Conference back40::soapbox

    Different to Christians

	Like themselves?

    Thanks Jack.  Just what we needed, good old fashioned religious
    goading.  
    

    I put this string in because I was accused last night of not acting
    Christian by an acknowledged atheist.
    
    -Jack

    
    
    "alleged" athiests...
    

     just as nutty as everyone else
    
        .......wonder how much disk space is consumed by the great
    debates over religion......  :^)
    
    

gaga bytes, more like

    Obviously if you are not a card carying bible (read new testemant)
    thumper, then you must be an atheist!!!!!

    Another emotional response...more non substantive jargon!
    
    

    Jack...For my clarification, would you define Atheist for me.
    
    ...Tom

    A - Greek for no.
    
    theos - Greek for God
    
    Atheos - No God.
    
    -Jack

    I agree.  A non Christian can act Christian and believe in
    God...without actually being a Christian.
    
    -Jack

>    A non-theist, then, should 'act' (I guess this means behavior)
>    rationally in the 'Box' as they believe in things which are
>    metaphically-given ie: an external, objective reality is knowable with
>    reason as it's epistemological basis.
 
     There's another quality which should be important to atheists - honesty.
   
>    Naturally when a theist of the Christian variety believe things like 
>    this:
    
>    JN 5:31 Jesus says that if he bears witness to himself, his testimony
>    is not true. 
>    JN 8:14 Jesus says that even if he bears witness to himself, his
>    testimony is true. 
 
    Taking the text out of its context makes it seem contradictory.  If you
    included the context you would see that in both cases Jesus' argument
    was that He has two witnesses.  Your conclusion that Christians are
    illogical based upon these two supposedly contradictory statements is
    false since within their biblical texts the two statements are 
    corroborating, not contradictory.

>    and doesn't see the contradictions in what the 'christian' variety Theist
>    believes is inerrant then what's a poor soul (metamophically speaking)
>    to do? Naturally you have to conclude that reason isn't the
>    epitemological basis for 'christian' theism.
 
    Any conclusions drawn from your fallacious argument are also false by
    definition.
   
>    So here's the answer to 389.0 and 390.0 - Atheists should understand
>    that their use of reason as an epistemological device is in direct 
>    opposition to the 'faith' of the 'christian' theist.  So discussion
>    with 'christian' theists is pointless. Discussion with non-christian
>    theists may be fruitful if they are willing to accept reality as
>    metaphically-given. Remember Galileo?


     This is totally false.  You cannot logically state your case without
     logically defeating yourself.  Any theist can logically state their case 
     without defeating himself.  You must understand this clearly since there's
     nothing more pitiful than an atheist who thinks he's got logic on his/her 
     side when in fact logically he's believing a fallacy.

     jeff

    Atheists should act in the box according to the policies of the
    conference and corporation, and the laws of the federal, state and
    local governments.  Those are the only standards they have agreed to be 
    measured against.
    
    That was easy.  Next question?

RE: 389.15 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

Fixed the moon math yet?

Or is getting the sums to balance a part of truth that only applies to
non-Christians?


Phil

    
    The "Stalkers of America" club is gaining in members I see...
    

    
    Phil, I acknowledged to you a long long time ago that the math could
    have been wrong.  Why do you persist in this foolishness?
    
    jeff

    When did new math become moon math?

    
    New Math inhales...
    

    Just for information, the following is what I perceive to be thumper
    topics. This of course does not include the vast amount of thumping
    that goes on in various degrees in what I estimate to be about 50% of 
    all topics. I think at last count there are 391 topics which makes the
    thumper topics 3.6% of the BOX. As a Non-theist, I thought I would
    point this out. 
    
    382  USAT05::BENSON       11-APR-1995   312  JESUS' CRUCIFIXION
    388  COVERT::COVERT       16-APR-1995    39  Christ's Resurrection
    390  MKOTS3::JMARTIN      17-APR-1995    17  How Christians Should Act 
     33  COVERT::COVERT       17-NOV-1994   605  Separation of Church and
    						 State
    64   TROOA::COLLINS      18-NOV-1994   659  Evolution
    89  SX4GTO::OLSON        21-NOV-1994    89  priestly pedophilia
    90  VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK   22-NOV-1994    28  Money: Truly the Root of
    						all Evil
    143  COVERT::COVERT        6-DEC-1994    13  Vindication
    171  MASALA::SNEIL        10-DEC-1994    43  What is life.
    186  PNTAGN::WARRENFELTZR 16-DEC-1994   118  One Solitary Life
    239  SCAPAS::GUINEO::MOOR 10-JAN-1995    13  Reverend Bob's
    						 Inspirational
    319   SMURF::BINDER       28-FEB-1995   171  The truth of the Bible
    347  SX4GTO::OLSON        17-MAR-1995   192  religious fundamentalists,
    389  MKOTS3::JMARTIN      17-APR-1995    19  How Atheists Should Act in
    
    
    ...Tom

    Re .16:

    > Atheists should act in the box according to the policies of the
    > conference and corporation, and the laws of the federal, state and
    > local governments.  Those are the only standards they have agreed to be 
    > measured against.

    I challenge you to demonstrate where even one atheist has "agreed" to
    be measured against the laws of the federal, state, or local
    governments, let alone all of them.  Few people actually "agree" to
    such judgment; it is generally thrust upon people whether they agree or
    not.  Even the so-called "employee agreement" doesn't state that the
    employee agrees to abide by the rules of the corporation.  Digital
    wouldn't even want such an agreement, since it could make the PP&P a
    contract that would bind Digital in ways Digital doesn't want.  And
    certainly there's no explicit agreement to be measured by any
    conference rules.  In the New Hampshire conference, I use a disclaimer
    that explicitly denies agreement to the rules.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    Well, Tom, thanks for the information.  Now if we can get a finer
    definition of "thumper topic" we might get somewhere.  I'd like to
    suggest that a "thumper topic", as the word is commonly used here in
    this forum, is a topic which overtly and positively includes or
    addresses a Christian subject.  I would suggest that if you take this
    definition and apply it to the topics you identified that you would see
    thumper topics drop from a low 3.6 percent to maybe half that, 1.8
    percent.  Even at 3.6% the number of thumper topics is very very low. 
    So, how does one logically explain the outcry in light of these small
    numbers?  
    
    jeff

    Re: .23
    
    >I challenge you to demonstrate
    
    Don't be more tedious than you can possibly help.

    RE: Note 389.24 by USAT05::BENSON
    
    I agree with your definition of thumper topic and aside from my using
    the word thumper (with is a common term in the box) I make no
    conclusion overtly or positively as to the meaning of my data. It is
    supplied as informational only. 
    
    ...Tom

    It has been pointed out to me that I left out Topic 385 from my list in
    389.22. However I noticed that there are only 390 topics as opposed to
    391. Therefore the new SOAPBOX Thumper topic percentage is 3.3%.
    
    FWIW
    
    ...Tom

  hmm.  if the total number of topics went down and the number of 
  religious topics went up, then how did the percentage go down?

It's a freakin' miracle!

	.29  aaagagag. ;>

    Ooooooooooops.
    
    14/391x100=3.581%
    
    15/390x100=3.846%
    
    Percent of thumper topics corrected = 3.8%

    
    The thump index, a leading economic indicator, no doubt...
    

    Re .25:
    
    In other words, your response was full of it and you were caught flat.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

RE: 389.19 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung"

> I acknowledged to you a long long time ago that the math could have been 
> wrong.

Oh?  Where?  Notice that "could have been" is not equal to "was".  And here 
is the last you said on this matter in the last soapbox:

================================================================================
383.771 by USAT05::BENSON

    .Phil,

    I appear confused don't I?  I am.

    thanks for pointing it out!

    jeff
================================================================================

Did I miss a more full admission of error?  If so,  please point me to it.
Notice that "am confused" is not equal to "was incorrect".

Basic honesty requires that we admit our mistakes.  Failures of basic
honesty coexisting with claims of knowledge to ABSOLUTE TRUTH tend to 
promote disbelief of the absolute truth being preached.  Of course,  I
could pick more recent examples.  Would you rather I did?


Phil

| <<< Note 389.20 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Special Fan Club Baloney" >>>

| When did new math become moon math?

	I think maybe Jeff Benson took it to new heights... :-)

    You mean it could just be a phase he's going through?

The moon has been quite lovely the last three nights running.

I wonder if the behavior of the three horsemen can be explained by the
full moon.

| <<< Note 389.24 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Well, Tom, thanks for the information. Now if we can get a finer definition of
| "thumper topic" we might get somewhere. I'd like to suggest that a "thumper 
| topic", as the word is commonly used here in this forum, is a topic which 
| overtly and positively includes or addresses a Christian subject.  

	On this we agree Jeff.

| I would suggest that if you take this definition and apply it to the topics 
| you identified that you would see thumper topics drop from a low 3.6 percent 
| to maybe half that, 1.8 percent.  

	Jeff, you just don't get it, do you. If topics that deal with religion
take up 3.6%, and say topics on food take up .01%, then you are comparing
apples and apples. You comparing one specific topic as one group to every other 
topic that don't relate to each other as another group, you're comparing apples
and oranges. If you are going to group all religious topics into one %, you can
only compare it to other groupings done the same way in order for any point to
be valid.

| So, how does one logically explain the outcry in light of these small numbers?

	Because you have tried to compare apples to oranges yet again. It WAS
pointed out to you earlier.



Glen

    I will state the obvious.
    
    There have been several thumper topics posted in the last week, and
    they represent almost half of the postings for the past seven days.

| <<< Note 389.28 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>


| hmm.  if the total number of topics went down and the number of
| religious topics went up, then how did the percentage go down?

	Milady, I think Jeff went in and looked at who authored the basenote,
which in turn would show if it was really meant to be a thumper topic. Authors
like Binder and Olson, for example, would not be putting in a base note for the
purpose of thumping. 


Glen

| <<< Note 389.36 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Special Fan Club Baloney" >>>

| You mean it could just be a phase he's going through?

	I think it's called life...

| <<< Note 389.38 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| I wonder if the behavior of the three horsemen can be explained by the
| full moon.


	Gerald.... this is too funny.... :-)

	.41  no, glen dear, the math was just plain wrong.  see .31.

| <<< Note 389.44 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>


| .41  no, glen dear, the math was just plain wrong.  see .31.

	Hmmm.... I think where I got that from was when he went from 3.6% of
perceived thumper notes to � that actually being of the thumper variety. (I
thought you were referring to JB's note)

    
    Does the math error really change the fact that there's been
    more thumpin' going on in here lately than in a house full
    of rabbits?
    
    -b

    Like being near a kid in a car with an overpowered stereo going THUMP!
    THUMP! THUMP!
    
    -Stephen 

.34

>Basic honesty requires that we admit our mistakes.  Failures of basic
>honesty coexisting with claims of knowledge to ABSOLUTE TRUTH tend to 
>promote disbelief of the absolute truth being preached.

Ah, but Rule #1 of all religious circle jerks states:

_Never_ concede a single point to an opponent.  And never admit
to a mistake.  If you do you are an old lady, and probably a liberal.

    Perhaps moon math was being employed.

    >all religious circle jerks states
    
    Hahahahahahahaha, pretty bold even for the box. By the way, who's the
    pivot??
    
    ...Tom

    Small nit...
    
    Gerald, there are four horsemen not three...
    
    But that's neither here nor there!
    
    -Jack

 .51

 {thud}

    I know but Gerald said my bible knowledge was sorely lacking! :-)

    
       >there are four horsemen not three...
    
    I remember that old movie about Notre Dame football, starring one of
    our past presidents I think.
    
    ...Tom 

    Naw...your thinking of the Three Horsemen from the Three Stooges!!!
    
    -Jack

<---- but if he used that he would have been set hidden or have to listen to 
      a ton of bitchin.... :-)

    Re: .33
    
    >In other words, your response was full of it and you were caught flat.
    
    No.  In other words, we have certain irreconcilable philosophical
    differences, and I'm not going to waste my time with it.

    As a Non-Theist I hold to the following:
    
    -Existence is Axiomatic.
    
    -Existence exists eternally with no prior causes.
    
    -Consciousness is the controller of existence.
    
    -Individual consciousness is the greatest value in eternal existence.
    
    -The greatest social value is objective law and justice.
    
    -All knowledge is contextual and all valid theories are based on
     contextual fact.
    
    -Conscious knowledge is limitless because knowledge increases
     geometrically.
    
    -Human nature is good. It is by nature noble, rational, honest, just
     compassionate, value producing, benevolent, kind, loving, and happy.
    
    -The only diseases of human consciousness, are dishonesty, irrationality
     and mystical beliefs. These diseases destroy the natural good in human
     beings. These diseases cause all wars and crimes, including all
     property destruction, harms, sufferings, cruelties, injuries, and
     deaths purposely inflicted on human beings. All such evils are
     inflicted by force or fraud to support the lives of open criminals such
     as muggers or mafia enforcers, or the much more evil, hidden criminals
     such as dishonest politicians, tyrannical rulers, false authorities,
     killer type (WACO) bureaucrats, and their force-backed "justice system.
    
    -By the use of honest, objective knowledge the good nature of man
     could be revitalized to the eternal benefit and value of all human beings.
    
    
    FWIW
    ...Tom

    	Frankly, I am bothered by what I found when I returned to
    	the soapbox after a few days away.
    
    	The discussion that has occurred here and 382.* and elsewhere
    	tends to say that 'thumpers' get bashed, and that soapbox has
    	become a hostile environment to thumping because they tend to
    	piss off everyone else by 'cramming their religion down everyone's
    	throats.'  
    
    	First off, I submit that very little if any of what is considered
    	thumping in here really involves cramming anything at all.  Certain
    	people see certain authors and immediately assume, "Oh great, here
    	comes more thumping," and if that author even hints at his faith,
    	it only reinforces the preconception.  Under this atmosphere it
    	is a fatal mistake for such a person to actually profess his faith,
    	or to instruct or correct the misconceptions of others about his
    	faith.  The lingering impression is lasting and difficult to
    	escape.
    
    	So the frequency of 'thumping' pisses y'all off, justifying 
    	making this a religion-hostile (and specifically Christian-
    	hostile) notesfile.  Even avowed Christians are joining in the
    	fray, cannibal-like, jumping on the bandwagon to bash those
    	whose messages they do not like.
    
    	Perhaps it is food for thought to consider that the anti-Christian
    	sentiment here is the catalyst for Christians to speak up to
    	provide some balance.  Perhaps it is the Christians who were
    	pissed off first -- a chicken-and-egg question.  I personally
    	have seen this notesfile as being anti-Christian for years, so
    	to me this is not just a recent phenomenon -- on either side of
    	the discussion.

re: .59 (Joe)
>    	Frankly, I am bothered by what I found when I returned to
>    	the soapbox after a few days away.
You too, eh?
    
>                                             ...and that soapbox has
>    	become a hostile environment to thumping because they tend to
>    	piss off everyone else by 'cramming their religion down everyone's
>    	throats.'  
Right on, brother!
    
>    	So the frequency of 'thumping' pisses y'all off, justifying 
>    	making this a religion-hostile (and specifically Christian-
>    	hostile) notesfile.  
Heaven forbid.  As you said above yourself, it's hostile to thumping.
Religion and Christianity are welcome here.  

>                            Even avowed Christians are joining in the
>    	fray, cannibal-like, jumping on the bandwagon to bash those
>    	whose messages they do not like.
How astute!  Taking that thought one step further, we come to see that
it's not about Christians, specifically, or religion, in general.  It's
about thumping.  Bang thump whack smack.  It seems most noters here, both
Christian and not, want to discuss opinions and ideas on the matters of
faith and spirit.  They do not, obviously, want it rammed up/down their
arses, throats and noses.  As has been pointed out several times, but
was obviously overlooked, "the Jews don't do it right", "the Catholics
do it wrong", and "the SDAs don't follow the bible" is just no way to
discuss anything.  ANYTHING.  It's not the religion, it's the messenger!

>    	Perhaps it is food for thought to consider that the anti-Christian
>    	sentiment here is the catalyst for Christians to speak up to
>    	provide some balance.  Perhaps it is the Christians who were
>    	pissed off first -- a chicken-and-egg question.  I personally
>    	have seen this notesfile as being anti-Christian for years, so
>    	to me this is not just a recent phenomenon -- on either side of
>    	the discussion.
Woops!  I see now the problem, Joe.  It seems like it's real easy for
some to confuse an anti-thumper atmosphere with an anti-religion one.
I've noticed them throw around the word "sensitive" mockingly;  it
would appear _they_ are the overly sensitive ones!  How ironic.

I guess if the thumpers have the need to call someone's religion "wrong"
they had better be prepared to have their thumper-rights examined; wouldn't
that only be fair?

Let's cut the crap.  These are matters of faith, not fact, so we act like
adults and discuss them appropriatly.  Plain and simple.
\john

    So the Official Ralston Thumper Index is presently 3.8. Updates will be
    announced as the index changes.
    
    ...Tom

    I agree with .58

    as a Taoist, i hold there is no good or evil - the Tao just is
    
    that's got me off jury duty a few times!
    
    ric

<--- :^)

    Re .57:
    
    > No.  In other words, we have certain irreconcilable philosophical
    > differences, and I'm not going to waste my time with it.
    
    Philosophical differences baloney.  There's no philosophical question
    about whether people have actually agreed to be measured by law,
    corporate policy, or conference rules:  Most have not.  Furthermore,
    there's no reason for any intelligent, semi-intelligent or even
    non-intelligent but non-hallucinating person to even suspect there
    might have such agreements:  There aren't any such agreements written
    into contracts; people don't take normally take oaths to obey the law,
    policy, or rules (accepting public office might be an exception); there
    aren't any newspaper or other media reports of such agreements; and
    there just isn't anything to make anybody believe there are such
    agreements.  They don't exist.  Nothing in the real world can give any
    person the idea that such agreements exist for most people.
    
