my kids, but as for the end of
>this existence, no fear. I experienced this first hand when I had a
>sawed off shotgun pointed at me, then subsequently was beaten, during
>an armed robbery. As soon as they left, I went back to eating my
>hamburger, whereas my fellow employees had the shakes the rest of the
>evening.
>
>Wait a second....you weren't there, so that event didn't happen.
As long as you didn't shoot lightning out of your eyes.
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 23:24:35
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
multi wrote:
> The rest is argument from ignorance: "I can't figure out how life
> evolved over billions of years, therefore the answer must be that an
> omnipotent being popped out of nowhere and created it" (or an
> omnipotent being always existed and one day decided to create it ---
> just as illogical).
And your theory is???
> Or bandwagon: "Jesus disciples (allegedly) died for him, so he must
> have walked on water." Well, Jesus had eleven disciples when he died,
> and although the Gospels contradict each other about many details
> regarding his death, they all agree that the disciples were highly
> skeptical about the resurrection, even when their own mothers swore
> that it was true. As for the idea that dying for their belief proves
> anything, like I said, he had 11 disciples. I don't remember
> offhand exactly how many of Jesus disciples actually died for him, but
> I know it was less than David Koresh had, and way less than Jim Jones,
> and way way less than Hitler. It might have been more than Charlie
> Manson, though.
John died a natural death. The rest died horrifically. All they had
to do was declare the ressurection was a lie. It's one thing to be
fooled into drinking cyanide. It's quite another to be crucified
up-side down (Peter) or be filleted alive.
> Or just complete non-sequitur: "I believe in a higher power, therefore
> Christianity is true." Dude, the Gospels are full of promises that
> you can test right away. Anything you ask for will be given. You can
> cast mountains into the sea. How's that working for you?
It doesn't work. Reason....if you had the faith of a mustard seed, one
could perform the miracle you speak of. Point is....nobody has that
kind of faith.
Oh, I know,
> you can't ask for anything that God doesn't want. Well, the same goes
> for me. You can ask me for anything, and if it's according to my
> will, like you giving me money, I'll say yes; otherwise I'll say no.
> If you're not happy with that, why are you happy with a system where
> you don't even get a yes or no, you just have to wait and see what
> happens, and then interpret it somehow as a yes or no?
It's called faith, specifically understanding that there is little in
life that I have complete understanding of. In fact the older I get,
the more mysterious life becomes. My favorite verse is rarely
quoted... "Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. For
what we know in part, we speak of in part, but when the perfect comes,
the partial shall be done away."
> You say Christianity makes the most sense. I say the Greek myths make
> the most sense. In them, the gods play favorites, and are generous,
> vindictive, or capricious, as their moods change. But at least they
> are up front about it, unlike the God of the Bible, who also plays
> favorites, and is capricious and vindictive, but hypocritically claims
> to be a god of pure love.
So that's your theory?
> Like I said, your last two sentences are OK. If it works for you, and
> you have faith in it, fine. Just don't pretend that it's anything
> like objective truth, or that you arrived at your belief through any
> kind of logic or reasoning, except the bad kind.
It's a mixture of reasoning and experience, the latter I cannot prove.
The former you refuse to believe, regardless of my reasoning or others
who are far smarter than me (e.g. C.S. Lewis). I presume you prefer a
life without a personal creator, because he doesn't fit in your view of
life. That's your choice, albeit an impoverished choice.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 06:28:43
From: multi
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 27 2006 23:24:35 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>
>multi wrote:
>> The rest is argument from ignorance: "I can't figure out how life
>> evolved over billions of years, therefore the answer must be that an
>> omnipotent being popped out of nowhere and created it" (or an
>> omnipotent being always existed and one day decided to create it ---
>> just as illogical).
>
>And your theory is???
Like most intelligent and educated people, I accept the neo-Darwinist
theory of evolution as the explanation of the diversity of life. As
for how life itself began, I don't know, just as someone living 500
years ago had no idea what made the sun shine. I expect that science
will find the answer to the origin of life in much less than 500 years
from now.
The point is, I don't really care. I think it's an interesting
question, and I hope we find the answer, but I'd rather find a cure
for cancer, or a cure for stupidity. I don't know why some people
can't live with uncertainty, but it doesn't bother me. I would rather
say "I don't know" than embrace something that makes no sense, or
doesn't explain anything.
You would have fit right in with the old Anglo-Saxons. When they
invaded England and saw Stonehenge, they couldn't believe that it had
been built by the primitive Celts, so they decided that it must have
been magically constructed by Merlin.