    To make a statement that people have somehow agreed to such things, a
    person has to fabricate the statement, create it out of whole cloth,
    imagine it.  It is an idea out of the void, formed only as an element
    of a dream world, a distorted mental image of how the world is.  There
    ARE NOT any such agreements, yet some people live in a fantasy world
    where the "authority" of governments and corporations is justified by
    some sort of feeling that people "must obey" and actually agree in some
    manner to that.  It's a fiction created by, if not insanity, then an
    evolutionary quirk of the human psyche during millenia of unthinking
    obedience to authority.  Such a belief is irrational and pre-human.
    
    Philosophical differences?  There's no philosophical basis for such a
    statement beyond hallucinogens or a total yielding to thoughtless
    instinct.                                                  
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

	.65  zowee!  ;>  won't need that second cuppa coffee now.

    For all of those who have some need to publicly profess their faith,  I
    am sure that there is some sort of house of worship nearby with a
    clergyman or congreagtion that would be thrilled to hear it.

	If they want to go....

	to a place they don't believe in to SNARF!

    Re: .65
    
    Well, I hope you feel better now that you've gotten that off your
    chest.  Now toddle off and bother somebody who cares.

    is it just me or does the a caustic tone seem to be developing
    inside the 'box over a variety of topics?
    
    i'm scared...
    
    :-)
    
    Chip

    re: 389.65 by RUSURE::EDP
    
    Excellent, I am in 100% agreement. So many people operate using mind
    created realities as opposed to objective reality. Then they preach
    emotional authoritarian trash, to get others to join their fantasy.
    
    ...Tom 

    >objective reality
    
    oxymoron?  8^)
    
    ric

   ZZ     Excellent, I am in 100% agreement. So many people operate using mind
   ZZ     created realities as opposed to objective reality. Then they preach
   ZZ     emotional authoritarian trash, to get others to join their fantasy.
    
    No this has to do with sensitive folk who become unraveled at the
    slightest challenge.  Religion has nothing to do with it!
    
    -Jack

    
    re .65, .16
    
    In the very moment you refer to conference policies or fed laws
    to prove your point, help your case or whatever, you have
    acknowledged their authority.
    
    Heiko

    RE: .73
    
    >    >objective reality
    
    >    oxymoron?  8^)
    
    I know you weren't being serious but....
    
    Objective can be replaced with impartial, fair, detached, impersonal,
    unbiased or unprejudiced. Reality can be replaced with actuality, fact,
    physical existence, authenticity, validity or basis in fact. So
    objective reality is fact based on unprejudiced data. There is no
    religion that is a result of objective reality.
    
    ...Tom

    .77
    
    >I know you weren't being serious but....
    
    correct! 8^)
    
    i was toying with playing Devil's Advocate here and asking you to
    prove there isn't a rhinoceros in the room, but as we're in different
    rooms, that really does add a whole new dimension to the discussion!!
    
    ric

    Re .75:
    
    > . . . acknowledged their authority.
    
    "Acknowledge" does not equal "agree".
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

| <<< Note 389.74 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| No this has to do with sensitive folk who become unraveled at the
| slightest challenge.  Religion has nothing to do with it!

	Jack, ya just did it again. Religion is never wrong attitude.

    re: .78
    
    Well, there is no rhinoceros here. Have you sent him over? If so, what
    time can I expect him? :)
    
    ...Tom

    Sorry Glen.  The last few days has been an exercise in Pissing Contest
    101...to which religion wasn't even discussed.  Don't try to paint a
    picture where none exists.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, you're doing the painting, I'm just point it out to you. You ask
for examples, and people are more than happy to give you them. 


Glen

    Re .70:
    
    Obviously you don't care (about the issues, about correctness, about
    facts, or even about making sense) and it shows in everything you
    write.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Glen:
    
    How was that an example of my religion is best...I pointed out that
    there has been NO talk about religion...just a pissing contest back and
    forth about protocol and offensiveness, etc.  You ARE painting a false
    picture here.
    
    -Jack

    Re: .84
    
    No.  What I don't care about is what you think.
    
    You know, you should really stop trying to reinterpret everything I've
    said.  You keep getting it wrong.  And while you might improve with
    practice, the inevitable lapses while you perfect the skill could prove
    embarrassing to your reputation.  I'd suggest that you quit while you
    were behind, except that it would only encourage you to continue. 
    Which leaves me with a choice:  Do I tell you to go away again, which 
    might provide some amusement, or do I beg you to continue and just be
    done with the whole matter?
    
    No, I'll go for door number three -- neither.  Do whatever your little
    heart desires.

       
       Have you two spatted again?

    Well, I'm trying my best not to, but he's being very persistent.

    
    The course of true love never runs smooth, or so I've heard.

    8^@

| <<< Note 389.85 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| How was that an example of my religion is best...I pointed out that there has 
| been NO talk about religion...just a pissing contest back and forth about 
| protocol and offensiveness, etc.  You ARE painting a false picture here.

	Jack, people have been pissing and moaning about how some say one
religion is right, or wrong. The talk is about religion.

              <<< Note 389.60 by ALPHAZ::HARNEY "John A Harney" >>>

>>    	So the frequency of 'thumping' pisses y'all off, justifying 
>>    	making this a religion-hostile (and specifically Christian-
>>    	hostile) notesfile.  
    
>Heaven forbid.  As you said above yourself, it's hostile to thumping.
>Religion and Christianity are welcome here.  
    
    	I disagree that Religion (and specifically Christianity) are
    	welcome here -- at least as you seem to portray that welcome.
    
    	I direct your attention to 319.(today).  Even you have participated
    	in that Bible-bashing.
    
    	In spite of your protests to the contrary, I think I'll stick with 
    	my impressions for now, TYVM.

>Bang thump whack smack.  It seems most noters here, both
>Christian and not, want to discuss opinions and ideas on the matters of
>faith and spirit.  
    
    	You must be among the noters outside of the set of "most noters"
    	then.
    
>As has been pointed out several times, but
>was obviously overlooked, "the Jews don't do it right", "the Catholics
>do it wrong", and "the SDAs don't follow the bible" is just no way to
>discuss anything.  ANYTHING.  It's not the religion, it's the messenger!
    
    	I am Catholic, and do not take offense at Jeff's statement.
    	Maybe you'd save yourself a lot of agita if you didn't take
    	it upon yourself to take offense for others -- especially if
    	yours is going to be the only offense taken.
    
    	I agree that for you and some others, it is specifically the
    	messenger.  Now, regardless of WHAT the messenger says, you are
    	going to interpret it as thumping.  You call for fairness and
    	openmindedness and all, but I fail to see that coming from 
    	you in return.  I'll concede that it is quite likely I am seeing
    	you through the same filter that I'm accusing you of using.  So
    	how do we all start from scratch?  How do we clean the slates
    	and try to get beyond the personal biases that we all have?
    
>Woops!  I see now the problem, Joe.  It seems like it's real easy for
>some to confuse an anti-thumper atmosphere with an anti-religion one.
    
    	Maybe the confusion comes in when you use topics like 319 to
    	mock religious beliefs in an attempt to continue weaving your
    	anti-thumping welcome mat.
    
>I've noticed them throw around the word "sensitive" mockingly;  it
>would appear _they_ are the overly sensitive ones!  How ironic.
    
    	I noticed the words "synsytyve" and "synsysyvyty" being mockingly 
    	used.  Not "sensitive".  Most people (even without a program)
    	know that there is a difference.

>I guess if the thumpers have the need to call someone's religion "wrong"
>they had better be prepared to have their thumper-rights examined; wouldn't
>that only be fair?
    
    	Thumper-rights?  Are we throwing out the first amendment here?
    	I would expect them to have their arguments examined, but not
    	their right to state them -- whether right or wrong.

>Let's cut the crap.  These are matters of faith, not fact, so we act like
>adults and discuss them appropriatly.  Plain and simple.

    	For some, faith is fact.  You don't have to accept that, but
    	telling them that they are wrong for equating faith with fact
    	is just as wrong as what you are arguing against.

    Absolutely correct on the offense issue.  
    
    A. Gerald Sacks was the original one I questioned about the sacrifice.
      He never actually provided data for me on the counsel of Jania but
    that's alright...it's his perogative.  Yet a myriad of fellow boxers
    took it upon themselves to be offended for Gerald.  I openly asked if
    anybody was offended to please confront me and I would apologize...to
    which Gerald did not.  Therefore, Gerald is a big man for either his
    understanding of my ignorant ways...or he simply wasn't offended...yet
    everybody else was.  That was what pissed me off.
    
    B. Dick thrashed Jeff becasue Jeff said the sucsession of Peter (The
    Papacy) was based on a flawed interpretation of Matthew 16.  Perfectly
    reasonable to question and worthy of discussion.  Dick told Jeff he was
    insensitive.  I wrote and asked Dick what he thought of the Papacy and
    I, in Binder noting style, cynically said that I'd be interested to see
    if Dick chickens out as it would either confirm his belief in the
    Papacy or prove he was actually a PC version of Jeff.  Dick was
    offended and promptly left.
    
    The bottom line is...people are pissed off but they really don't know
    why they are in my opinion.  I therefore conclude that religion is too
    sensitive an issue to disect and challenge on here in the box.  This
    disappoints me because I along with many in the corporation consider
    the box to be a bastion of thick skinned individuals.
    
    -Jack

    Pardon neede by Di for the myriad of misspelled words in last reply.
    
    

    Pardon neede?

    Uhhhhhhh...Sorry

    Maybe he meant Pardon Ned.
    
    So at least one of the family has been saved... :-)

>    A. Gerald Sacks was the original one I questioned about the sacrifice.
>      He never actually provided data for me on the counsel of Jania but
>    that's alright...it's his perogative.

I think I said I'd never heard of the counsel (council?) of Jania.

>                                                        I openly asked if
>    anybody was offended to please confront me and I would apologize...to
>    which Gerald did not.  Therefore, Gerald is a big man for either his
>    understanding of my ignorant ways...or he simply wasn't offended...yet
>    everybody else was.

I didn't ask for an apology because I didn't think it would be worth the
pixels it was imaged on.

    Whatever!

    Atheists should not snarf.

    Re .86:
    
    > Do I tell you to go away again, which  might provide some amusement,
    > or do I beg you to continue and just be done with the whole matter?
    
    Interesting that your choices do not include the idea of supporting
    what you claimed or retracting it if incorrect.  If you don't care,
    then don't respond.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

| <<< Note 389.92 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| I direct your attention to 319.(today).  Even you have participated
| in that Bible-bashing.

	Are you saying people can only express their opinions if they are IN 
FAVOR of the Bible, regardless of their beliefs? Otherwise, what you said above
makes no sense at all.

| <<< Note 389.93 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Therefore, Gerald is a big man for either his understanding of my ignorant 
| ways...or he simply wasn't offended...yet everybody else was.  

	Maybe he was working, maybe he just was sick of it all, maybe.... Jack,
again, it seems to be a you're right scenerio that you keep painting. 


Glen

| <<< Note 389.99 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Whatever!

	Gerald just blows everything you said out of the water, and all you can
say is whatever? Wow jack.....

    No...Gerald confirmed what I said.  I said he was a big man for
    ignoring my ignorance and he affirmed it by saying an apology from me
    wasn't worth the pixels he uses...and I confirmed by saying whatever.
    
    Meanwhile the synsytyvyty crowd is still having an anurism over it and 
    some of us think it's an exercise in idiocy...but whatever floats your
    boat mon!!
    
    -Jack

	so... not wasting his time = big man. uhhh.... whatever...

    No...it's just that being Jewish, I thought he be interested in
    answering my inquiry but I guessed wrong...whatever!

    I see we are still not playing nice in sandbox...err, soapbox today.
    
    For what it's worth, I can pee into a urinal from about 12' away, maybe
    farther (well, I admit that I haven't tried such a feat since college,
    but I assume I still can  8^) ).
    
    Do I win?
    
    -steve

	You win if you can answer this question.... does the floor stay dry?

    	re .102
    
    	Maybe I just misinterpreted the nature of the entries there.
    	it was my impression that they were not entered in a spirit of
    	dialogue, but rather a spirit of bashing.

re: .110 (Joe)

>    	Maybe I just misinterpreted the nature of the entries there.
>    	it was my impression that they were not entered in a spirit of
>    	dialogue, but rather a spirit of bashing.
No, you got it right.  The thumpers were here to bash us with their
version of the "truth."  And we were bashing the thumping.  

People here don't hate religion!  They don't!!!  They hate thumping!!

\john

    	Well, \john, since my impression is right, perhaps I should point
    	out that what you participated in in 319 was not specifically
    	directed at any thumpers, and so in doing you have painted
    	with the same vitriol all others who hold the same beliefs
    	as the thumpers you targetted.
    
    	I also submit that this is not the first time you have attacked
    	Christianity -- whether under the guise of counter-thumping or
    	simply outright bashing.  My impression still holds that this
    	conference is Christian hostile, and you are a part of that
    	impression.

    They did it didn't they !!! I don't believe what I just read.
    
    GO AWAY !

    Do Christians think differently about Atheists than they do of other
    Christians ??..... If you know what I mean!

    Depends if they find them sexually attractive....

    Ohhh Ha Ha!! :*) :*)

    .115
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    
    ooo that's a goody
    
    ric

    .81
    
    no, he's standing peacefully in the corner eating some hay and
    occasionally farting (as rhinos do).
    
    i've asked my neighbour to prove to me objectively that he really isn't
    there but i got a very blank look and he went back to his terminal.
    
    ric

>    Do Christians think differently about Atheists than they do of other
>    Christians ??..... If you know what I mean!

Certainly not all Christians do that. But some very clearly do.

 ZZ   No, you got it right.  The thumpers were here to bash us with their
 ZZ   version of the "truth."  And we were bashing the thumping.  
    
    I wasn't thumping...I was inquiring to which I immediately got
    thumped.  
    
    I know I know...I didn't ask right!
    
    -Jack

    re: .109
    
    No, not on every occation.  8^)
    
    The key to it all is a *very* full bladder and a smooth back-step. 
    Don't try to move back too quickly or you are likely to mess up your
    aim.  8^)

occasion

    Whatever...

    Uhhhhhhh...sorry

Uhhhhhhh...sorry.
                ^

    YOUR JUST BEING REBELLIOUS...NOT WANTING TO HONOR ME WITH A tm BY
    PUTTING A PERIOD AT THE END!!  YOU CRUMB!!!!!!!

    The question has been raised whether religion is welcome in Soapbox.
    
    Abortion is welcome, and the topic is full of bashing of both abortion
    and banning abortion.  Gun control is welcome, and plenty of bashing
    goes on in that topic.  Politics are welcome, and bashing proliferates.
    
    If you cannot tolerate heavy-handed criticism of a topic, DON'T BRING
    IT UP IN SOAPBOX.

    Jeff Benson brought it up and he didn't leave.
    
    -Jack

>YOUR JUST BEING REBELLIOUS...

YOU'RE

    Uhhhh...sorry. (tm)

    Uhhh....sorry

    Thanks Pamela...for honoring me...except you don't put a period at the
    end!

    
    >Jeff Benson brought it up and he didn't leave.
    
    
    Then what was 12.3679 all about?

    honouring

>The question has been raised whether religion is welcome in Soapbox.

Must be some synsytyve religious people out there...

    
>>    If you cannot tolerate heavy-handed criticism of a topic, DON'T BRING
>>    IT UP IN SOAPBOX.

	leastwise not in umpty-ump notes

    
    Hmmm...didn't read that one.
    
    My guess is that he found his participation here counterproductive to
    Soapbox and to himself.  
    
    -Meaty

    ZZ   honouring
    
    You're wrong I'm right.....NYAAHHHHHHHH!!

RE: 389.137 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

> My guess is that he found his participation here counterproductive to
> Soapbox and to himself.

Jeff has been productive for Soapbox,  as Moon Math is and was a classic, 
along with "the fifty ways to leave a topic".

I also think Jeff has learned a few things in Soapbox.  

I also suspect he will be back.


Phil

    Probably....like Sing Sing and Alcatraz...they all come back!!

    
    er Jack, those prisons are not in current use, and haven'y been for
    quite awhile.

Isn't there still an Ossining Correctional Facility (formerly Sing Sing)?

    
    Yeah, the signs on the highway there say "Do not pick up hitchhikers".

Atheists shouldn't pick up hitchhikers?

    I know...I was quoting from the old Batman series!

    
    Atheists shouldn't yell...
    
    "Oh My God!!"
    
    
     and yes, I know a few who do...
    

    
    Maybe they're saying "omigawd" instead?

| <<< Note 389.135 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>


| Must be some synsytyve religious people out there...


	Is that possible without them being pc or liberal?

| <<< Note 389.146 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas" >>>


| Atheists shouldn't yell...

| "Oh My God!!"


	Errr....why?

| <<< Note 389.148 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas" >>>


| -< Which is... what? >-


	I wonder if your version and the version the person means will match
up all the time? My guess is no, it will not. The meaning belings to what the
author's intent was, not what you dream it up as.

    
    I dunno, Andy, er...just not "oh my God".
    
    You know?
    
    Don't ask me difficult questions today; I'm still preparing for Effing
    Earth Day 8^).

    re: .151
    
    Look who's talking about being clueless...
    
    Let me see if I can say it S L O W L Y enough for you...
    
    Then you can see if the subtlety hits you...
    
    A n   a t h e i s t   s a y i n g   "  O h  M y  G o d  ! ! "
    
    
     Think about it.... it'll come to you..
    
    It'll give you some time to come up with one of your fantastic and
    unique retorts that they taught you in Quips 101
    

    >> Don't ask me difficult questions today; I'm still preparing for Effing
    >> Earth Day 8^).
    
    So, Deb, what company do you work for, that does so much with
    Effing Earth Day activities, materials, and the like?  Some
    kind of environmantal company, or biotech, or even a chemical
    company perhaps?
    
    Chris

>Effing
    Earth Day

Is this a pagan celebration filled with sexual ritual
and pantheism?

>A n   a t h e i s t   s a y i n g   "  O h  M y  G o d  ! ! "

Chock it up to cultural indoctrination.

    
    Or just plain old thoughtlessness...
    

Well, who's more thoughtless?
A god-believing person who takes God's name in vain?
Or an atheist who says "Oh, my God"?

| <<< Note 389.153 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas" >>>


| A n   a t h e i s t   s a y i n g   "  O h  M y  G o d  ! ! "

	Andy, did you even read .151? I know you "re"'d it, but did you read
it? In it I stated that the intent of the phrase (any phrase) is from the
author, not from what you imagine it is. Oh my God, or ohmigosh may have no
meaning towards God for some. Just like geeze doesn't for many others. You can
project your own meaning, but it does not mean that it will match the author.
So clueless, you still have me beat by miles.

    
    Guys!!!
    
    I consider you both friends. I hate to see my friends calling
    each other names...
    
    -b

	hmmpph.  i'll bet those atheists go around using lots of
	other idiomatic expressions like

	"Well, I'll be damned!"
	"What the hell?"

	and heaven knows what others!

	bunch of thoughtless oafs.  ;>
	

<----grin

    What the devil is going on here?

  Satanism - Some Frequently
  Asked Questions


  The following article is adapted and posted from Usenet, and it is
  intended for distribution only within Digital Equipment Corporation.


  1  What is Satanism?

  At first glance this may look like a simple question to
  answer: "go look it up in the dictionary" would seem to be
  straightforward enough. In fact, I'll do it for you:


  Satanism, n. 1. the worship of Satan or the powers of evil. 2. a travesty of
  Xian rites in which Satan is worshipped. 3. diabolical or satanic disposition,
  behavior, or actions.

  [from Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the
  English Language, �1989]

  Unfortunately it's not that easy. There is no one set of beliefs
  that comprise Satanism. Because there is no set of doctrines
  or scriptures agreed upon by a majority of Satanists, would-
  be practitioners must define their beliefs for themselves, based
  upon a minimum of shared information. The issue is further
  confused by the fact that, historically, most records of real
  or imagined Satanism have been made by Satanists' tradi-
  tional enemies, Xians. However a few generalizations can be
  made: the average Satanist disagrees with much of Xianity,
  believes in no absolute moral code, and places emphasis on
  the individual and personal rights. If you think this sounds
  like Libertarianism, you're right; many Satanists consider
  themselves Libertarians or feel close to the party on social
  issues.

  I would divide Satanists into several main groups:


   �  The Dabblers: adopt Satanic trappings for a brief period of
      time, usually for entertainment rather than serious pur-
      poses. Some modern youth fall into this category, along
      with past groups like the 18th century Hell-Fire Club.

   �  �  Atheistic Satanists: don't believe in spiritual entities. Satan
      is only a symbol for humankind's freedom from moral
      obligation. Most Usenet Satanists fall into this category.

   �  Miltonian Satanists: do believe in a deity, Satan or an-
      other Entity with connotations to what has been rec-
      ognized as evil in other societies. This Entity has been
      misrepresented in history and is not actually maleficent.

   �  Dark Satanists: also believe in a literal Satan, but not the
      "higher" being of the Miltonians. Rather, it is a force for
      self-gratification, power, or other craved "fruits" forbidden
      by Xian mythos.

   �  Secondary Satanists: follow a faith outside the Xian
      mainstream. While they might not think of themselves
      as Satanic, outsiders sometimes perceive them as such.
      Santeria is a good example.

   �  Lovecraftian Satanists: take their rituals seriously, con-
      juring dark beasties to devour their enemies or to destroy
      the ferocious neighbor's dog which barks incessantly dur-
      ing the most critical rituals. One of their favorite deities
      is Cthulhu, lurker beneath the depths who is "dead but
      dreaming." These Satanists take their Necronomicon se-
      riously (I don't think it's the Necronomicon available
      from Avon Books).


  2  Isn't Satan a Xian God?

  Most (probably all) religions have gods or demons that rep-
  resent the principle of adversity: that which is forbidden by
  society. Satan is one among these, originally conceived by the
  Hebrews long before the birth of Jesus. The name first ap-
  pears (in The Bible, at any rate) in the book of Job. Satan
  was a fallen angel, not a god, in the monotheistic religions of
  Judaism, Xianity, and Islam.

  "Satan" is understood by most Satanists in a context different
  than that of Xian theology. Satan is a powerful archetype,
  to the Euro-American Usenet majority at least, bringing
  to mind such things as sexuality, power, individualism and
  control over one's destiny. The Satanist can choose what s
  /he likes from the varied portrayals of Satan, and may add
  principles of adversity from other cultures as well.

 3  What is The Satanic Bible?

  The Satanic Bible is a book describing the philosophy of Anton
  LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan. This organiza-
  tion holds the view that there is no higher god than oneself,
  and that one should worship accordingly. Life is the Great
  Indulgence and Death is the Great Abstinence, as there is no
  afterlife. The basic ideas of The Satanic Bible are laid out in
  the Nine Satanic Statements:

   1. Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!

   2. Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe
      dreams!

   3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical
      self-deceit!

   4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead
      of love wasted on ingrates!

   5. Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other
      cheek!

   6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible, instead
      of concern for psychic vampires!

   7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes
      better than, more often worse than those that walk on all
      fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual
      development," has become the most vicious animal of all!

   8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead
      to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!

   9. Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had,
      as he has kept it in business all these years!

  The Satanic Bible can be found (in America) in most chain
  bookstores in the New Age, Philosophy, or Religion sections.

  The Church of Satan can be contacted at:


        Church of Satan
        P.O. Box 210082
        San Francisco, CA 94121

  $100 will get you a lifetime membership. Contrary to pop-
  ular opinion, the Church is not tax-exempt. It turned down
  tax-exemption (despite being eligible) on the grounds that
  a church is a business and should not receive preferential
  treatment.

  Some people question whether the term "Satanism" is ap-
  propriate for the Church's beliefs, due to its atheistic stance.
  Since the Church has been in existence for over 20 years its
  definition is probably here to stay, although it isn't the only
  definition.

 4  Are there other Satanic organizations?

  Yes. The best-known and longest-lasting is the Temple of
  Set, founded by former Church of Satan member Michael
  Aquino. The Temple encourages members to apply Setian
  philosophy to their soul or psyche in the process of Xeper,
  which means "coming into being." The goal is for the indi-
  vidual to achieve self-actualization and divinity. The Temple
  operates in a more religious and supposedly more intellectual
  atmosphere than the Church of Satan.

  The Temple of Set can be contacted at:


        Temple of Set
        P.O. Box 470307
        San Francisco, CA 94147

  5  Aren't Satanists ritualistic baby murderers?

  Some misleading reports exist about Satanists: they are orga-
  nized into nationwide cults; they commit ritual murders on a
  grand scale; they raise their children with psychological dis-
  orders; they kidnap people for blood sacrifice; they organize
  day-care centers and abuse the children placed in their care.
  A whole class of books exists detailing the exploits of these
  Satanic groups.

  The problem with all these works is that they are fictional
  rather than truthful accounts. Much is claimed based on
  scanty evidence that would be better explained by another
  scenario. Claims of involvement with Satanism are made by
  patients under hypnosis (hypnotized subjects are notorious for
  their suggestibility and tendency to produce fictions). Other
  "former Satanists" distort the truth in search of attention and
  money. These sensationalists never go to the police regarding
  the criminal activities they allegedly took part in, which calls
  the veracity of their claims and the sincerity of their remorse
  into question.

  Evidence does not exist to support what is said to occur. If
  the number of murders said to be committed by Satanists was
  accurate, some bodies should have been found by now. While
  means have been suggested by which bodies could be con-
  cealed, it stretches the imagination to believe that every body
  has been successfully hidden thus. Evidence in other areas is
  similarly lacking.

  Individuals investigating suspected Satanic crimes mis-
  interpret what they find to fit their expectations. The
  Necronomicon, published by Avon Books, is used as an au-
  thoritative guide to Satanic practices. Yet few Satanists take
 the book seriously in any way, and none follow it to the letter.
  This and other things lead some non-Satanists to see what
  simply is not there.

  The observant reader may note that there have been a
  few crimes linked to Satanism. In all cases the criminal(s)
  worked alone with no connections to other groups. Some
  cases have been publicized by the media as being related to
  Satanism when in fact they involve another religion, as in the
  Matamoros case.

  The lesson to be learned is that although a book may appear
  in the "Non-fiction" section of a bookstore, that doesn't make
  it so.


  6  Do you say "Xian" rather than "Christian" in order to
      insult Christianity?

  No. Some users in this and other newsgroups find themselves
  discussing a certain religion frequently. In order to cut down
  on keystrokes they type "Xian" and "Xianity" rather than the
  longer versions. A few users may intend it partly as a slur,
  but most do it only for convenience. The abbreviation itself
  is far from insulting; it is accepted and used by many Xians
  including (I am told) the Pope.



  7  Have you considered the message of The Bible?

  Yes. Most Satanists, along with most other members of
  Western cultures, are familiar with the teachings of Xianity
  and many have read The Bible or part of it. They simply
  consider The Bible to be false and disregard it much like
  Xians would disregard books which represent the founda-
  tion of another religion. Attempting to discuss Xianity will, in
  most cases, only get you flamed and not inform the Satanist
  of "something they didn't know." If you are still tempted
  to post about The Bible because you feel that we may have
  missed an important point, I suggest you seek out and read
  the alt.atheism FAQ before proceeding. Many of its points are
  applicable to alt.satanism.

 8  Reading list


   �  The Satanic Bible, by Anton Szander LaVey, Avon Books,
      1969. Presents the Satanic views and doctrines of the
      Church of Satan, along with an introduction to its rituals.

   �  The Compleat Witch , by Anton LaVey, Lancer Books,
      1971.

   �  The Satanic Rituals, by Anton LaVey, University Books,
      1972. More books discussing LaVey's brand of Satanism.

   �  The Second Coming, by Arthur Lyons. [out of print]

   �  Satan Wants You , by Arthur Lyons, Mysterious Press
      (Warner), 1988. Presents an overview of Satanism and
      the history of Satan, plus an in-depth look at popular
      misconceptions.

   �  H. P. Lovecraft, collected works. Classic horror fiction
      that has served as inspiration for many Satanists.

   �  The Black Arts , by Richard Cavendish, Perigee Books
      (Putnam), 1967. An objective introduction to magic,
      demonology, and classical views of Satanism.

   �  Black Magic in Theory and Practice , by Michael Aquino.

   �  The Necronomicon [by the Mad Arab], Avon Books,
      1977. Purported ritual book of great efficacy. Generally
      regarded as fiction interspersed with translations of
      Mesopotamian texts.

   �  The Satan Seller , Mike Warnke's imagination, Logos
      International, 1972.

  �  Cornerstone, Volume 21, number 98, "Selling Satan," Jon
      Trott & Mike Hertenstein, 1992. This gets highest  rec-
                                                       *        *
      ommendation. From Xian magazine which does a great
      job of discrediting Mike Warnke's accounts mentioned in
      The Satan Seller and elsewhere.

   �  Satanism: The Seduction of America's Youth , Bob
      Larson, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989.

   �  ABRASAX#4 - A magazine published by the American
      Gnostic Church. Issue #4 is dedicated to Satan & satanic
      matters generally.

   �  The Occult by Colin Wilson - An excellent objective
      introduction to the subject.

   �  Cosmic Trigger by Robert A. Wilson - This book describes
      various initiations and occult phenomena experienced by
      Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson has had a great influence on
      20th century occultism, and his books should be read by
      any serious student of the occult.

   �  Apocalypse Culture collected by Adam Parfey - A shock-
      ing work, depicting the worldviews of various "fringe"
      sects and individuals, ranging from necrophiliacs to
      ultra-right wing christians.

   �  Snapping; America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality
      Change by Flo Conway & Jim Siegelman - an interesting
      work utilizing information theory in the study of sudden
      personality change as occurs in religious cults, and the
      "Born-Again" phenomenon.

   �  Dead Sea Scrolls & the Bible by Roland E. Murphy, 1968

   �  A Crack in the Jar; What ancient Jewish Documents tell
      us about the New Testament by Niel Fujita, 1986

   �  The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth by John
      Allegro (one of the original Dead Sea Scholars) 1984

  Following are a number of works recommended dealing with
  Satanism's links with crime, multiple personality disorder,
  etc:


   �  The Satanism Scare, ed. James T. Richardson, Joel Best,
      and David G. Bromley (NY: Aldine, 1991): 145-172.

   �  Satan's Power: A Deviant Psychotherapy Cult , by
      William Simms Bainbridge, U of CA Press, 1978.

   �  Battle for the Mind, by William Sargent, Harper & Row,
      1957.

   �  In Pursuit Of Satan , by Robert D. Hicks (Prometheus
      Books),

   �  Satanism In America, issued by the Committee for the
      Scientific Examination of Religion.

   �  ``Occult Crime: A Law Enforcement Primer'' - [To ob-
      tain a copy of this report, write to the California Office
      of Criminal Justice Planning, 1130 K Street, Suite 300,
      Sacramento, CA 95814 (Phone: (916) 324-9100). Request
      the "Research Update, Special Edition, Winter 1989-1990,
      Volume 1, Number 6" issue.]
       

    
    RE: .158  and Di (subsequently)
    
    
    >Well, who's more thoughtless?
    
    
     They both (all?) are...
    
     My point (and it seems to be missed by many), is not that of a slang,
    which is done by many, but the actual term "Oh My God!" being used by
    an atheist...
    
     No one finds that ironic?? Too subtle I guess...
    
     As for the clueless one... So? I fat fingered the wrong 're:'
    number...  So sue me!

    
>>     No one finds that ironic?? Too subtle I guess...

	oh yeah, waaaaaaay too subtle for us dolts.  ayuh ayuh ayuh.

	Andy, it is only ironic because you keep looking at it through your own
meaning, and not through theirs. 


Glen

 But Glen..what does God mean to an... ahh nevermind.

    
    re: .166
    
     >oh yeah, waaaaaaay too subtle for us dolts.  ayuh ayuh ayuh.
    
    
     I know I referenced you at the top Di... but that was for your
    response as to slangs...
    
      Or did you really think I was refering to you with my rhetorical
    question?
    

    
    
    See what I mean??
    

Hey, enough of that Satan stuff...that belongs
in a religious note, it certainly doesn't belong
here in the atheist note.

| <<< Note 389.168 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>



| But Glen..what does God mean to an... ahh nevermind.

	Ask the individual Jim. It's really simple.

 If its so simple, Glen, maybe you can explain it?

	subroutine conversation_with_andrew
	implicit none
	logical     senseless

	find brick wall
        do while (.not. senseless)
	    beat head against wall
        end do

	end
 

    
    .154
    
    Chris, you're at ZKO, right?  Go to the cafeteria tomorrow anytime from
    11am to 2pm and you'll see what I mean by Earth Day.
    
    Actually, multiply what you see by 10 other centers and you'll know
    what I mean by Effing Earth Day 8^))).

    I was Christened (sp?) Church of England.
    
    Just thought I'd say that !!! Can't think why ?

    Because you um was baby like um me.
    
    Onondaga

    
    If you were christened "Church of England", why do we call you "Martin"?

    I'll be calling him "Church of England" from now on. Yes I will.

    Martin is my religion !

    Whatever you say, Church of England.

    Yes sir-eeee-Bob errr -Glenn.

> sir-eeee-Bob

Sounds familiar.

-Jack-boy-Bob

    
    
    Well, I have not read most of the replies in this topic, but
    I just wanted to put my two cents worth in...
    
    I think this is a pathetic reason for another useless topic.
    What religion you are or are not has nothing to do with how
    you act in the box.  It's a matter of courtesy and understanding
    that all are not the same. Respect people for their opinions.  
    You may not always agree on what's right or wrong, but that does
    NOT make the person with the other opinion a bad person.  It only
    makes them different.
    
    Nothing wrong with being different.  The only thing I do not 
    respect is shoving your opinions down everyone elses throats,
    and claiming that your opinion is fact, and that there is no
    other opinion worthy of discussion.  That's a very closed minded view,
    and I don't think you can healthily get very far in this world
    with that kind of an outlook.
    
    Terrie
    

    Terri:
    
    When you watch a political debate, you usually see two individuals
    given intervals of time to speak on their views.  Yet each of the
    participants speaks with determination and fervor.  This is because the
    speaker has conviction in what they say...they believe their point of
    view to be fact and act based upon that belief.
    
    Religious topics should be discussed by people who are prepared to
    discuss the topic.  Third party whiners who are easily hurt or offended
    should hit next unseen and stop bellyaching.  Disagreements on
    religious issues DO NOT imply racism...that is absolute poppycock.
    
    -Jack

    >>Third party whiners who are easily hurt or offended
    >>should hit next unseen and stop bellyaching. 

	Are you excluding yourself?  Just curious.

    Yes I am.  I don't get easily hurt Di.  I do get hurt but it usually
    takes somebody I hold in very high esteem to say something to hurt me!
    