And if it did turn out that life required a higher power, so what?
That is in accord with thousands of religions, and most of their
creation myths are not as ridiculously easy to disprove as the one in
Genesis, which has fruit trees growing before the sun was created.
You seem to think that the only two choices are atheism and
Christianity, but there are an infinite number of choices. In fact,
the number of choices is larger than the number of integers.
>
>> Or bandwagon: "Jesus disciples (allegedly) died for him, so he must
>> have walked on water." Well, Jesus had eleven disciples when he died,
>> and although the Gospels contradict each other about many details
>> regarding his death, they all agree that the disciples were highly
>> skeptical about the resurrection, even when their own mothers swore
>> that it was true. As for the idea that dying for their belief proves
>> anything, like I said, he had 11 disciples. I don't remember
>> offhand exactly how many of Jesus disciples actually died for him, but
>> I know it was less than David Koresh had, and way less than Jim Jones,
>> and way way less than Hitler. It might have been more than Charlie
>> Manson, though.
>John died a natural death. The rest died horrifically.
That didn't sound right, so I looked it up. Guess what? Of the
eleven, the New Testament only tells how one of them died, namely
James, who was killed by King Herod, and even that is in a chapter
which is obviously a fairy tale, because it then talks about an angel
getting Peter out of prison. Of the other ten, all we have are
legends collected by various monks, just as we have stories about
Washington chopping down a cherry tree, or throwing a dollar across
the Potomac. In the Dark Ages, almost every church in Europe claimed
to have a bone from some saint or another as a sacred relic. That was
crap, too.
> All they had
>to do was declare the ressurection was a lie. It's one thing to be
>fooled into drinking cyanide. It's quite another to be crucified
>up-side down (Peter) or be filleted alive.
If the resurrection wasn't a lie, then why didn't anybody in Jerusalem
believe it? Why did the apostles have such limited success converting
Jews, who knew all the Old Testament prophecies that supposedly proved
Jesus was the Messiah, and who should have seen, or known people who
had seen, some of his miracles? Why did the vast majority of
conversions occur in Greece, Rome, and Asia Minor, among people who
knew nothing about the prophecies, and nothing about Jesus, but simply
believed what they were told, just like you? After his alleged
resurrection, Jesus obviously couldn't be killed again (I guess), so
instead of skulking around in hidden rooms, or out in the mountains
where nobody but his homies could see him, why didn't he walk up the
steps of the temple and show his wounds to the high priest? Why
didn't he go to the public square and proclaim his resurrection to the
masses, instead of just 11 people?
In fact, forget Jesus, because like I said, he only had 11 followers,
so hardly anybody would have recognized him. But what about King
David, and Solomon, and Isaiah, and the other great prophets?
Wouldn't they have caused a little discussion if they suddenly
appeared in 1st century Jerusalem? Most Christians don't know much
about the Bible, but if you read it, you'll see that there wasn't just
one resurrection, there were dozens.
"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept
arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went
into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
Matthew 27:52-53
So I have to explain why 11 guys, who suddenly lost their meal ticket,
said he came back to life. Here it is: they lied.
Now you have to explain why all the other Jewish saints came back to
life, and went into Jerusalem, and appeared to many, and NOBODY
thought that was important enough to comment on but Matthew. Not
Josephus, not any other historian, not the Temple scribes, not anybody
who saw them. Not even Mark, Luke, or John, who normally devoted
whole chapters to repeating the same mundane events that Matthew
described. Good luck.
You know what, Christians (including you, farther down) always say
that heathens like me just have closed minds; that there is nothing
that would convince us. Well, that would convince me. If the graves
opened up, and a bunch of very famous dead people came to life and
walked around a big city where everybody could see them, wild horses
could not keep me out of church. So you'd think an event like this
would get more play. You would think that there would be an entire
book of the Bible about it, with a chapter dedicated to each prophet,
and what he did. Instead, it is dashed off in one line, and it smells
so bad that not even Matthew's fellow Gospel writers will touch it.
It doesn't even say where they went afterward. I guess it was like
one of the Simpson's Halloween episodes, where the zombies just
shuffled back to the cemetery and scooped the dirt back on top of
themselves.
>> Or just complete non-sequitur: "I believe in a higher power, therefore
>> Christianity is true." Dude, the Gospels are full of promises that
>> you can test right away. Anything you ask for will be given. You can
>> cast mountains into the sea. How's that working for you?