    -Jack

   well then, you're probably safe in here, eh?

    ooooooooooo, that's gotta hurt!
    
    Chip

    I've only been hurt once in Soapbox...it happened early this week and
    the person put an entry in that would be considered a simple incidental 
    question!
    
    -Jack

    .190
    
    *frantic scurrying through thousands of notes to find the weakness for
    later use*
    
    8^)
    
    ric

>>    ooooooooooo, that's gotta hurt!

	if you read carefully - it's not a comment designed to
	hurt Jack.

    easy Di' it was in fun... 
    
    Chip

>>    easy Di' it was in fun... 

	Whaddya mean "easy, Di'"?  I was calmly trying to 
	make sure you weren't confused by the exchange.

    
    
    
    I was NOT bellyaching.  I was just stating my opinion on the
    subject, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN HERE!  I do have a religious
    opinion, and most people here know what that is.  I don't try to defend
    that opinion because I feel confident enough about it to not feel a
    need to defend it.  I don't much care how anyone else feels about 
    my opinion.  That's not to say I don't care what their opinion on the
    subject is.  Actually, I do.  
    
    
    Terrie
    

    Sorry Terri...I meant You all stop bellyaching and not you personally.
    
    ZZ        Whaddya mean "easy, Di'"?  I was calmly trying to 
    ZZ        make sure you weren't confused by the exchange.
    
    Diane...isn't it a wrenching feeling when you state something and it is
    misinterpreted...and you have no idea how it could possibly happen?!
    
    

    
>>    Diane...isn't it a wrenching feeling when you state something and it is
>>    misinterpreted...and you have no idea how it could possibly happen?!

      sure - it's pretty standard in the 'box though. ;>
    

| <<< Note 389.173 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| If its so simple, Glen, maybe you can explain it?


	Jim, for each person it may mean something different. To an athiest it
may mean nadda, only each person knows. So when someone you know uses a phrase,
ask them what it means. Pretty simple, huh?

    Not so simple really.  Atheists still get offended even though they
    claim to be atheists.
    
    -Jack

    SNARF!

    
    I got a rock

| <<< Note 389.185 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>



| Religious topics should be discussed by people who are prepared to discuss the
| topic.  

	Jack, that would be nice if that happened. But there are some from both
sides of the issue where if they state their beliefs, they are squashed by the
opposition. No one says anyone else has to believe what another does, but they
should at least aknowledge that this is what the person believes, and not rip
them apart for it.

| Third party whiners who are easily hurt or offended should hit next unseen 
| and stop bellyaching.  

	When will you be starting to practice what you preach? :-)

| Disagreements on religious issues DO NOT imply racism...that is absolute 
| poppycock.

	Jack, that statement you just wrote does not always ring true. There
are many people who the above would not fit. And I don't think it stops at
racism either. For the majority, imho, what you wrote does ring true though.


Glen

Really, doesn't it all come down to this?

We fear death.  We fear nothingness.

So, in order to allay our fears, we invent a 
"higher being" and in return for "having faith"
in this higher being, we convince ourselves that
when we die, we won't _really die_, we will 
have "everlasting life".

Forever and ever.  Amen.

ZZ    but they
ZZ    should at least aknowledge that this is what the person believes, and
ZZ    not rip them apart for it.
    
    Again it comes to this.  If you have faith, it is a given that that is
    what you believe.  If religion is based on faith, then it is understood
    that their faith is truth...to them.  Your belief is truth...to
    you...and we can continue that way.  Just remember that we can both be
    wrong but we both can't be right.  
    
    -Jack

 ZZ   So, in order to allay our fears, we invent a 
 ZZ   "higher being" and in return for "having faith"
 ZZ   in this higher being, we convince ourselves that
 ZZ   when we die, we won't _really die_, we will 
 ZZ   have "everlasting life".
    
    Congrats...you just expressed what your faith is...and I honor your
    right to believe it.  All others ask is that you honor theirs too.
    
    -Jack

That's not my faith, that's just a theory.

    >Atheists shouldn't yell...
    
    > "Oh My God!!"
    
    Same as a Christian yelling F.U., they don't believe in it.
    
    ...Tom

Christians only yell "F-U" when they're awash in a 
sea of relativity.

    No, they say it when they get really really mad.

    >> No, they say it when they get really really mad.
    
    You mean like the Roman Catholic priest at St. Margaret's church
    in Burlington, Mass., who angrily issued every swear he could
    think of (including several "eff"'s) to my wife for parking in
    the wrong place amongst their acreage of parking?
    
    Back in my vanpool days, the vanpool would pick up and drop off
    at their huge, tax-free parking lot.  One day, when picking me
    up (waiting for me to arrive), she parked in some unmarked area
    which, for some reason, one of the priests didn't like.  He came
    over, and totally without provocation (my wife remained calm and
    polite throughout), immediately went ballistic in her face, including
    all of the aforementioned obscenities.
    
    "Priest", eh?  I wonder if he confessed to himself that week.
    
    Chris

    
    re: .208
    
    I thought we covered this waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back...
    
    
     RE: FU
    
     I happen to think swearing is a vulgar, lazy way of expressing certain
    emotions....  
    
      I don't care much for it.. whether it's a priest, witch, jerk or
    <pick-your-own>...
    
     I priest yelling "F-U!!" os just as ironic as an atheist yelling "Oh
    My God!"
    

    
    re: .210
    
    
     There a "fringe" in everything....
    

He was awash in a sea of hospitality.

    
    
    Or it might have just been PMS....
    
     Still no excuse for it.... hospitality, relativity, longevity,
    (any)ity...
    

>Or it might have just been PMS....

Priestly Mean-Spiritedness???

| <<< Note 389.204 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Just remember that we can both be wrong but we both can't be right.

	But we can both CLAIM we're right! But you would still be wrong...
oh... either one of us could be wrong... heh heh

| <<< Note 389.206 by LANDO::OLIVER_B >>>

| That's not my faith, that's just a theory.


	Well.... isn't that faith??? :-)

I guess if you believe the theory it is...;^)

    Tell you what Glen...if I'm wrong and we're in heaven, I'll give you
    one of those..."I'm Sorrrrrry" looks and group hug!
    
    
    -Jack

    As long as it's not a grope hug.

| <<< Note 389.219 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Tell you what Glen...if I'm wrong and we're in heaven, I'll give you one of 
| those..."I'm Sorrrrrry" looks and group hug!

	Jack, if you're right, which one of us will be in Heaven, and which one
of us will be in Hell? :-)

	Now, if you say you would be in Heaven, then wouldn't it stand to
reason that if you're wrong you would be in Hell? Or can one's beliefs end up
having a flaw or two (ya find out when you stand at the gates), but as long as 
you believe in Him, you will get into Heaven? Wait, that can't be right if you
think that because you're right, one of us will be in Heaven, one will be in
Hell. 

	Jack, could you please clear this up? Cuz from what I got above, I get
the impression that you will be in Heaven, me in Hell. If you're wrong, you
will still be in Heaven, I will be there with you. But then on the other hand
with the 1st scenerio, it would have appeared I was wrong, but went to Hell. 



Glen

    	I thought you had a problem with the proliferation of religious 
    	discussions...

Awash in a sea of heavenly bliss...

| <<< Note 389.222 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| I thought you had a problem with the proliferation of religious discussions...

	I wouldn't mind seeing them all in one note....

    	Then pick a note and consider limiting your personal participation
    	to that one.  Otherwise you are merely contributing to the precise
    	thing you are complaining about.

ZZ    Jack, if you're right, which one of us will be in Heaven, and
ZZ    which one of us will be in Hell? :-)
    
    Abraham and Sarah proliferated godless nations through their lack of
    faith.  Moses and David were murderers.  Jacob was a deceiver.  Peter
    denied Jesus three times.  
    
    Nay nay Glen...if you believe that Jesus died for your sin and you
    receive him as your savior, then Heaven is guarenteed...BASED ON the
    Bible.  I have this assurance because of a promise...not because I
    supposedly think I'm godly.  My interest in this topic is twofold...
    
    -I want you to live in victory and have the same assurance that I have.
    
    -I'm trying to point out that scripture is not to be shunned at our
    whim...we must take the whole package.
    
    -Jack

<----jack....i don't want to scare you, but i think we might agree on a lot of
     this.... :-)

    The key is living a victorious life in Christ.  Our outlook on the
    Bible may determine this!
    
    -Jack

    
    Atheists are like a big jam doughnut with cream on the top!
    

    Their arrival gives us pleasure, and their departure just leaves us
    hungrier for more.

    >I get the impression that you will be in Heaven, me in Hell.
    
    For sure you will both be dead.
    
    ...Tom

<---- <grin>

I seem to recall some time ago that Deacon Covert queried (perhaps
in TTWA) why Atheists might use the name of god in vain. I also
seem to recall responding "For the effect."

    
    Atheists face "The Problem of Awe".  At birth we receive immense
    powers - our senses/brains/hands/longevity/emotions/purposiveness.
    Yet we all face a Universe of immensely higher order, in size, scope,
    complexity, mystery.
    
    Today I work on a team building an Alpha Server, a tremendous engine
    of computing, beyond anything man ever did.  Yet engineering
    discipline, teamwork, the proper use of the tools before us, will
    see us to market, topping for a while, all previous work.
    
    Whether you gaze at the Hubble pictures or Edmund Wilson's ants, an
    inherently mystical sense of "Awe" comes to you.  There are wonders
    everywhere, and they lend great credence to the mystic view.
    
    Thus "atheism" faces the problem of denying magic in a magical place.
    
      bb

   
    I was walking across a bridge one day, and i saw a man standing on the
    edge, about to jump off.  so i ran over and said "stop! don't do it!                                     
    "Why shouldn't I?" he said.  I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
    He said, "Like what?"  I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
    He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too!  Are you christian or buddhist?"
    He said, "Christian."  I said, "Me too!  Are you catholic or protestant?"
    He said, "Protestant."  I said, "Me too!  Are you episcopalian or baptist?"
    He said, "Baptist!"  I said, "Wow!  Me too!  Are you baptist church of god
    or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!"  I said,
    "Me too!  Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed
    baptist church of god?"  He said, "Reformed baptist church of god!"
    I said, "Me too!  Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of
    1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?"  He said,
    "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!"  I
    said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.  -- Emo Phillips

See 58.283 and .285

Really?  Well, still, the spirit of the joke remains.
What is the point of the joke?

See 382.26.

re .234

that was an interesting note!
    
>   Thus "atheism" faces the problem of denying magic in a magical place.
    
i don't think so.

as atheist i must leave room for what i as an individual and for what we 
as humanity do not yet understand. and that's a lot of magic! 



andreas.

    Had a long discussion with a christian friend last night. After
    thinking about our conversation I have come to the following
    conclusion. To doubt something that has not been proven indicates
    honesty and integrity. To disallow doubt is to engage in "blind faith",
    which is the opposite of honesty and integrity, hence virtue.

<---thumper index expected to rise

    <---humper spandex inspected at thighs

    Maybe you should rename this topic to "Atheists Pat Themselves on the
    Back"

    that didn't rhyme very well at all.

    RE: back patting.....
    
    This right is reserved as the sole domain of christians?  

   .244  so it would seem.

isn't anything good?

    >isn't anything good?
    
    Yes, honesty.

<--- Billy Joel, 1983?

    >Billy Joel is an atheist
    
    He can't be, he's the Piano Man!!  :)

| <<< Note 389.250 by DASHER::RALSTON "MR. NEXT UNSEEN" >>>

| >Billy Joel is an atheist

| He can't be, he's the Piano Man!!  :)



	He's two (click), two (click), two people in one! He's a floor wax.....
no, he's a dessert topping...... he's SSSHHHIIIMMMMMMMEEERRRRR!!!!!!

    Had an interesting dialog with some wierdo (my analysis) on the net
    last night. He called himself a occultist. I called him a satanist. He
    disagreed but didn't take offense. He got into how the Christian god
    not only condons outright murder, but is a murderer himself. He claims
    that the world is backwards and that Satan is trying to save us from
    this immoral, murdering god. I told him that I think religions in
    general are mystical nonsense, but that I doubted his claim of the
    christian god being a murderer. He said he will compile bibical
    evidence and send it to me today.
    
    What do you think? I'll post his compilation when I get it.
    
    ...Tom

    
    I think you found a live one and would be very careful with
    home address. That's what I think.
    
    -b

    <---- I agree.  I don't lend any credence to his assertions but I would
    certainly not want this person to know anything about how to contact
    me.  
    
    

    Tom:
    
    The Old Testament is FULL of examples where God is leading the
    Israelites into battle.  So I have no doubt one could paint God as a
    murderer he wanted to.  This person is going by his feelings and can't
    comprehend the holiness and sovereignty of God.  Therefore, God takes
    life unjustly.
    
    "Fear no he who kills the body but not the soul.  Rather fear He who
    can kill body and soul and cast into hell."
    
    Jesus speaking of God here.
    
    -Jack

    He only has my Digital address. If I find him to be dangerous I'll
    send him to you guys.  :)  
    
    Actually I have found these guys on the net, mostly in newsgroups, to be 
    pretty harmless. I actually had the opportunity to meet a guy who spouted 
    all kinds of revolutionary and seditious crap over the network. He
    turned out to be a nice guy who had been screwed by the IRS and I got
    the impression that he used the net to vent, but was totally harmless. 
    Just like in da Box!
    
    Though I'm not so naive to think there aren't some real crazies out
    there! Just like in da Box! 

    Jack:
    
    Though I would not label your god as a murderer, I think that you also
    go by your feelings. There is no objective proof of god, which you have
    agreed with in the past, that is why you like all Christians have
    something called faith, which is the same as feelings, in my book.

    Not really because as Maria Von Trapp said to Leisle, faith is
    believing in something when common sense tells you not to.
    
    -Jack

    ^faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to.
    
    Yea, feelings.

    re: .256
    
    >pretty harmless. I actually had the opportunity to meet a guy who spouted 
    >all kinds of revolutionary and seditious crap over the network. He
    >turned out to be a nice guy who had been screwed by the IRS and I got
    >the impression that he used the net to vent, but was totally harmless. 
    
    Oh, you've met MadMike:-)
    
    Bob
    

    Whatever.

    whoever
    

    Jack, is that Sound Of Music doctrine?

    The hills are alive!!

If you don't believe that he exists, then he obviously isn't a murderer,
and the whole question and discussion is irrelevant.

If you're interested in the discussion you had with this guy, then I
suppose you really do believe in God, and maybe you should work a little
harder at finding out how he has revealed himself to his people.

/john

    John, do bother reading notes before you reply?

    .265
    
    > If you don't believe that he exists, then he obviously isn't a murderer,
    > and the whole question and discussion is irrelevant.
    
    No, it isn't.  The discussion becomes one of people's using their
    feelings/beliefs/fantasies/dreams as an excuse for murder.

    
    Um, Meatyluv...would you mind pointing me to the act and scene in The
    Sound Of Music where Maria says that to Liesl?
    
    When you find that you can't, would you mind sitting down and watching
    _Miracle on 34th Street_?
    
    Report back on Monday.
    
    
    

    No, I think I can tell you now.
    
    Leisle sees Rolph in the square, Rolph treats her like dirt, Leisle is
    depressed.
    
    Maria comes home from honeymoon, has mother to daughter talk with
    Leisel; they sing....
    
    	When your sixteen...going on seventeen....
    	Waiiiiittt a yeear....or twoooooooooooo.....
        (Father gives stupid look)
    
    I think it's around that time.

    >>	When your sixteen...going on seventeen....
    >>	Waiiiiittt a yeear....or twoooooooooooo.....
    
    Are they in Canada?
    
    Chris

    
    I suggest you take the second half of my query to heart, Meatypet.
    
    

    } Actually I have found these guys on the net, mostly in newsgroups, to
    } be pretty harmless.
    
    Some goofball I (and others) was chatting with just got scored by
    the FBI.  Made the national news even.
    
    There's a bunch of winners out there.

    re: Note 389.260 by ROWLET::AINSLEY
    
    I don't have irs problems.  :^)

    re: .260
    
    -< or was it our very own Founding Father? >-
    
    Not me, Bob.  I don't even have a PC at home...yet.  8^)  

    Mz. Debra:
    
    Are you implying that I...JACK MARTIN, am incorrect on this matter?!

    
    
    > Are you implying that I...JACK MARTIN, am incorrect on this matter?!
    
    Jack Martin!!! See Suzanne Conlon!!!
    
    NNTTM...
    

    I can't.  She lives too far away!

    From:   POWDML::HANGGELI     "mz_debra/dtn 223-8921/(508) 493-8921"
    To:     MKOTS3::JMARTIN
    CC:
    Subj:   RE: Thanks alot!!!
    
    
    OK, I'll give you a hint.
    
    Fred says it to Doris when she says she doesn't believe that Kris Kringle 
    is Santa Claus.  After she changes her mind and believes, she (Doris) says
    it to Susan who doesn't believe that K.K. is S.C.  And at the end when Fred,
    Doris &
    Susan are driving home from the Christmas Party at the old folks' home out 
    on Long Island and they find the house Susan wanted for Christmas, Susan
    says it to Fred, saying that Mommy told her so, and Fred looks at Doris and
    says "Why, you..." and clinches her in a huge kiss.  Then they decide to 
    buy the house for Susan and everyone lives happily ever after.
    
    Trust me, it's not from Sound of Music!
    

    
    Now Meatypet, I sent that to you off line so you wouldn't be
    embarrassed in front of everyone and his brother in here 8^).
    
    

    
    
    That was nice of you mz_deb, but I do believe Jack is trying to show
    what a lady you are...
    

    Absolutely!  

    	That like may very well be in 34th St, but it is also in
    	Sound of Music.  (The movie.)  I remember it.

    Take it to `The Ring'.

    replies must be at least 50 lines long with appropriately long
    rebuttals to maximize disk quota and CPU cycles and network bandwidth
    use.

    
    The Sound of Music _movie_ is an abomination compared to the actual
    stage musical.
    
    I will have nothing to do with that movie.  Furthermore, you will have
    to specify your source 8^).
    
    

    supercalafragilisticexpealidocious!

    
    re: .284
    
    >The Sound of Music _movie_ is an abomination compared to the actual
    >stage musical.
    
    What's half of nothing????
    
    

    
    supercalafragilisticexpealidocious!
            i              i
    
    
    	supercalifragilisticexpialidocious,
    	even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious.
    	If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious,
    	supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
    
    	Umm-diddle-iddle-iddle-um-diddle-aye,
    	umm-diddle-iddle-iddle-um-diddle-aye ...
    
    	[everybody sing]
    

    
    [everybody gag]
    

    
    	I don't care what you do, as long as you do it on key.
    
    	8^)
    
    
    	Because I was afraid to speak when I was just a lad,
    	me father gave me a nose a tweak and told me I was bad.
    	And then one day I heard this word [...],
    	[...] and this is how it goes ...
    

    	    ^supercalifragilisticexpialidocious,
            ^even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious.
            ^If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious,
            ^supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
    
    
    I think you should get an umbrella and fly away!!  :)
    The fact that you know how to spell the word correctly is disgusting. 
    :)

    
    	Julie Andrews has always been a favorite of mine.
    
    	Schwing!!
    

       I love show tunes.  Me and Paul Shaeffer.  And I get a lot of the
       words right, too, so Di only has to correct me occasionally.
       
       I like show tunes except, that is, anything from the Sound of
       Music.  R&H must have phoned that one in; every song sucks.
       
       And none worse than The Lonely Goatherd.  As if someone would give
       a rat's arse about one.
       
       And Mary Martin can't yodel.

Been watching Blake Edwards' "S.O.B.", Shawn?

    The Sound of Music music was good for something...  a former DECcie
    colleague and I would occasionally hum the "Auf Wiedersehen" song
    during the DEC Dark Days.  Neither one of us could ever get past the
    little doo-doodle-oo-doo-do-do-dooo part between verses without
    cracking up.  Gallows humor does strange things to you...
    
    Chris

    RE: .289
    
    > Because I was afraid to speak when I was just a lad,
    > me father gave me a nose a tweak and told me I was bad.
    > And then one day I heard this word [...],
    					 ^^^^
    					"what saved me ache'n nose"
    
    > [...] and this is how it goes ...
      ^^^
    	"the biggest word you ever heard.."
    
    NNTTM
    
    :-)
    

    The following is the promised compilation sent to me, as previously
    mentioned. Interesting.
    
    ...Tom
    
    =============================================================
    
List of People Murdered By God

The lord giveth, the lord taketh away::
(Lo, the lord is a kind and loving being, is he not...)

The following is a list of people murdered by God directly or  
through His command.

*The entire population of the earth except for eight survivors  (Genesis 7:23)
*Every inhabitant of Sodom and Gomorrah except for one family  (Genesis 19:24)
*Every first born of Egypt (Exodus 12:29)
*All the hosts of the Pharaoh, including the captains of 600  
 chariots (Exodus 14:27,28)
*Amalek and his people (Exodus 17:11,16)
*3,000 Israelites (Exodus 32:27)
*250 Levite princes who had challenged the leadership of Moses  
    (Numbers 16:1-40)
*14,700 Jews in a plague who had rebelled against Moses following  
 the killing of the princes (Numbers 16:41-49)
*All the subjects of Og (Numbers 21:34, 35)
*24,000 Israelites who lived with Moabite women (Numbers 25:4, 9)
*All the males, kings, and non-virgin females of the Midianites  
(Numbers 31:7, 8)
*The Ammonites (Deuteronomy 2:19-21)
*The Horims (Deuteronomy 2:22)
*All the citizens of Jericho, except for a prostitute and her  
 family (Joshua 6)
*12,000 citizens of Ai. Joshua hung the king on a tree.  (Joshua 8:1-30)
*All the people of Makkedah (Joshua 10:28)
*All the people of Libnah (Joshua 10:29, 30)
*All the people of Gezer (Joshua 10:33)
*All the people of Lachish (Joshua 10:32)
*All the people of Eglon (Joshua 10:34, 35)
*All the people of Hebron (Joshua 10:36, 37)
*All the inhabitants of 1 of the country of the hills, and of the  
 south, and the vale, and of the springs and all their kings (Joshua 10:40)
*All 31 kings and inhabitants of their countries, and south  
 country, and the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and  
 the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same from Mt. Halak to  
 Mt. Hermon (Joshua 11:12, 16, 17, 12:24)
*10,000 Moabites (Judges 3:29)
*10,000 Perizzites and Canaanites (Judges 1:4)
*600 Phillistines (Judges 3:31)
*All of Sisera (Judges 4:16)
*120,000 Midianites (Judges 8:10)
*25,100 Benjaminites (Judges 20:35)
*50,070 people of Bethshemesh (I Samuel 6:19)
*All the Amalekites (I Samuel 15:3, 7)
*The armies and five kings of the Amorites (Amos 3:2)
*The Moabites and 22,000 Syrians (II Samuel 8:2, 5, 6, 14)
*40,000 Syrian horsemen (II Samuel 10:18)
*100,000 Syrian footmen, followed by 27,000 who are all crushed by  
 a wall (I Kings 20:28, 29, 30)
*42 children eaten by a bear (II Kings 2:23, 24)
*185,000 Assyrians killed by an angel (II Kings 19:35)
*10,000 Edomites, followed by 10,000 more whose killers brought  
 them to the top of the rock, and cast them down from the top of the  
 rock, that they were broken in pieces  (II Chronicles 28)
*120,000 Judeans (II Chronicles 28)
*75,000 Persians (Esther 9:16)

    
    	RE: Jack
    
    	Wow, forgot about that one ... it's been years since I saw
    	"S.O.B."!!
    
    
    	RE: Greg
    
    	Thanks!!  I always forget those lines!!
    

    Tom:
    
    The very first condition God gave mankind...
    
    "You may eat of every tree except for the tree of life.  For the day
    you eat of it, you shall surely die."
    
    Now for arguments sake, let's consider this a literal actual occurance.
    It would seem God set the conditions and man chose death.  Therefore,
    humankind killed itself be free choice.  
    
    Considering Noah occured over 1000 years after this incident, it seems
    God actuall suffered fools longer than being the tyrannical murderer
    you claim him to be.
    
    -Jack

    And the winner is Mz_Debra!
    We watched the Sound of Music Saturday at my place.  Raq and Sharon
    are also witnesses.  Meatyluv, apologize to the lady!

    God hasn't murdered anyone. Men have. Men claim god told them to do
    it.

    People will believe what they want and interpret it in a way that suits
    their beliefs.

<---very well written note, Glenn!

<----------- well thought out response, Glen!

    thcream?

    
    
    I thcream, you thcream, we all thcream for icethcream!!!

    ^the tyrannical murderer you claim him to be.
    
    Don't get emotional on me Jack. Remember I'm the one who defended the
    Christian God as not being a murderer several notes back. This is the
    list sent to me by a person deep in the occult who actually thinks
    Satan is the savior of the world.
    
    My belief is that men kill and often blame a ficticious god for their
    actions. It continues to happen as in the case of Rabin. People died of
    natural causes and accident as well. There are those who take advantage
    of this by teaching that god did the killing or allowed the killing and
    if you don't follow the correct way it could happen to you. All
    mystical nonsense!

 ZZ   Don't get emotional on me Jack. Remember I'm the one who defended
 ZZ   the Christian God as not being a murderer several notes back. 
    
    Fear not!  I don't get emotional over this.  If one believes God is a
    murderer, more power to him!!!  I was only bringing it up as a point of
    discussion.
    
    Now considering that the events in the Book of Joshua are true, how
    would one explain a hord of vagabonds like the Israelites were breaking
    through a fortidied city like Jericho and destroying warriors like
    these people?  People who were very large, experienced, and powerful?
    
    -Jack

*File Description: The Church of Apathy*


               Are there those of you out there that feel that you don't want
     to have to identify with a specific religion?  Do you feel that atheism
     and agnosticism is just too much work?  Then join our church. That's
     right, a new religion with a new attitude: Apathists.  The Church of
     Apathy was thought about by it's founders for several years before they
     decided to put it together in 1973.  In 1989 they finally got around to
     looking for a church, but found it was too much trouble, and besides, they
     really didn't care where they met, anyway.  Their next project is to find
     a clergy man, but so far, no one really wants to look for one. An added
     bonus, if you should ever decide to attend a meeting, there won't be any
     long boring discussions of whether or not there is a God, because it
     doesn't matter that much to anyone in the church.  If you're interested,
     or think you might be, if you ever get around to it, send us your name
     and address, and we'll send you your confirmation letter. That is,
     if you really want one, and if we decide it's worth it to reply.  Who
     knows?  Who cares? We certainly don't; we're Apathists!

    ^Now considering that the events in the Book of Joshua are true, how
    ^would one explain a hord of vagabonds like the Israelites were breaking
    ^through a fortidied city like Jericho and destroying warriors like
    ^these people?  People who were very large, experienced, and powerful?
    
    Maybe they learned how from the Moslems. They are good at achieving
    this even today. The scenarios for making this happen can be many.
    Guerrilla warfare has been around for eons. These days we call it
    terrorism, depending on what side you're on. One thing I'm sure of, these
    Israelites probably didn't make the walls come tumbling down by running
    around is a circle and stamping their feet.

    Tom:
    
    The walls of Jericho were large enough to put buildings on top of them. 
    They were very well fortified and guerilla warfare would not apply in
    this case.
    
    -Jack

    If Jericho was a normal city, commerce was in action most all times of
    the day. People traveled in and out. Terrorism is always possible. I
    don't know much about ancient history but I can be sure that some
    Israelites running in circles, stamping their feet and shouting didn't
    knock the walls down. 

    Archeological digs on the site of Jericho indicate that a severe
    earthquake probably knocked the walls down.
    
    Whether that's true, at least we can say that the Israelites didn't
    learn anything from the Muslims that thsy could use at Jericho.  The
    Exodus happened about 1800 years before the birth of Muhammad.  :-)

    ^Whether that's true, at least we can say that the Israelites didn't
    ^learn anything from the Muslims that thsy could use at Jericho. The
    ^Exodus happened about 1800 years before the birth of Muhammad.
    
    True Dick. I put that in there thinking that Jack would pick up on it.
    An earthquake is a good, logical reason. The problem is when it is
    thought that god created the earthquake in order to knock the walls
    down.

    Tom:
    
    Once again for the sake of arguments let's assume it was an actual
    occurance.  We are left with two possibilities.
    
    -  The Israelites shouted and coincidently, an earthquake took place.
    
    -  The Israelites shouted and miraculously the power of God knocked the
       wall of Jericho down.
    
    If the first case be true, then the Israelites are to be commended for
    their uncanny luck.  If the second is true, then there is a God.
    
    -Jack

re: .313 (Jack)

>    Once again for the sake of arguments let's assume it was an actual
>    occurance.  We are left with two possibilities.
>    -  The Israelites shouted and coincidently, an earthquake took place.
>    -  The Israelites shouted and miraculously the power of God knocked the
>       wall of Jericho down.
>    If the first case be true, then the Israelites are to be commended for
>    their uncanny luck.  If the second is true, then there is a God.

You don't stretch your imagination much, do you.  How about

    -  The Israelites had been shouting for quite some time.  There
        had been demonstrations, and protests, and yes, shouting.  One
        night, while sleeping, an earthquake struck the city.  The
        in-the-right-place-at-the-right-time Israelites took advantage
        of the situation.  Since they won, they got to write the history.
        We leave it to the bible-writers to put the holy spin on it.

NOW which do you think more likely?
\john

    Jack:
    
    ^We are left with two possibilities.
    
    I don't buy the only "two possibilities" deal. Like many things in the
    Bible and other books, the account of the incident was written many
    years after the event. The passing of time is how myths are developed. 
    My grandfather called them Whoppers. I can just imagine the writer's
    dottering old grandfather relating the story. Think he wouldn't add a
    little drama? 

    How about:
    
    The Israelites stumble onto the famous city of Jericho, only, there's
    not much left of it due to an incredible earth quake. The appointed
    leader of the city is one of a few survivors. Her name is Rahab.

    I think aliens destroyed Jericho and the Israelites took credit! :)

    .310
    
    Joshua 6:1
    
    "Jericho was tightly shut because of the sons of Israel; no one went
     out and no one came in".

    .318 is correct.  The Canaanites knew exactly what was happening to
    them days before it happened.  Dread and fear spread throughout
    Jericho as they knew the exploits God had done in Egypt and at the Red
    Sea.  What it all boils down to is faith.  We either accept it or
    reject it.
    
    Gerald Sacks may be able to answer this but I believe the nation of
    Israel considers this a historical event.   
    
    -Jack

re: .319 (Jack)

>    .318 is correct.

You mean, ".318 is an accurate quote."

Any thoughts as to why there have been no more instances of
"God supported <some race>" or "God helped win the war" in
recent times?  Could it be, way back when the bible was written,
that people just assumed being on the winning side meant they
had God's blessing?

How is it that these things never occur to you?
\john

    John:
    
    They occur to me quite a bit.  Back in those times, God spoke to the
    people through the prophets and through the priesthood of Aaron.  
    Israel was under a theocracy established by God Himself.  This isn't
    the case today.  Interesting to note that when the Israelites were
    living in sin or out of the will of God, they lost battles and lost
    them horribly I might add.  
    
    -Jack

    Same reason why the U.S. lost the Vietnam war eh? The nation was living
    in sin and not in the will of God.

    .321
    
    > They occur to me quite a bit.  Back in those times, God spoke to the
    > people...
    
    How is it that it never occurs to you that God may NEVER have spoken
    through prophets.  It is possible that the Israelites simply BELIEVED
    he did because they wanted to believe.  Being a primitive, supersti-
    tious people, they may simply have connected their belief in God with
    events that were perfectly ordinary and natural.  And, of course, since
    they were the ONLY people to write down what purports to be a history
    of their society, what other, more rigorous, source do we have?
    
    For instance, to take a point a little closer to home for Christians,
    it is well within the bounds of possibility that Mary, the mother of
    Jesus, was in fact NOT a virgin.  It was common practice in that time
    and place for a man to "try out" his betrothed and, if she proved
    infertile, to break the betrothal.  But Christianity, being a mystical
    religion, demands a mystical God, so it simply overlooks the most
    obvious probability and instead assigns Jesus' conception to a physical
    impossibility.

    
      Actually, the Jericho story is quite believable.  I had a teenager
     who tried trumpet.  Perhaps the Canaanites ran away in despair.
    
      bb

ZZ    Same reason why the U.S. lost the Vietnam war eh? The nation was
ZZ    living in sin and not in the will of God.
  
    I never said this or anything close.  The Israelites were in slavery
    400 years in Egypt and sin had nothing to do with it.
    
    -Jack

 ZZ   How is it that it never occurs to you that God may NEVER have spoken
 ZZ   through prophets.  It is possible that the Israelites simply
 ZZ   BELIEVED he did because they wanted to believe. 
    
    Speaking through the filters of the Christian faith, it would make no
    sense for the Israelites to blindly believe somebody was a prophet had
    they not actually been one.  The Mosaic law had stringent requirements
    for a prophet and death by stoning was the penalty for false prophecy
    in the Old Testament ages.  If you consider Isaiah and Jeremiah for
    example, they prophecied on events contemporary to their time;
    therefore they would have been taking awfully bif risk in claiming the
    judgement of God was upon their own nation.  They died anyway because
    of Israels LACK of belief.  
    
    Remember Stephen's speech to the Pharisees Dick?  "HOW MANY OF THE
    PROPHETS DID YOUR FATHERS KILL?"  This statement alone earned him the
    honor of Christianity's first martyr, ironically at the hands of Saul
    of Tarsus.  Phrophecy was very serious stuff and you'll find most of
    the prophets were murdered because Israel DIDN'T want to believe!
    
    -Jack

>    I never said this or anything close.  The Israelites were in slavery
>    400 years in Egypt and sin had nothing to do with it.

210 years, actually.

    .326
    
    > Speaking through the filters of the Christian faith, it would make no
    > sense for the Israelites to blindly believe somebody was a prophet had
    > they not actually been one.  The Mosaic law had stringent requirements
    > for a prophet
    
    Speaking through the filter of the Christian faith, Jack, have you no
    *idea* how many professing Christians really believe that Nostradamus
    was a true prophet?  Not a Christian prophet, but a true one.  Julius
    Caesar explained the phenomenon, and his explanation still holds true
    today:
    
    	Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.
    
    	As a general rule, men willingly believe that which they desire.

    Gerald:
    
    I was actually thinking of this passage...
    
    "And when the son was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and lo,
    a horror of great darkness fell upon him.  And God said unto Abram,
    know for sure that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not
    theirs, and they shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four
    hundred years.  And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I
    judge.  And they shall come out with great substance."  Genesis 15:
    13,14.   
    
    -Jack

    Dick:
    
    Yes, Nostradamus is considered a prophet by Christians; however, in
    order to be a true prophet of God, Nostradamus would have had to have
    an error free prediction record, if he were to adhere to the Mosaic
    law.
    