>
>It doesn't work. Reason....if you had the faith of a mustard seed, one
>could perform the miracle you speak of. Point is....nobody has that
>kind of faith.
Um, dude, what he was saying is you could do it if you had the
smallest possible amount of faith. On another occasion, Jesus
explicitly said that the mustard seed was the smallest of all the
seeds. He was wrong, of course, but that's what he thought. So he
was trying to say that the tiniest particle of faith will let you move
mountains.
That aside, there are other verses where he doesn't even make that
tiny qualification. He just flatly states that whatever you ask for
will be given, period.
>Oh, I know,
>> you can't ask for anything that God doesn't want. Well, the same goes
>> for me. You can ask me for anything, and if it's according to my
>> will, like you giving me money, I'll say yes; otherwise I'll say no.
>> If you're not happy with that, why are you happy with a system where
>> you don't even get a yes or no, you just have to wait and see what
>> happens, and then interpret it somehow as a yes or no?
>
>It's called faith, specifically understanding that there is little in
>life that I have complete understanding of. In fact the older I get,
>the more mysterious life becomes. My favorite verse is rarely
>quoted... "Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. For
>what we know in part, we speak of in part, but when the perfect comes,
>the partial shall be done away."
I see why it's rarely quoted. But there is nothing hard to understand
about Jesus saying that any believer will get whatever he asks for,
and 2,000 years of history where it's never happened, beyond the
expected numbers that random chance would account for. If you found
verses like that in the Quran, you would consider it absolute proof
that Muhammad was a fraud, and you would be right to do so.
>> You say Christianity makes the most sense. I say the Greek myths make
>> the most sense. In them, the gods play favorites, and are generous,
>> vindictive, or capricious, as their moods change. But at least they
>> are up front about it, unlike the God of the Bible, who also plays
>> favorites, and is capricious and vindictive, but hypocritically claims
>> to be a god of pure love.
>
>So that's your theory?
No, I don't believe in Zeus and Ares. I just think Homer's theology
makes more sense, and explains more, and matches the world better,
than yours. But as I said above, I'd rather just say "I don't know"
than accept things without proof.
>> Like I said, your last two sentences are OK. If it works for you, and
>> you have faith in it, fine. Just don't pretend that it's anything
>> like objective truth, or that you arrived at your belief through any
>> kind of logic or reasoning, except the bad kind.
>It's a mixture of reasoning and experience, the latter I cannot prove.
>The former you refuse to believe, regardless of my reasoning or others
>who are far smarter than me (e.g. C.S. Lewis).
Other people who are far smarter than you include Jews, Muslims,
Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists. All it proves is that no matter how
smart you are, you aren't immune to irrationality.
> I presume you prefer a
>life without a personal creator,
Actually, I prefer a life based on reason.
> because he doesn't fit in your view of
>life. That's your choice, albeit an impoverished choice.
It is not my choice, and that is not my reason. My choice is to
believe only in things that either can be proven, or that are
indicated by a preponderance of evidence. There is no evidence for a
god or gods. The vast majority of people who say they have arrived at
their religion through reason don't seem to notice that by an amazing
coincidence, it is the religion they were raised in. Most of the rest
are just afraid to die.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 12:54:00
From: David
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal! (very long!)
|
On 27 2006 23:24:35 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>
>multi wrote:
<snipped >
>It's a mixture of reasoning and experience, the latter I cannot prove.
>The former you refuse to believe, regardless of my reasoning or others
>who are far smarter than me (e.g. C.S. Lewis). I presume you prefer a
>life without a personal creator, because he doesn't fit in your view of
>life. That's your choice, albeit an impoverished choice.
And that last line is the one that makes me want to vomit everytime
I hear, or read it. Personally, I feel sorry for those who are afraid
to seek answers to questions which are difficult. I feel that it is
you who are impoverished by not accepting true nature.
Granted, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, etc..., are not
easy things to grasp and a vast majority of people simply don't "get
it." This does not mean that you should seek the comfort of a higher
being creating everything simply because you don't understand these
concepts.
Do you believe that the earth is the center of the universe? Do you
believe that the earth is only around 6000 years old? Do you believe
that dinosaurs and man co-existed? Do you not believe that all life
on this planet came from the seas?
Okay, if I can prove to you that the earth is older than 6000
years--without even having to refer to the half-life of radioactive
substances--, in a way that you wll be guaranteed to understand it,
would you agree that the earth must be older than 6000 years?