    -Jack

Jack --

They were actually slaves for 210 years.  There are various explanations
for the discrepancy.  One is that they were supposed to be slaves for 400
years, but things got so bad (slavery was so harsh, morale was so bad) that
they got out early.

:^)

Wauism - The Religion For You

Dear Friendly Friend:

How many times have you wanted to fill that yawning spiritual void in
your life but just weren't able to find the time or the energy?  How
often have you wanted to form a more personal relationship with a
Higher Authority but just couldn't get turned on by that same old tired
selection of Supreme Beings? Haven't you ever wished there was just one
religion out there that understood you, Friendly Friend, that indulged
you, one that fit in with your creative, dynamic lifestyle? Well, at
last, thanks to the Creators of Wauism, there is. Finally, there's a
faith that works for you, Friendly Friend, instead of the other way
around.  After all these years, and following an in-depth market
research study, Wauists Worldwide (A full-service non-profit agency not
affiliated with CBS International) has come up with a religion that
draws upon the best features of some of the world's most popular
denominations, but goes them all far better!

Yes, Friend, that's right!  Wauism is everything some religions are and
much, much more.  It's not just a job, it's an adventure; it's a breath
mint, and a candy mint; it's everything you always wanted in a God and
less. Designed using the latest in CAR (Computer-Aided Religion)
technology, here's just a few of the features Wauism offers:

1.      Guaranteed Salvation.  Guaranteed.  Other religions require you
to behave a certain way in the here-and-now in order to make out in the
hereafter; with Wauism, you can do whatever you want, because your
salvation is guaranteed!  Wauism realizes you've got enough to worry
about in life without having to be nervous about where you're headed
after you die, so relax!  As a Wauist, death means never having to have
said you're sorry. Whatever Heaven you want is yours; or if you'd
rather just be dead, that's fine, too.

2.      Your Choice of Supreme Being.  No more arguing about who's more
all-powerful, Jesus or Mohammed, Buddha or Joseph Smith. Stop fighting
about whether Allah could take The Holy Ghost in a wrestling match.
End the endless bickering over whether the Supreme Deity is a He or a
She.  With Wauism, you can choose.  Using the patented Godolyzer, you
make God in your image. Combine Jesus' hairdo with Mother Nature's
eyes.  Add the musical flair of Krishna to the sexual swagger of
Zoroaster.  You want a Lord who's vengeful but also knows how to rock?
No problem.  Using the Godolyzer, with or without the templates
provided, you make the call.

3.      Eat Whatever You Want.  Remember fishsticks on Friday? Or how
about unleavened bread?  And who--try as they might--can forget "bitter
herbs?" Well, now, thanks to Wauism, you can.  As a Wauist, you'll
never have to tongue another eucharist wafer off of your palate or
nurse another hangover brought on from sacramental wine again.  Glut
your maw however you'd like, whenever you'd like.  Eat all you want,
just want all you take.

4.      More Efficient Commandments.  Some religions take as many as
Ten Commandments to lay down their laws. Wauism, using the latest in
data-compression techniques, has significantly reduced the number of
Commandments and has also managed to dramatically decrease their
stringency.  Think of them simply as a Couple of Suggestions, and if
you'd rather not, hey, Friend, that's quite all right, too.

5.      No Sexual Taboos.  Has anything turned more people away from
the power above the heavens than the power below their waists? Wauism
doesn't have the problem, because as a Wauist, you Friendly Friend, can
stick or get stuck however you want with whom or whatever you want
whenever or wherever you want.  As long as no one gets hurt--or just if
they want to--Wauism says have fun.  And be safe.

6.      More and Better Holidays.  Even the most fun-loving religions
usually have only half a dozen or so major holidays a year. And often
several of these are days of atonement or fasting.  Wauism, on the
other hand, features a full complement of 365 full-scale religious
holidays a year!  366 for leap year.  And all include presents and
feasting.

7.      No Hazing Rituals. No hitting with sticks.  No drenchings in
water.  No knives aimed at your privates.  Need we say more?

8.      No Annual Fee.  Because of low overhead (no Gothic cathedrals
to keep up, no sacred texts to maintain, no Crusades to mount) Wauism
is offered to you entirely free!  A letter now and again would be nice,
but hey, don't sweat it.

9.      100% Compatibility.  Wauism does not require you to change or
upgrade any of your existing religious or sectarian beliefs. It is in
no way mutually exclusive.  You can be a Wauist and anything else you
want, too--even Republican.

10.     Quit at Any Time.  No forms to fill out, no messy dyes to
spill, no one will call you.  You can be a Wauist one day and something
else the next.  Change hourly if you'd like.  By the second if you'd
prefer.  Or, be a Wauist forever.  It's entirely up to you. So, there
you have it, Friend, in a nutshell--a pistachio to be exact.  With
Wauism, you get all the plusses of other religions with none of the
minuses.  It's like having your cake and eating it, too.  Heck, it's
like owning the whole bakery! And because you, Friendly Friend, are who
you are, and only sometimes somebody else, you have been selected to
participate in this charter membership offer.  As a Wauist, you'll
enjoy the benefits of the world's only computer-designed faith as well
as the peace of mind of knowing if the Armageddon does come, it's not
your fault!

So, join today and start receiving the benefits immediately.  All you
have to do is whatever you want.  Make no phone calls unless you feel
so inclined. Write no letters unless it strikes your fancy.  Send no
money, unless you want to.

Be a Wauist or don't be.  You are still surrounded in a cone of love.

Sincerely,

D.A. LeTang Wauist

P.S. This offer never expires, relax and breathe deep.

    also try
    
    http://mt.www.media.mit.edu/people/mt/subg/subg.html
    
    

Re: .334

Looks like a lifetime of wasted time. I got out because it appears addictive.

A good example of how concepts apply to everyone is in the subject of
morals. Understanding morals as being black and white absolutes, is
essential to defending against Plato's idea trap. The absoluteness of
morals may initially sound fundamentalist or conservative and even have
anti-freedom connotations (unlike "to each his own" or "don't be
judgmental" positions concerning morality). But, here is why morals as
absolutes are so important for freedom ideology.

First, a distinction must be made between morals and preferences.
Preferences vary from person to person and have nothing to do with actions
that hurt or benefit individuals. If one person prefers Chinese food to
Italian, (and one type of food isn't particularly more harmful or
beneficial than the other) that is a matter of preference, having nothing
to do with good or bad actions. Moral issues, on the other hand, deal with
situations related to benefiting or harming individuals. If life is the
standard, it is a totally objective subject whether an organism is
preserved or improved or not through a certain action.

If one accepts the idea of morals as being subjective, which can be done
easily if the distinction between morals and preferences are not made, then
doors open up to accept other Platonistic notions such as there being
realities other than objective reality (since morals are subjective, why
not the rest of reality). Objective reality can be considered subordinate
to a higher reality, giving people license to steal, kill, etc. in the name
of a higher reality. Instead of giving freedom, the subjective morality
mentality allows violent and deceptive people to use rationalizations to
control those who are not violent or deceptive. Making definite
determinations of what is moral or not is important to know what actions
enhance production and happiness and what do not.

Any chosen action that purposely benefits the human organism or society is
morally good and right. Any chosen action that purposely harms the human
organism or society is morally bad and wrong.

The following are required for healthy character and self-esteem: Conscious
striving for self-honesty; Unyielding loyalty to honesty; Productive
effort; Productive actions that increase values to others and society while
increasing effectiveness in dealing with reality; Recognition of the
inalienable right everyone has to his or her own life and property.

Refusal to sacrifice is by nature life enhancing and thus morally right.
Rejecting the initiation of force, threat of force, coercion, or fraud
against any individual for any reason is the foundation of morality.

In regards to force the end never justifies the means. All moral actions
are based on principles that prohibit initiatory force, threat of force,
coercion, and fraud as a means to accomplish ends, no matter how "noble."

A good example of how concepts apply to everyone is in the subject of
morals. Understanding morals as being black and white absolutes, is
essential to defending against Plato's idea trap. The absoluteness of
morals may initially sound fundamentalist or conservative and even have
anti-freedom connotations (unlike "to each his own" or "don't be
judgmental" positions concerning morality). But, here is why morals as
absolutes are so important for freedom ideology.

First, a distinction must be made between morals and preferences.
Preferences vary from person to person and have nothing to do with actions
that hurt or benefit individuals. If one person prefers Chinese food to
Italian, (and one type of food isn't particularly more harmful or
beneficial than the other) that is a matter of preference, having nothing
to do with good or bad actions. Moral issues, on the other hand, deal with
situations related to benefiting or harming individuals. If life is the
standard, it is a totally objective subject whether an organism is
preserved or improved or not through a certain action.

If one accepts the idea of morals as being subjective, which can be done
easily if the distinction between morals and preferences are not made, then
doors open up to accept other Platonistic notions such as there being
realities other than objective reality (since morals are subjective, why
not the rest of reality). Objective reality can be considered subordinate
to a higher reality, giving people license to steal, kill, etc. in the name
of a higher reality. Instead of giving freedom, the subjective morality
mentality allows violent and deceptive people to use rationalizations to
control those who are not violent or deceptive. Making definite
determinations of what is moral or not is important to know what actions
enhance production and happiness and what do not.

    
    There's an echo in .336.

ZZ   Any chosen action that purposely harms the human
ZZ   organism or society is morally bad and wrong.

ZZ  Refusal to sacrifice is by nature life enhancing and thus morally right.

 My mother grew up in a family of twelve children.  A bratty 17 year old boy 
would climb a tree outside my mothers house during dinner and yell, "Mrs. 
Smith, now make sure you give Margaret more potatoes...oops, don't forget to 
give Bobby more beans, etc.  My grandmother who was in her fifties at the time 
would yell, "BILLY MANZ YOU GO HOME RIGHT NOW".

A few years later Billy Manz was in the Battle of the Buldge.  A grenade 
landed in their foxhole, he took a dive on the grenade and saved six of his 
fellow comrads.  I get teary eyed thinking about it.

Is the above from the humanist manifesto?  How does the Billy Manz story fit
into the philosophy above?

-Jack

    .336
    
    Ayn would be so proud...

    "Those who reject the principle of selfishness will find in the history
    of ethics two main alternatives. One is the primordial and medieval
    theory that man should sacrifice himself to the supernatural. The
    second is the theory that man should sacifice himself for the sake of
    other men. The second is known as "altruism," which is not a synonym
    for kindness, generosity or good will, but the doctrine that man should
    place others above self as the fundamental rule of life.
    ...
    The advocates of self-sacifice, in either version, have never demanded
    consistency. They have not asked men to sacifice their goods,
    pleasures, goals, values, and ideas as a matter of principle. Even the
    saints had to eschew such a course, which would be tantamount to
    instant suicide. The moralist of selflessness expect a man to go on
    functioning, working, achieving - else he would have no values to give
    up. They expect him to execise his mind for his own sake and survival,
    and then to deny his judgement as the spirit moves them. They expect
    him to be ruled by whim, the whim of the relevant authority or
    beneficiary, whenever it injects itself into the process and demands to
    be paid off.
    	These moralists expect you to live your life on a part-time basis
    only, while trying to get away on the side with sundry acts of
    self-immolation, just as drug addicts pursue some regular nourishment
    while trying to get away with their periodic fixes.
    	Neither of these contradictions, however, is practicable. Man's
    life does not require adherence to a principle. Nor is the above a
    distortion of the theory of self-sacrifice. It is what that theory
    actually means. Short of suicide, this is all that can be denoted in
    reality by the notion of a living entity practicing "anti-egoism."
    	The content of the "good" should now be clear. The good, in Ayn
    Rands view, is man the indivvidual sustaining life by reason, his life,
    with everything such a goal requires and implies."
    
    So here's this poor kid who just wants attention.  He climbs a tree and
    irritates the family while they're eating. Maybe he wants some
    attention because he's unloved at home? Maybe he hopes to be invited in
    for a meal because there's no food at home? He's making a plea for
    charity in his own way.  And Grandma tells him to beat it. Later, in
    the Battle of the Bulge (sic?) he thinks back at those mean words and
    says to himself "I'll show her!" and commits suicide by throwing
    himself on a hand-grenade. 
    
    Obviously Grandma was right.  She was feeding her family. Her values of
    self-reliance were passed down to her grandchildren (most of them) who
    probably were born because of these values.
    
    Poor bratty kid blows himself up. No grandchildren are created with the
    idea that they can demand others to provide them with charity.
    
    All in all, the world is better off.

    Billy Manz was a fat little wise ass of a kid who bugged grandma for
    the sheer enjoyment of pissing her off.  But Billy Manz was a
    nationalist and apparently believed that in war, people die.  The war
    must be won at the highest cost.
    
    -Jack

    Your first statment is uncharitable.
    
    Your second is unprovable.
    
    Your third is ignorant.  War must be won at the lowest cost.

    Billy Manz was willing to lay his life down for his fellow man, that's
    all I was trying to say.  He counted the cost and was willing to make
    the sacrifice.
    
    Re: my first statement, Billiy Manz had the reputation of Eddy Haskell.
    Uncharitable?  Not by a long shot, Billy didn't need to jump on a
    grenade in order to get attention.  Insinuating Billy died for
    superficial reasons is minimizing Billy's martyrdom.  Billy's death was
    a noble one, not the Mrs. Swartz psychobabble.
    
    -Jack

 .343  Mrs. Swartz?  who dat?

    She was my braindead socialist guidance counselor in grade school.  In
    other words, more of a danger to the kids than an asset.  
    
    They moved her to Brookline though so it's neither here nor there.
    
    -Jack

    "Billy Manz was a fat little wise ass of a kid who bugged grandma for
    the sheer enjoyment of pissing her off.  But Billy Manz was a
    nationalist and apparently believed that in war, people die.  The war
    must be won at the highest cost."
    
    What does 'fat' have to do with it?
    What does 'little' have to do with it?
    Do only nationalist believe that in war people die?
    
    So I guess that any obese, diminuative, patriotic person - according to
    your definition - enjoys irritating other people?
    
    Jack - how tall are you and what do you weigh? 
    
    
        
    
    

	Well, at least with Billy Manz, Jack moved from using a woman as the
thing he talked about to a man. But with Billy came the hero, and then he went
back to the woman being an idiot. Jack, when will you learn?


Glen

 6'1", 198 lbs.  Sorry if I disparaged our horizontally challenged.  It
    wasn't intentional.  
    
 Z   Well, at least with Billy Manz, Jack moved from using a woman as the
 Z   thing he talked about to a man. But with Billy came the hero, and then
 Z   he went
 Z   back to the woman being an idiot. Jack, when will you learn?
    
    Ahh...officer Glen reporting.  See everybody, Glen is a bean counter. 
    How many victims did we have today Glen?  Glen, the fighter of truth
    and justice for all.  Always making it a gender issue or a race issue.
    As long as you're around Glen, suspicion will always exist and harmony
    between the races/sexes will be nullified.  But hey...you keep doing
    what you think needs to be done Glen.  That way we can all distrust
    each other because guys like me simply long for the old days...yes, the
    good ole days when men were men, women were women, and everybody knew
    their place.  
    
    Thank God for the ACLU huh Glen???
    
                     

| <<< Note 389.348 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Ahh...officer Glen reporting.  See everybody, Glen is a bean counter.

	Jack, it is an observation that has been forming from your notes over a
long period of time. I, and others have brought these things up to you.

| How many victims did we have today Glen? Glen, the fighter of truth and 
| justice for all. Always making it a gender issue or a race issue.

	With your notes, it's pretty easy to do, Jack. 

| As long as you're around Glen, suspicion will always exist and harmony between
| the races/sexes will be nullified.  

	Errr.... no..... as long as you continue to slam these things, then the
harmony will be nullified.

| That way we can all distrust each other because guys like me simply long for 
| the old days...yes, the good ole days when men were men, women were women, 
| and everybody knew their place.

	Wow... there is a wind up if I ever saw one. I ain't takin the bait. 

| Thank God for the ACLU huh Glen???

	Yes, thank God!


Glen

    Suppose it was a skinny red-headed tall young woman with freckles up
    the tree and, ten years later, she kills her abusive husband while he's 
    sleeping? (Just before he rolls over during sleep she shoves a hand-grenade
    under his stomach) Say, for example, he was 6'1" and 190+ lbs and kept 
    hectoring her on her responsibilities as a human production unit and 
    kept saying "The Lord saith.." and "The Bible says..." as a prefix to 
    every demand he made on her to serve him as the image and likeness of 
    his Lord while she padded about the cottage barefoot and preggy for the 
    4th time whilst nursing 3 wailing and whining gifts of the "The Lord" ? 
    (This has no point whatsoever - but the imagery is facinating)

 Z   Suppose it was a skinny red-headed tall young woman with freckles up
 Z       the tree
    
    Depends.  Is freckles a dog or a cat???

IMO the problems in the world today are related to irrational thinking. This
is thinking that is not based on reality but upon mystical hoaxes, sold like 
snake oil throughout the ages. This irrational thinking is leading us to 
self-destruction, destruction that is avoidable with the elimination of
irrationality such as worship of gods, dedication to bogus higher authorities,
be it gods, politicians, religious leaders, educators or others who claim they
know what is best for each individual, and default on individual thinking and
effort required to advance and obtain happiness.