I find it amusing that this discussion is so prevalent all of a
sudden. I have been having an email exchange with someone regarding
the exact things that are being discussed in this thread. His claim
is that the mathematics and sciences that I learned in college were
taught by radical liberals who are hell bent on getting people to stop
believing in god. He made a comment along the lines of, "why do
people with a higher education lose their faith in god?" Of course,
this is an utterly ridiclous statement to make, since many
mathematicians and scientists are strong believers in god.
Well, my faith is in the mathematics and science. When I observe
the universe through a telescope, I ponder questions about how the
universe came to be what it is. I ponder the vastness of the
univers--this place in which we live is HUGE! These experiences make
me want to strive even more to find the answers to these questions. If
I were to simply accept that everything is the result of a higher
being putting everything here, I could just as well put that telescope
away and never peer in to the universe again. Of course, that would
mean that I miss out on the true wonders of the universe. Wonders
that are buried in quantum physics, for example.
If others before never felt the need to answer these questions, you
would surely not be sitting in front of a computer, posting your
biblical beliefs to this ng. There would never have been a space
program and you never would have been able to use your GPS device, or
call your wife from your cell phone. I would have died six years ago,
at the age or 42, when I was diagnosed with colon cancer, if there
were never people brave enough to mess with "god's temple" and learn
how the body functions and how to combat microscopic
warriors--bacteria and virii.
Because our life span is so short--even if we lived to be 1000 years
old--we have a difficult time dealing with concepts of nothing and
infinity. The finality (in a sense) of death is difficult to accept.
The Neanderthals were presumably the first creatures to be able to
ponder this question and developed the concept of an afterlife. All
religion stems from this belief.
I noted that death is, in a sense, final. The fact is, the
molecules and cells that make up our bodies are absorbed back in to
the universe. Lilttle creatures feed up on us, and, in turn, they are
ingested by higher life forms. The concept of reincarnation more
accurately reflects the true state of the universe--matter can be
converted to energy, or maintain its state, it cannot be destroyed.
One day, after you and I die, there will be other creatures formed
from the very materials that we were made up of.
Where did this matter come from? Well, we are all "star stuff." The
materials required to make a boulder, or a living creature are "born"
in stars. In the very early stages of the universe, combinations of
sub-atomic particles formed to become protons. These protons
coalesced in to stars. Thermonuclear reactions caused these protons
to combine and form heavier elements. Eventually, these stars ended
their life cycles and exploded sending the heavy elements in to space
which eventually ended up forming new systems.
Over the period of billions of years, something happened in our neck
of the woods. Something that you attribute to a higher being:
something that I consider to be a statistical certainty--life formed.
That is my rendition of what happened and I am sticking to it. I do
no feel lessened by this thought. Actually, I find these concepts to
be exhilarating and trying to discover how the universe works on a
quantum level is fun. The universe is truly an amazing (not in the
spiritual sense) construct.
>-Greg
|
| |
Date: 27 Oct 2006 23:05:52
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > Some advice. How about doing some homework on your OWN, honestly and
> > thoroughly drawing your OWN conclusions, before spouting off what some
> > cynic spoon fed you.
> >
> > -Greg
>
> Better advice, Greg. Before you go around believing that Jeebus actually
> existed and did the things that Old Testament predicted and New Testament
> credits him with; you might want to read those books.
>
> First of all, he must be Jewish - "...you may appoint a king over you,
> whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall
> you set as king over you." (Deuteronomy 17:15)
>
> He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart
> from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." (Genesis 49:10)
>
> He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his
> son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep
> with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue
> from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a
> house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom
> forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13)
>
> He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel
> -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the
> outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the
> four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)
>
> He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my
> sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.."
> (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)
>
> He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their
> swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation
> shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war
> anymore." (Micah 4:3)
>
> He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's
> commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall
> all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to
> observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)
>
> He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and
> serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to
> another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship
> before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)
>
> All of these criteria are best stated in the book of Ezekiel Chapter 37
> verses 24-28:
>
> And David my servant shall be king over them; and they shall all
> have one shepherd. they shall also follow My judgments and observe My
> statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have
> given to Yaakov my servant, in which your fathers have dwelt and they
> shall dwell there, they and their children, and their children's
> children forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever.
> Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an
> everlasting covenant with them, which I will give them; and I will
> multiply them and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them
> forevermore. And my tabernacle shall be with them: and I will be their
> G-d and they will be my people. Then the nations shall know that I am
> the L-rd who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary will be in the midst
> of them forevermore.
>
> If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he
> cannot be "The Messiah." A careful analysis of these criteria shows us
> that to date, no one has fulfilled every condition.
Your problem is classic. The Jews of his day could not reconcile the
prophecies which clearly refer to a suffering Messiah and a glorious
Messiah. You, like them, conveniently emphasize the latter, ignoring
the former. This is a key reason the religious leaders of His day
crucified Him. Some king, coming from the poorest part of a poor
country, his suspicious birth, hanging around with sinners, and
criticizing the religious order. What they didn't understand,
apparently you also, is that He's both. The earth has only seen the
first and glimpses of the second. Given this, you are correct that the
Messiah has yet to fulfill "every condition."
May I recommend you read Matthew and pay close attn. to the reams of
prophecies your suffering Savior fulfilled. Ask yourself how your
Messiah is suppose to fulfill all these in a lifetime. Also ask
yourself who can truly trace their lineage to David, since genealogies
were destroyed by the Romans destruction of Jerusalem.
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 22:38:58
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Dene wrote:
> Your problem is classic. The Jews of his day could not reconcile the
> prophecies which clearly refer to a suffering Messiah and a glorious
> Messiah.
Let's cut to the chase. If you are gonna try and say that the New Testament
is divine or divinely inspired; then so is the Old Testament; or what we
Jews call Tanach. At any rate; the guy didn't do a fucking thing to
fulfill prophesy. I proved that explicitely; and of course you did not
address that. Besides; only a completely naive person would buy into any
of that crap. It never stood the test of time. Jews were not always
messianic; and even at that point in time (when Jesus allegedly lived) most
weren't. Additionally, Jews came from the earlier Hebrews; and Hebrews
evolved from polytheism to monotheism. So God couldn't even help but
evolve. It's all bullshit - just a way to explain the inexplicable.
Non-scientific people who's only answer is "god-did-it". The people in
Jesus' time thought that the stars at night were tears in the fabric that
separated heaven and earth and that startlight was just heavenly light
shining through the tears. They also thought the world was flat, that
anyone with mental disorders had "demons" in him/her, and a whole host of
other idiotic ideas that have long since been disproven using the scientific
method. Religion is down to two events; with everything else being
explained. The first is what created the big bang; and the second is the
first abiogenesis. Oh; and folks like Jesus and his followers believed in
New Earth and thought the universe was 4,000 years old. Is that what
you think? Do you think the universe is 6,000 years old and that Hiubble
is lying?
> May I recommend you read Matthew and pay close attn. to the reams of
> prophecies your suffering Savior fulfilled.
He is not my messiah. He fulfilled nothing. Don't point me to New
Testament when Jesus didn't fulfill prophesy from Old Testament.
> Ask yourself how your
> Messiah is suppose to fulfill all these in a lifetime.
I am not messianic. I don't think he was anything more than a magician that
got what he deserved for trying to bullshit some folks between Gallilea and
Jerusalem. Jesus is the world's longest running scam. Mohammed is
running a distant second.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 21:56:40
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Head Shot wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
from Old Testament.
> >
> > Patti, is that you?
>
>
> No; but for $50 I will wear her panties and let you call me that.
>
You slutty little Jewish Princess, you.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 01:22:10
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> You slutty little Jewish Princess, you.
Hey; $50 is 18 holes at the local range and 48 new balls.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 21:44:37
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Head Shot wrote:
>
> He is not my messiah. He fulfilled nothing. Don't point me to New
> Testament when Jesus didn't fulfill prophesy from Old Testament.
Patti, is that you?
"Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine." - Patti Smith
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 00:46:10
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>>
>> He is not my messiah. He fulfilled nothing. Don't point me to New
>> Testament when Jesus didn't fulfill prophesy from Old Testament.
>
> Patti, is that you?
No; but for $50 I will wear her panties and let you call me that.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 11:39:16
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
:
: Head Shot wrote:
: >
: > He is not my messiah. He fulfilled nothing. Don't point me to New
: > Testament when Jesus didn't fulfill prophesy from Old Testament.
:
: Patti, is that you?
:
: "Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine." - Patti Smith
Goddam, it's confusing to read some old boy from Chattanowhere
quote the great Patti Smith. Cognitive dissonance, yow!
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 13:24:50
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> Head Shot wrote:
>>>
>>> He is not my messiah. He fulfilled nothing. Don't point me to New
>>> Testament when Jesus didn't fulfill prophesy from Old Testament.
>>
>> Patti, is that you?
>>
>> "Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine." - Patti Smith
>
> Goddam, it's confusing to read some old boy from Chattanowhere
> quote the great Patti Smith. Cognitive dissonance, yow!