The different outcomes, related to irrational or rational thinking, is readily
apparent. Health or unhealthy directions are seen as rationality or 
irrationality continues into the future. Some of these directions are:

	   Unhealthy Direction            Healthy Direction
	   (Irrational)			  (Rational)
	   -------------------		  -----------------
	 War between Nations	       Free and open borders
	 Time wasting worship	       Time spent thinking
	 Welfare and Charities	       Job expanding businesses
	 Forced Education	       Free choice learning
	 Unsafe streets		       Enjoyable evening walks
         Multiple Sex Partners         Romantic-Love Relationship
         Junk-Food Munching            Fine Dining
         TV Addiction   	       Business Addiction
         Topless Bars                  First-Class Resorts
         Discos                        Family Outings
         Gambling                      Investing
         Drugs & Alcohol               Physical Fitness
         Tabloids                      Classic Literature
         Coffee/Cigarettes             Decaf/Gum
         XXX Videos, Soaps             Quality Movies
         Gangs                         Clubs/Societies
         Occults                       Value-Based organizations
         Self-Destructive Friends      Value-Minded Family and Close Friends
         Cheap Thrills                 Serious Achievements
         "Hanging Out"                 Knowledge-Expanding Hobbies
         Street-Car Racing             Luxury-Car rides

The best comes from rational thinking, based of facts of reality. The worst 
comes from irrational thinking, based on mysticism and mind created realities.

    amen!

    all you people in this note thread are a bunch of Godless heathens.

We prefer to think of ourselves as godless heathens.

    cool.
    

      So what happens when you die?
    -ss
    

    you die.

    You go into oblivion.

    Tom, your thesis falls short when you realize that many, many people
    straighten thier lives out after a spiritual revelation.
    
    Many of those sitting on the pews of "mysticism" were once living life
    in your "irrational" list.  Through God, they have found a new life and
    a purpose, which has turned their life around.  In fact, this
    "mysticism" has moved them from your "irrational" list to your
    "rational" list (for the most part).  
    
    Since mysticism is irrational (on your list), how can such irrationality 
    lead to rationality and order, and on such a large scale?
    
    Who defines what is rational thought?  
    
    
    -steve                   

    |You go into oblivion.
    
    oblivion?  no.  you just die, that's all.

    What  about the spirit world?
    

    what about it?

    One rap for yes, two raps (or one Snoop Doggy Dogg) for no.

    It's a bumb rap.  You'll never take me alive......

    > What  about the spirit world?
    
    the spirit world is on 8th ave. in Cedar Falls, IA. and sells some
    really cool types of oddball spirits; 80 proof, 120 proof. etc.

    "Spirit World Liquors" is also on G.O.G & Mark Dabling Blvd.
    -ss

    been there. don't remember doing that.
    
    good time tho.
    

    Can relate.
    					

    don't forget to change your note title; you missed a .69 snarf.

    Ah man. And I've been waiting to get one ever since I started noting. 
    I may never pop my cherry.
    -ss
    

     \|/
    - * -	<------------------ Pop! 
     /|\
    
    	just another service provided by your friendly friday fellow noter.
    	no charge.

     >Who defines what is rational thought? 
    
    The dictionary defines it as having or using the ability to reason.
    
    I will define it as using the conscious mind to determine reality and
    basing all subsequent action on reality.

     Clinging to irrational or mystical beliefs such as supreme creators or
    "higher authorities" is as crippling to human life and prosperity as 
    would be the clinging to the once popular belief that the Earth is
    flat or today's quickly fading belief that force-backed "authorities" or
    politicians can advance the well-being of any individual or society.

    I'm always struck by the number of respected scientists that are
    also confirmed & devout christians.  Then there are the others who say
    that, for them, the jury is still out.   Until you have all the
    answers, there's nothing irrational about "mystical" beliefs, or
    the ability of such beliefs to manifest themselves as real human
    behaviour and also to promote rational scientific learning.
    
    If the gothic cathedral builders had not built their monuments to god,
    they would not have come to understand the engineering requirements and
    materials science necessary to accomplish their goals.  You can argue
    that their motivation and goals were irrational, but their
    methodolodies were highly rational.
    
    Colin
    
    
    
    
    

    Many 'respected scientists' keep their religious beliefs very private.
    They neither admit to having a belief or admit to having no belief.
    'Popular' scientists - those who write big-time for the popular media
    such as Carl Sagan are very careful - see Demon Haunted World, eg.
    They argue against psi-related stuff, fake healing, UFOs etc. but go
    out of their way to dismiss religion from the occult while never
    putting religion through the same test. Discouraging buyers of your
    latest book by proclaiming yourself to be an atheist is anti-capitalist
    and irrational from a career perspective. Selfishness before truth :-)

    
      I don't see how being a theist is a problem for a scientist.
    
      bb

    Nor do I.

The Roman Catholic church even accepts the Big Bang theory as acceptible.

    I wonder if they think it's acceptable though....

    
    	Probably not ... you know, the universe getting its rocks off
    	out of wedlock and all.
    

    Most scientists, with vested interests in the present civilization, such 
    as tax-funded livelihoods, will resist identifying that which would 
    interfere with their comfortable little worlds. They are seeking praise 
    and acceptance. They must avoid rocking their cash laden boat.

    
      Well, I belong to a professional association of scientists in a
     particular field, and attend their meetings off-and-on.  Science
     starts, not with generalizations, but with absolutely rigorous
     attention to details and minutae.  A woman spends 20 years modelling
     the crystallization dynamic in the hornblendes.  A man computerizes
     models of 3000 instances of the geometries of spider webs.  Nothing
     even remotely related to large philosophical or religious questions
     ever comes up.  If I asked them their philosophical or religious
     positions were, I'm sure they would be surprised I asked, and
     wouldn't see it as relevant.  And I bet I could never guess who had
     what philosophical beliefs.
    
      bb

    Though I think that scientists are generally a net value to society, the
    majority (this is my observation, I do not have data to back this up)
    appear to be living off some government or organizational grant. They
    are paid to look for specific outcomes. If scientists were paid based
    on new theories proven or discovered, as opposed to being funded to
    contunually research a specific outcome (super collider project is a
    good example along with research based on the single point theory),
    science would advance at a furious pace and the benefit to human life
    would be perhaps a thousand times more than at present. 

    
    
    
    Scientist works for tobacco company. Does the scientist smoke?
    Does the scientist publish findings that cigarette smoking is harmful
    in public journals?
    (maybe after the kids are through college?)

    "Excuse me Dr. Winston Salem - do you smoke?"
    "Why do you ask?" the Dr. replies.
    "We just want to know by how much you've separated your need of
    earning a living and your value of your own health"
    "Ask me in 3 years after my daughter finishes law school", the Dr.
    replies "maybe then I'll answer. I might even report some discoveries
    on Cancer and tar"
    "Why not now?"
    "Will you pay my pension and retirement?"

    This essentially separates the scientist from the inventor. Curiously,
    the greatest inventor was St. Paul. Go figure...

    i feel the need to revel in my atheism.  many times in the
    past when i have told people of my atheism, they have looked
    askance and have changed the subject so fast that it made my
    head spin.  oh well, it's not for all people, i suppose.  i
    just wish people were a little more open-minded to the thought
    that god does not exist and that immortality is basically a 
    an idea that just makes some people more comfortable with 
    their own demise.  but hey, whatever floats yer boat.
    
    i take great solace when i meet someone who is secure in his
    or her own humanity and who believes that it's actually a good
    thing to be human.  people whose inner values and strengths are
    not dependent on some external sky-god or whatever.  not to say
    that those sky-god people don't have values!  they're just 
    different, somehow.  and i value that!  believe me, i do!
    
    yours in atheism!  
    
    

    <looking askance at Oph>
    
    {Oph's head spinning}
    

    I too have felt like I've gotten a lot of **** for being an atheist. 
    In the past, lots of people have tried to help me.
    
    I have often been asked "If you don't believe in god, what do you have
    to live for?"  I still find this to be an odd question.
    
    Then again, I am happy to apply the following labels to me (and feel no
    need to apologize for them):
    
    atheist, bisexual, humanist, transsexual, liberal, feminist,
    
    and....
    
    PeeCee owner.

    A number of committed atheists have expressed second thoughts about
    their atheism after near-death experiences.
    
    The late British philosopher A. J. Ayer comes to mind.
    
    

 ..nice snarf there!



  

    |"If you don't believe in god, what do you have to live for?"
    
    that is an odd question.  what do you suppose they mean?

Dunno.  Must mean something, 'cause I keep getting asked that question.

What I have to live for:

I don't know why I'm here, and the longer I live, the more I come to
believe the question "why am I here?" to be largely irrelevant.  I don't
know where I'm going after I die, but the only explanation that I have
personally found plausible is that I will simply cease to exist.  This
makes me an atheist.

But, I am here, and since I have experienced no alternatives to being here,
I am free to define my existence in whatever way feels best to me.  The way
I choose is that my life is a gift that my parents gave to me.  I should
not squander this gift, nor should I disrespect others with the same gift.

It is my responsibility to be true to this; to honor myself as best as I
can, and to honor others with the same gift as best as I can.  Since I can
only be certain of that which I have experienced, it seems decent to try to
make my own life and the lives of those around me as comfortable and
enriching as possible, and to do so in a way that harms others as little as
possible -- or not at all, if possible.

If what I experience here is all that I will know, then it is my duty to
know, to feel, to experience, and to love as best I can, and to help others
do the same (if they indeed want my help), because when my time comes, I do
not want to spend my last moments bathed in regret.

That's what I live for.

I'll step out of that and note that this was worded about as sincerely and
authentically as I know how.  I realize that this forum probably isn't the
right place for that, so I'll stop now, and let everyone else pick it
apart.

    yes.  i, too, find that "why am i here?" sort of question
    more and more irrevelant.  it's like asking "why do some
    really good people suffer and die at a hideously early age?"
    there's no real satisfying answer to that question.  and if
    you make one up, you are just fooling yourself.
    
    
    
      

    
    Alfred Jules "A.J." Ayer, British philosopher (1910-1989). 
    
    "Theism is so confused and the sentences in which 'God' appears so
    incoherent and so incapable of verifiability or falsifiability that to
    speak of belief or unbelief, faith or unfaith, is logically
    impossible." [Language, Truth and Logic quoted in A History of God] 
    

    you could say that theism is steeped in obfuscation.

    
    Suzanne Conlon's a theist???
    

    why, i have no idear.

    
    
    She's a theist, and a blind dear too????

    There is no god, but you!

    Another Godless snarf.

    The moon prevents me from becoming an atheist.

       ?  

    .402
    
    now there's an agnostic reply.

     >now there's an agnostic reply.
    
    True, soooo true. Do you think I'll get an answer?

    |The moon prevents me from becoming an atheist.
    
    glenn, we wish to know more about you and this moon thing.

>    glenn, we wish to know more about you and this moon thing.

	i was pretty sure i knew what he meant yesterday, but now
	you're making me wonder.

 Well put, Nance!

    OK Di, now I'm wondering what you thought I meant.
    
    8^)

    What the hell are we talking about?!?!?!  
    
    I'm so confused.   :8{

    Tom, oh previous-love-of-my-life, we still aren't talking.
    
    :-) :-) :-)

    i'm wondering what di thought glenn meant.

>    i'm wondering what di thought glenn meant.

	okay, well now i can't say, because if i'm wrong, i'll look
	even dimmer than usual.  but next time i see you, i'll whisper
	it to ya.

    >Tom, oh previous-love-of-my-life, we still aren't talking.
    
    I'll talk, I'll talk!!!
    
    
    I still don't get it, do I??   :)

    .414
    
    No matter what you won't be getting it from me.

    Maybe somebody can draw me a picture!
    
                                         
    
    
    
    This ought to be good.   :)

There's nothing any more particularly amazing about astrophysics than
any other sort - it's just a more difficult laboratory in which to work.

    So that's why you drop trou?

    
    Behold his flame, that placid dame, 
    the moon's celestial highness
    There's not a trace upon her face 
    of diffidence or shyness
    She borrows light that through the night 
    mankind may all acclaim her
    And truth to tell, she lights up well, 
    so I for one don't blame her.
    
    Oh pray make no mistake, we are not shy
    We're very wide awake, the moon and I
    Oh pray make no mistake, we are not shy
    We're very wide awake, the moon and I.
    
    

OK, here's the moon deal which prevents me from being an atheist:

Besides its romantically awe inspiring beauty, as a good friend once put it, 
it has many other qualities which make me wonder.

From our perspective, the moon is exactly the same size as the sun. Amazing
and, in a way, comforting. Solar eclipses are incredible.

The moon rotates once per every revolution around the earth, so, we always see 
the same side of it. Amazing and, in a way, comforting.

The phases of the moon are a wonderful way to keep track of time.

It gives us our fairly predictable tides but its mass is not too great to 
cause us any harm.

What a wonderful thing the moon is. I simply cannot believe that this is all
just an accident. If so, the earth is the greatest cosmic coincidence.

    
    There's a moon over bourbon street tonight 
    I see faces as they pass beneath the pale lamplight 
    I've no choice but to follow that call 
    the bright lights, the people, and the moon and all 
    I pray everyday to be strong 
    For I know what I do must be wrong 
    Oh you'll never see my shade or hear the sound of my feet 
    While there's a moon over bourbon street 
    
    She walks everyday throught the streets of New Orleans 
    She's innocent and young from a family of means 
    I have stood many times outside her window at night 
    To struggle with my instinct in the pale moonlight 
    How could I be this way when I pray to God above 
    I must love what I destroy and destroy the thing I love 
    Oh you'll never see my shade or hear the sound of my feet 
    While Oh you'll never see my shade or hear the sound of my feet 
    While there's a moon over bourbon street. 
    
    

    
      This is lunacy.
    
      bb

    Yastrzemski was the son of a potato farmer!

    Re .417:
    
    > From our perspective, the moon is exactly the same size as the sun.
    
    No, it is not.
    
    > The moon rotates once per every revolution around the earth, so, we
    > always see  the same side of it. Amazing and, in a way, comforting.
    
    That's not coincidence; orbiting bodies pull on each other.  When a
    body is not both completely solid and completely symmetrical, that pull
    tends to slow down rotation.  After enough time, rotation stops (with
    respect to the orbit).
    
    > The phases of the moon are a wonderful way to keep track of time.
    
    So are days or stars.
    
    > . . . is not too great to cause us any harm.
    
    Intelligent species can only evolve where conditions allow them to
    evolve, so this is no coincidence either.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

>    > From our perspective, the moon is exactly the same size as the sun.
>    
>    No, it is not.

It actually varies in a range since the Moon's orbit isn't exactly circular. If
the moon is larger than the sun during an eclipse you get a total eclipse. If
it's smaller than the sun during an eclipse you get an annular eclipse.  (there
was a nice annular eclipse visible in New Hampshire a few years ago) 

>    > The moon rotates once per every revolution around the earth, so, we
>    > always see  the same side of it. Amazing and, in a way, comforting.
>    
>    That's not coincidence; orbiting bodies pull on each other.

Yup.   Because the earth is so much more massive than the moon its tides on
the moon are much greater than the moon on earth.  Again because the moon is
so much smaller than earth it took much less time for tidal effects to spin the
moon down to a tidally locked state.  (The tides of the moon on Earth slow
its rotation down as well, but it would take billions of years before Earth
will be tidally locked to the moon, long after the sun is dead)

I believe nearly all moons of planets in the solar system are tidally locked
to their parent planet.

 Z   I believe nearly all moons of planets in the solar system are tidally
 Z   locked to their parent planet.
    
    Kind of like many federal workers or people who have been on welfare
    for countless years?

    Near as, dammit.

    If a person has a firm enough grasp of things, i.e. their surroundings
    and reality, they will be able to control their surroundings. And, through
    that ability, they can predict the outcome of future events.  For example, 
    I can predict that I will increase my income in the next month.  To do 
    that, I must prepare and plan ahead, work harder, etc. to ensure that 
    result comes about.  I can predict this because I can control the 
    situation. And when more and more people realize this, become more 
    self-reliant, honest, and productive, and develop this ability, 
    authoritarian institutions such as government, religion, the media, etc.
    will lose their influence over individuals and the world will "be a better 
    place" due to advances in technology, education, the arts, etc...
    
                                             

    GENRAL::RALSTON
    
    >>I can predict this because I can control the situation.
    
     People are lucky if they can control themselves. To think one can
    control the environment one lives in is either a mistaken belief, or
    a God complex.
    
    						Derek.

    
      pollyanna hogwash.  for all you know, lightning will strike
     you tomorrow.
    
      bb

    >People are lucky if they can control themselves.
    
    Perhaps this is why you are stuck in a dead end job.
    
    >pollyanna hogwash.  for all you know, lightning will strike you tomorrow.
    
    So I assume then that you never plan anything. Just sit at home hiding
    under a blanket do you? Watch out, there might be a poisonous insect
    there.

    GENRAL::RALSTON
    
    >>Perhaps this is why you are stuck in a dead end job.
    
     In that you have no idea who I am or what I do, why would you say
    this? I find when people are off base like this, they are often taking
    there own situation and attributing it to others.
    
     Don't get me wrong, people have a very large influence over what
    happens to them in this life, but to say one has control, is over
    stating the point. If you can't see that 1 of a 1,000,000,000 things
    can cause you to loose control of events in your life, you are not 
    looking.
    
    							Derek.

    .433
    
    Boy you got that right.  

    You can't control the weather or the actions of another human being.  
    You can control your actions and reactions.  To me, there is a lot more 
    you are in control than you realize.  Why live your life up against the
    wall of no control?  

>    You can't control the weather or the actions of another human being.  

I'm sure the Trilateral Commission is working on the former having become
somewhat a master of the latter...

    
      You're right, of course, that we have some control, but not
     complete control.  I think believing you have NO control is
     an excuse for not trying very hard - it's a cop-out.  But
     believing you have COMPLETE control leads to numerous other
     bad things : blaming yourself too much, blaming others, trying
     for things you have no chance of attaining.
    
      The best thing is to look the truth straight in the eye, if you
     can.  You can improve your odds through effort, but there are no
     sure things in life, not for anybody.  There is no point at which
     you have improved your odds so much that you can't improve them
     more.
    
      A good metaphor is in mountain climbing.  The expert is very much
     safer than the novice or the average.  But on a bad day, the experts
     can die no matter what they do.  That's life.
    
      bb

    I guess we agree.  You're basically saying that natural conditions and
    your environment in general are completely out of your control.  I'm
    basically saying that your attitude, temper, opinions, and especially
    your will are within your control.  Do not surrender these things to
    things that are out of your control.

    >In that you have no idea who I am or what I do
    
    Apologies, I meant to put a :) but inadvertently left it off.

    Humans are conscious beings, who can achieve anything by simply 
    exerting the required honesty, logic, discipline, effort and reason. 

>  <<< Note 389.440 by GENRAL::RALSTON "Only half of us are above average!" >>>

	that warrants a "horse foofey", that does.

    some people just don't have any self-esteem.   :)

    Ed shouldn't post any more notes until he reads this whole topic.

         Did I ever say I was an atheist? 

    >Did I ever say I was an atheist?
    
    No, but that's OK, we welcome you anyway.   :)

    Ed, why don't you go over to an appropriate string and share your faith
    with us.  Then we can rant about how unashamed you are of the God you
    serve.
    
    -Jack

         Where? How do you know I "serve" anything?

    Well, I don't.  But if you are a man, I would expect you would speak
    proudly of what you believe.
    
    Many in our history have done similar.  Some have died for it while
    others were iconed for it.  Why don't you act as a man instead of
    appearing as one destined for the Employee Assistance Program?

    I see a difference between morality and personal ethics. Morality is the 
    same for all.  Murder, violence, theft, dishonesty are examples of what I 
    believe to be immoral and I think "most" others believe the same.  Personal 
    ethics for me include monogamy, respect, responsibility, equality, 
    individualism, loyalty, etc. IMO morals can be viewed publicly as a set of 
    "ground" rules that every individual in a society accepts without question 
    as being "right".  Ethics are a highly personal matter that make up each
    individuals own set of rules and further breaks down what is right in the
    mind of the individual.  This personal set of rules determines the
    individual's behavior.  The base for most individual's ethics is the same
    as what is moral.  That is where the confusion comes from.  Because most
    individuals see the moral base in their personal ethics they assume ethics
    and morality are interchangeable. It is inappropriate for one individual 
    to force his personal ethics on another.  Yet our society does it all the 
    time.  Our lawmakers use ethics as a base for our laws.  Recreational drug 
    use is determined to be unethical by most and now we have a law that says 
    buying and selling drugs for recreational purposes is illegal.  Having sex 
    for money is unethical by some so now we have a law saying prostitution is 
    illegal.  At one time drinking alcohol was unethical and at one time there 
    was a law making it illegal to buy, sell or make it.  Nude human bodies 
    are unethical to some so we have the indecency laws.
    
    In my opinion, an immoral person is a criminal.  An unethical person only
    lacks values. Even in an "uncivilized" society, the individuals will 
    recognize what is moral.  There is seldom moral conflicts between two 
    different "societies", however you will always see a conflict of ethics.
    
    To some, including me, force of any degree, such as taxation is
    unethical. To others it is ethical.  It does not mean that taxation is 
    also moral or immoral unless the taxation can only be done by murder, 
    violence, theft, or dishonesty.
    
    Argue ethics if you want. But, I believe morals to be an absolute.
               

 To address the note topic, "How athiests should act in the box", I offer the
following for your consideration.

 1) Act as you wish within the restraints of P&P's, and be respectful of others.

 2) Since you believe there is no God, or other higher authority one must give
 an account of their life to, do whatever you want, who cares? Of course, there
 may be some consequences to such actions, but why should you care? After all,
 when you die, that's it. Nothingness. No reward for good, no punishment for 
 bad. Nada. No conciousness, no thought, nothing.

 But keep in mind, just in case you may be wrong, it may not be that way at all.

 For the life of me, I can't figure out how anyone can be a live and thinking
person, and deny the existance of God. This may be due to having been brought
up in a family that had faith in God, and to think otherwise, is just not 
possible for me, considering the many instances of "answered prayers" I have 
had over the years.

 Let's start with the small things, at the molecular level. Scientists long ago
discovered there is precise order to the way "all things" are made, and have 
made the  "Periodic Table of Elements" to show the different structure, and 
weight of the "known" elements. Specific numbers of protrons, neutrons, and 
electrons make up the matter, either individually, or in compound structures. 
Basic physics & chemistry facts, true, but necessary in my attempt to convince
you there is an incredible mind, far beyond our feeble level of comprehension, 
behind the "creation" we live in. I guess you could call these elements the 
"building blocks" of the known universe? Point is, to have order, to me, there 
had to be someone,  or something that put "order" into the things that we know 
exist. Since the elements "build" the things we perceive, doesn't there have to 
be a builder?

 Ok, slightly bigger "living" things: Insects, animals, fish, birds, trees,
flowers, plants, etc... Amazing number of various species we have here, JUST on
this planet. This shows, for one thing, creativity. To have creation, doesn't
there have to be a creator? If you subscribe to the "Big Bang" Theory, who lit
the fuse? If you believe in evolution, who started the "process"?

 Humans are supposedly the highest form of life we know of on the planet. 
Different from lower "species", as we reason, and talk. And in some peoples 
view, we have souls. From what I grasp from Biblical teachings, humans are 
tri-partite, having spirit, soul, and body. Is it coincidental that God 
(in Christian terms) created us in His image? (and His image is revealed to us 
as Triune, being The Father, Son, And Holy Spirit.) Problem with being tri-
partite, is not all parts have the same desires and goals, causing inner 
turmoil and conflict in some. 

 All living things are incredible examples of the intense mind that is behind
creating them. The human body, designed as it is, is limited. But that which
it does do, think, feel, hear, breathe, turn food into energy and dispose of
the rest, pro-create, and so much more, it is just too intricately designed for
me to think it came by random chance, out of some primordial ooze.

 Problem with humans, and all known living things, is since the fall of man, 
death has been a part of life, and the last part of life as we know it on 
earth. Being mortal has no advantages that I know of. So one would logically 
persue immortality, if there was a hope of there being such a thing. This is 
not a theory of re-incarnation, but one of an afterlife existance far better 
than that currently being experienced here. It is offered by the God you don't 
believe exists, so how can you possibly seek it? Kind of a nasty Catch-22. God
is a gentleman, and would not force his will on you, and you think He doesn't
exist, so how would it be possible for you to ask Him for it? It takes faith
to believe, but if you have no faith, there is no hope of being able to live 
and experience the heaven I'm sure you've heard of. 

 The earth, hanging in space, in it's orbit around the sun in this solar system
is another incredible example of a planned environment, to which there had to be
a planner. The solar system, spinning round in it's part of the "known" universe
is absolutely mind-boggling. It shows thought was put to the design. Again, to
me, there had to be a designer. I can't comment much on other dimensions, as
very little is known about them. However, if you believe in Biblical teachings,
there is a spiritual dimension, where the angels reside. Actually, whether you
believe it or not, it does exist. It is from this spiritual dimension, which has
existed from "eternity past", where the explaination of "why is there pain, and
suffering etc..." came from. The teachings of the Bible tell us there was a 
great war in heaven, following the rebellion of one of, if not THE highest
angelic being God ever created. Many speculate Lucifer was the leader of the
heavenly choir, so he would have been well known, and admired, thus the 1/3
of the angelic hosts followed him in his rebellion must of thought he was able
to win in a battle against God. (and I thought angels were SO smart too...what
a disappointment). But he was perfect in all ways until pride was found in his
heart. He took credit for what he had been gifted with, and thought so highly of
himself, he decided he wanted to sit in the throne of The Most High. So this
pride somehow distorted his ability to think clearly, thus his fall. His being
sent here is the explanation of all that is wrong with the world. His hatred of
God, and His creation, is seen in the material world, and is a reflection of
the war that rages in the spiritual dimension. It seems satan knows his fate, 
and desires to bring as many of the human souls as he can with him to his 
eternal place of punishment. So wouldn't you expect, as a strategical move on
the part of the enemy, to attempt to confuse the inhabitants of earth to think
there is no God, and IF they do happen to believe, confuse them with a wide 
variety of "gods" and religions to choose from? Well, that is, if you believe
there is a "devil". But if you can offer a better theory that would answer the
"why's" people ask, then feel free.

 What does the Bible say about athiests? Only thing I've found so far. is in 
Psalms 14:1..."The fool has said in his heart there is no God". So regardless
of your I.Q., or status in the eyes of your fellow man, or the degrees you hang
on the wall, God has said you are a fool. Feel free to argue that with Him. As
it would prove you are not a fool, to think you can talk to someone who you 
think doesn't exist. Or, be bold, and ask God to prove to you He is real. He 
just might, and what would you do then?

 There is so much more I could write, and others could contribute as well, to
contradict the unrealistic thoughts that there is no God. Why have I spent time
writing this you may wonder? Because I care. Why? I don't know? I just do. If
you ask yourself the 5 W's, Who am I, what am I, where am I, when am I, and why
am I, the hardest question to answer is the why. God offers an answer to that, 
in that He has allowed you to be part of the "great earth experiment", and
also offers the opportunity to live beyond this life in a better place. Of
course, it's YOUR choice to make. I hope some of these thoughts make it easier
to grasp the possibility atheism is a false belief, and that somewhere out 
there in the universe there is Someone who cared enough to send His Son to die 
in your place. 

 Regards,

 Bob

    Personally, I find the bible and the teachings of Jesus to be about as
    credible as Santa Claus. From what I`ve heard about the bible, it is
    packed full of contradictions. I hav`nt read it myself because it is so
    hard to understand. 
    Every preacher that you run into has a different take on the bible.
    They are self-rightious, and they lie. It seems to me that these
    people just want to live free off of the church. I need my money to
    support myself, not some bible thumper and his almighty flock.
    Although I would like to believe in God, I have never had any
    experiences to convince me that there is one. I`m open minded!
    I would like to look forward to spending eternity in heaven,
    but I just can`t believe.

    
    
    	The bible is meant to be interpreted by each individual. It is not
    black or white, right or wrong. Take a read of some of the newer
    "revised" editions....they're easy reading.
    
    
    jim
    
    

    Try the NIV..
    
    But for some reason, I don't take your "desire" to understand very
    seriously.  Surprise me.

> For the life of me, I can't figure out how anyone can be a live and thinking
>person, and deny the existance of God.

For many it comes about as part of the realization that as man has become 
"more intelligent", in terms of learning more about the rational scientific
basis regarding what had traditionally been relegated to the realm of the 
"miraculous", or the "power of a supreme being" (largely due to ignorance of
his world), it becomes more acceptable to conclude that all which is observed 
can eventually be explained without falling back on myth or magic. 

>				 This may be due to having been brought
>up in a family that had faith in God, and to think otherwise, is just not 
>possible for me

That's fine for you, but not for many, including those of us brought up that
way. The sad part is that so many who "question" the beliefs of their upbringing
are criticized for so doing. Such criticism tends to be self-defeating anyway,
but ...

>		considering the many instances of "answered prayers" I have 
>had over the years.

Then again, somtimes "stuff" just happens.

 I would have loved to have some folks who don't believe in God, or think
 God is some crutch dreamed up by humans, to have been at the memorial
 service for my former pastor (killed in an accident last week) yesterday.
 One could not walk into that room and not feel the presence, one could
 not hear the testimony of people who knew him, and not believe that God
 is in control..

 The man at the wheel of the truck with which the pastor collided was present
 and was moved at the love this group showed him..

 There is a God..He is there and He is real, and He is not silent...we
 are not listening..many of us don't want to listen..



 Jim

    Is there actually a real noncorporeal God who dwells outside the space-
    time continuum?
    
    Nobody knows for sure.
    
    And it doesn't really matter, anyway.
    
    You see, what really matters is how people conduct their lives.
    
    The mere fact of belief in a God renders the God real in the hearts and
    minds of those who choose that belief.  Believers base their actions on
    what they perceive their God to want them to do.  For some, that is the
    epitome of love, kindness, consideration, and moral treatment of others
    with whom they interact.  For other believers, it's violence and hatred
    of all who do not buy into the party line.  Whichever way a believer is
    led, for that believer, God is real whether God actually exists or not.
    
    For nonbelievers, there are other compelling reasons for whatever paths
    are followed.  Morality, not "morals," is a driving force; and it leads
    nonbelievers into the very same paths, for good or evil, as a belief in
    God holds out for believers.
    
    If your God is real, that's fine.  He is real for you and you alone; he
    is not real for anyone else, even other believers, for each person sees
    God in his or her unique way.  God is a vision of which only the merest
    scrap can be conveyed from one person to another.  Trying to convince a
    nonbeliever to follow your unique vision is futile.
    
    So what can believers do?  They can teach morality, not "morals."  They
    can show by example why they believe instead of alienating by rebuke or
    preaching.  And they can learn to accept others for what they are.  The
    alternative is that hatred and contempt in which so many believers find
    themselves held by others, even by others who profess to follow the one
    true God.
    
    Children squabble because they have not learned how to treat other kids
    kindly and with respect.  Adults have learned these skills, and they do
    not squabble.  Chronological age has little or nothing to do with one's
    adulthood or childishness; this fact is patently obvious.  Religion, as
    the path to a higher consciousness, should be an adult thing.  It's not
    very adult, however, to berate others who disagree with you, even if it
    all happens in a forum like SOAPBOX.  The only excuse SOAPBOX offers is
    that that's what it's here for.  In the real world, what's the excuse?
    
    Is God real?  If he's real for you, great; but if he isn't real for the
    next guy, grow up and get off the guy's back.

.456:

Thank you.

    
    	re .456
    
    	What drivel.
    
    

    .458 
    
    one person's drivel is another person's belief.

 Z   Personally, I find the bible and the teachings of Jesus to be about as
 Z   credible as Santa Claus. From what I`ve heard about the bible, it
 Z   is packed full of contradictions. 
    
 Z   I hav`nt read it myself because it is so hard to understand.
    
    Does anybody else see a contradiction here?  I find it real
    enlightening when somebody draws a conclusion on a book they have never
    read or understood.
    
    -Jack

    
    
    re. bonnie
    
    	well, ya, ain't it always been that way ??
    
    

    why do you say binder's note is drivel, karen?

The entire god concept is a mind created reality that has no business in
in a conscious rational world. Consider the false search in today's sciences 
and religions, especially in astro/quantum/particle physics and the Vatican. 
That search is for a Quantum/God Singularity and the Big Bang -- the fictional,
wished for birthplace of our forever evolving Universe.

World-class scientists have searched for that single point of creation. Yet,
the notion of Singularity contradicts the laws of nature and physics, as do
the mystical notions of perpetual motion, cold fusion, low-energy
nanotechnology, along with various mystical interpretations of chaos and
quantum mechanics. Many brilliant scientists are pursuing never ending
illusions that demand ever more tax money, such as the twelve-billion-dollar, 
super collider that once resided in Texas. Such pursuits can generate ever 
more intriguing but eventually meaningless science and mathematics.

Singularity is rationalized to occur in an infinite black hole collapsed to
an undefinable, single-point entity filled with mathematical stratagems
involving infinities. From such a single-point entity or Singularity, certain
physicists assert that our universe and all existence was born. In turn,
certain religionists enthusiastically point to Singularity as scientific proof 
of "God". For, the creation of our universe from Singularity would require a
"God" mystically preexisting in nothingness and creating a universe out of
nonreality. This is an unnecessary, impotent notion.

Why resort to mysticisms, nonrealities, and nothingness to explain the
creation of our universe? Why be stuck within such unreal and harmful
limitations? Consider the possibility that there are a seemingly infinite 
number of ordinary conscious beings throughout the rational civilizations 
existing among the universes. Most of those conscious beings, advanced perhaps 
millions of years beyond our present civilization, could have the power to
create far beyond any imagined creations of a mystical "God". And, unlike
the miracles of a made-up "God", conscious-being creations are real 
accomplished naturally, within the laws of physics. 

    Well, this sucks.  Who's right?

They're all right.

God is a breath mint AND a candy mint.

    ::Ralston
    
    
    Almost every rule by which we live to enjoy a peaceful co-existence can
    be found in the Bible.  
    
    You are not thinking up anything you haven't learned [which source is
    supplied by Lord Jehovah].
    
    

> [which source is supplied by Lord Jehovah].

Or common sense, attributable to the writer(s) and years of life experience.

    This is what drives me crazy. Everybody thinks they're right. I thought
    I was right only to wake up one day to discover that everything was
    wrong. I was wrong. No doubt I'm still wrong. No doubt I will never be
    right. I'm pretty sure I'm right about this, but who knows, I could be
    wrong.

    
    8^)
    
    

    .451
    
    Just as an FYI, the Santa legend is *based* on a real live person from
    history.  A very charitable man of God, FWIW.
    
    Of course, as with any legend, things tend to get exaggerated.  8^)
    
    
    On a more serious note, I have an honest question for you.  You say
    the Bible is full of contradictions, yet you say you have never read
    it.  How do you know it is full of contradictions if you haven't read
    it?  
    
    If you have any real interest (probably not, but I'm in a help mood
    today  8^) ), there are translations out there that are much easier
    to read than the King James or NIV Bibles.  Translations that read in a
    more "modern" way.
    
    
    -steve

    .463
    
    You have an easier time believing in all-powerful ET's than in God?  
    
    My friend, you have faith whether you realize it or not.  Your
    faith is only aimed in a different direction than is mine. 
    
    
    -steve

    AzamattaofFack, I personally visited the Church of