Yore gonna flame me for this view of things, but.......
I am not sure I would call her "great". She was at best a 70's punk
rocker that had dragged out her career for a while hoping 250 or so people
still want to hear 70's punk. At worst she is a high school dropout and
sometimes institutionalize mental patient that thinks the world needs to
hear her views on politics and her love for Ralph Nader. Also be aware
that she is a proponent of social programs paid for with Federal tax
dollars; and as such could care less about the US Constitution. Frankly,
her limited education might preclude her from even understanding the US
Constitution; not unlike a large portion of Hollywood.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 13:22:33
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Multi, (do you have a 1st name?)
I'm top posting due to time constraints. We're heading out the door
for the beach. Allow me to acknowledge that your views are well
thought out. You're not quoting a bunch of crap you've read somewhere
else. I apologize for getting defensive. Your tone/wording seem to
say that my conclusions about Christ were trivial, i.e. not a product
of 30 years of study and rational thinking.
You might be surprise to know that I'm a bit of a misfit in terms of my
Christian beliefs. I don't believe in a literal hell. I don't believe
that people are born damned. I also don't believe that the Bible is
inerrant. However, I use to, which proves my thinking has changed
through the years, in contrast to many home-school fundies who shelter
their minds and kids from anything contrary. Fundies like these
irritate me more than pie in the sky liberals.
Anyway....I'll respond to your post tonight or tomorrow.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2006 22:52:52
From:
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Head Shot wrote:
> twoofdem@gmail.com wrote:
> > with flowers in his hair
>
> Someone should write a song about that.
Yeah I know id listen to it.
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 18:33:33
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> : "Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine." - Patti Smith
>
> Goddam, it's confusing to read some old boy from Chattanowhere
> quote the great Patti Smith. Cognitive dissonance, yow!
Even people from Chattanowhere can appreciate Patti Smith, Oingo
Boingo, The Ramones, Talking Heads .... you know .... the classics.
-Annika ----- > punk rocker from way back
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 03:19:13
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > : "Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine." - Patti Smith
: >
: > Goddam, it's confusing to read some old boy from Chattanowhere
: > quote the great Patti Smith. Cognitive dissonance, yow!
:
: Even people from Chattanowhere can appreciate Patti Smith, Oingo
: Boingo, The Ramones, Talking Heads .... you know .... the classics.
:
: -Annika ----- > punk rocker from way back
1. I knew I liked you for some reason.
2. Why aren't you listening to me on the radio right now? OK, so
we only sprinkle in the classics, but the new shit we play is
actually mostly pretty damned good.
http://goodshow.net/
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 03:58:43
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 29--2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> 2. Why aren't you listening to me on the radio right now? OK, so
> we only sprinkle in the classics, but the new shit we play is
> actually mostly pretty damned good.
>
> http://goodshow.net/
Are you involed with WTCU or just the streaming? If I were in
Chattanoogieville I wouldn't need no freakin internet radio program as one
of the finest music stations in our fair nation is found right at the foot
of Lookout Mtn!
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wutc/ppr/index.shtml
I especially like their weekday am, pm, and nite music programs. You never
can predict what will be played, but you know that, whatever it is it a)
won't be "any of the hits" and b) it will be quality.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 04:27:00
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
bill-o <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:
:
: On 29--2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: > 2. Why aren't you listening to me on the radio right now? OK, so
: > we only sprinkle in the classics, but the new shit we play is
: > actually mostly pretty damned good.
: >
: > http://goodshow.net/
:
: Are you involed with WTCU or just the streaming?
I do the show, it broadcasts on KTCU, we're on the air right
now... but I don't think our 10,000 watts will reach to
Tennessee.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 05:24:50
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 29--2006, Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> :> 2. Why aren't you listening to me on the radio right now? OK, so
> :> we only sprinkle in the classics, but the new shit we play is
> :> actually mostly pretty damned good.
> :>
> :> http://goodshow.net/
> :
> : Are you involed with WTCU or just the streaming?
>
> I do the show, it broadcasts on KTCU, we're on the air right
> now... but I don't think our 10,000 watts will reach to
> Tennessee.
Listening to a stream, but it seems to be talk at the moment...
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 05:27:55
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 30--2006, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:
> Listening to a stream, but it seems to be talk at the moment...
ah, the sweet sound of music....
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:08:54
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: OT Patti Smith (Was Re: Jesus was a Liberal!)
|
On 29 2006 18:33:33 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>Chris Bellomy wrote:
>> : "Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine." - Patti Smith
>>
>> Goddam, it's confusing to read some old boy from Chattanowhere
>> quote the great Patti Smith. Cognitive dissonance, yow!
>
>Even people from Chattanowhere can appreciate Patti Smith, Oingo
>Boingo, The Ramones, Talking Heads .... you know .... the classics.
>
>-Annika -----> punk rocker from way back
You need to listen to the Oldest Member more. He's got it right about
music.
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 18:31:29
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Head Shot wrote:
> >
> > Goddam, it's confusing to read some old boy from Chattanowhere
> > quote the great Patti Smith. Cognitive dissonance, yow!
>
>
> Yore gonna flame me for this view of things, but.......
>
> I am not sure I would call her "great".
"Great" doesn't even begin to describe her awesomeness. But it's a
start.
Her records still hold up well today, especially compared with the
modern crap.
Patti Smith perfomed in the age when it was about the music, not the
belly rings and the tramp stamp tattoos. Hell, I may just go put
"Horses" in the CD right now!
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 23:33:09
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 29 2006 18:31:29 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>Patti Smith perfomed in the age when it was about the music, not the
>belly rings and the tramp stamp tattoos. Hell, I may just go put
>"Horses" in the CD right now!
I used to go to CBGBs back in the early punk rock days and saw her
perform a number of times. I was never a punk rocker, but I did like
the music. The crowd at CBGBs was interesting to say the least. I've
never been in a place where the people were more stoned out on drugs
and alcohol before or since. I had occasion to go the CBGBs a few
years ago and I have to say that the present day punk rockers are only
a shadow of their former selves.
Punk rock was an attempt to return rock music to its roots as simple
music that could be played by anyone. It was a reaction to bands like
Pink Floyd and the Moody Blues, to name a few. Like anything else,
punk was incorporated into the mainstream. But Patti Smith was one of
the originals and she's stayed true to her roots. She is certainly
talented enough to have made more money, and been more popular, if she
had gone commercial.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 00:31:20
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> Punk rock was an attempt to return rock music to its roots as simple
> music that could be played by anyone. It was a reaction to bands like
> Pink Floyd and the Moody Blues, to name a few. Like anything else,
> punk was incorporated into the mainstream. But Patti Smith was one of
> the originals and she's stayed true to her roots. She is certainly
> talented enough to have made more money, and been more popular, if she
> had gone commercial.
Moody Blues are great - don't diss Pinder, Thomas, and Lodge.
I don't think Patti Smith is talented; but that's just my take. I never
did like most punk. I suppose some folks did; because she certainly made
enough albums. But hey, how can someone go mainstream with songs like
Piss Factory, Pissing in the River, or Rock n Roll Nigger?
And her lyrics can be a bit out there. Things like "Patty Hearst, you're
standing there in front of the Symbionese Liberation Army flag with your
legs spread, I was wondering will you get it every night from a black
revolutionary man and his women". That's some pretty non-mainstream
lyrics, don't you think? I doubt that got much air play.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 21:03:49
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On Mon, 30 2006 00:31:20 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
>Moody Blues are great - don't diss Pinder, Thomas, and Lodge.
I'm also a Moody Blues fan. However, the punk movement was a reaction
to music that was created in the studio with symphony orchestras and
10 minute guitar solos.
Punk music was simple with lots of attitude which is where rock music
started out from. Rock music has also always been about alienation
and you couldn't find a more alienated group than the early punk
rockers in New York City.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 21:10:56
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Mon, 30 2006 00:31:20 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>> Moody Blues are great - don't diss Pinder, Thomas, and Lodge.
>
> I'm also a Moody Blues fan. However, the punk movement was a reaction
> to music that was created in the studio with symphony orchestras and
> 10 minute guitar solos.
Don't forget Rick Wakeman and his Journey to the Center of the Earth album.
That was amazing. Speaking of amazing; let's not forget to give honorable
mention to the greatest 3 man band ever, ELP. I think punk was a way of
being anti-establishment. I am not against all punk / alternative stuff.
Who is cooler than Elvis Costello?
> Punk music was simple with lots of attitude which is where rock music
> started out from. Rock music has also always been about alienation
> and you couldn't find a more alienated group than the early punk
> rockers in New York City.
B52's are Atlanta. :-)
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 16:14:04
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
multi wrote:
"I don't recall ridiculing you for any reason, although I realize that
you may consider any implication that yours is not the one true faith
as ridicule, and I definitely would not criticize you for believing in
something you don't understand. It's impossible to understand most of
what we see. My problem with you is that you believe in things for
which you have no evidence at all, except maybe the word of someone
you know absolutely nothing about, except his name. And for some New
Testament books, even the author is in dispute."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi,
Rarely do I give my RSG posts much thought (I know that's obvious to
some) but this case is the exception. I've been tempted to break out
my apologetic resources and debate you until the good folks of RSG
scream at us, but then to what end? Will I change your mind, your
beliefs? Will you change mine? You have zero chance. We would
accomplish nothing, just like the countless LLLarry threads.
The reason you have no chance is not due to my reasoning abilities or
truthfulness of your evidence. It's due to my experience with
Christianity coupled with reason and faith. The bottom line is that
I'm a Christian because I enjoy a minute by minute relationship with
God. It began May 16, 1973, and from the day forward, I've always
sensed His presence in my heart. Prior to that, I was empty. Since
then I've been "filled," through the good times and bad. It's
difficult to describe but this is as real to me as my wife, kids, etc.
I would not abandon this relationship even if my life was dependent on
it. Ironically, nothing about Christianity made sense to me prior to
this date. I read the entire Bible and it was all gibberish. That day
and subsequently, it made sense. This is not just a blip in my life's
journey....a foxhole conversion. It's an integral part of my daily
life. I cannot imagine life without my relationship with God.
So you are left with a choice....I'm a liar, deluded, or I'm telling
the truth.
Respectfully yours,
-Greg
|
| | |
Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:57:30
From: multi
Subject: Re: Jesus was a Liberal!
|
On 29 2006 16:14:04 -0800, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:
>The reason you have no chance is not due to my reasoning abilities or
>truthfulness of your evidence. It's due to my experience with
>Christianity coupled with reason and faith. The bottom line is that
>I'm a Christian because I enjoy a minute by minute relationship with
>God. It began May 16, 1973, and from the day forward, I've always
>sensed His presence in my heart. Prior to that, I was empty. Since
>then I've been "filled," through the good times and bad. It's
>difficult to describe but this is as real to me as my wife, kids, etc.
>I would not abandon this relationship even if my life was dependent on
>it. Ironically, nothing about Christianity made sense to me prior to
>this date. I read the entire Bible and it was all gibberish. That day
>and subsequently, it made sense. This is not just a blip in my life's
>journey....a foxhole conversion. It's an integral part of my daily
>life. I cannot imagine life without my relationship with God.
>
>So you are left with a choice....I'm a liar, deluded, or I'm telling
>the truth.
You could be all three --- nobody lies about everything. But my sense
is that you are honest and sincere about this. And it would do no
good to speculate on whether you are deluded, because I don't know
you, and by definition, you wouldn't know if you were.
You are now essentially agreeing with my original post --- you say
that before your revelation, you thought the Bible was gibberish, and
after your revelation, no amount of logic or reasoning could persuade
you that you are wrong. That's all I was saying --- that your faith
is not based on reason, which is why they call it faith. I have read
many attempts by Christian apologists (including CS Lewis) to prove
the truth of Christianity without recourse to revelation, and IMO they
all commit blatant logical errors. By far, the most common is the
fallacy of undesired consequences --- some form of, "If there is no
God, then our lives have no meaning." I dispute that, but even if it
were true, it has no more effect on the universe than me saying, "My
car battery can't be dead, because I have to be at the airport in
twenty minutes." Trust me, it can be dead.
So I agree with you. Now that we know that you are not depending on
logic, then there is no point in pursuing logical argument. My logic
is not sufficient to change your mind, and apparently your own logic
will not help me make sense of the Bible, since it didn't even work
for you without a revelation.
I would like you to do me a favor, though, and tell me about your
minute-to-minute relationship with God. I have heard about this from
a lot of Christians, especially when I was in college, but I have
never found one who can demonstrate anything more than a reported
buzz. I have always been told that the most important thing about any
personal relationship is communication, but these divine relationships
always seem to be strictly one-way, i.e. you can talk to God, but he
doesn't answer you, except by events that may or may not happen,
sooner or later.
I remember one Christian friend of mine in college that I hadn't seen
for a while, and I asked him how his pre-med studies were going. He
said that God had told him to change his major. I was excited to hear
about it, because he would have been the first person I knew who
actually claimed that God had spoken to him in unambiguous language.
But as it turned out, God had not spoken to him, but instead chose to
indicate His will by giving him an F on his biology test.
So, with all respect, is what you have really a personal relationship,
or is it more along the lines of a good feeling?
|
|
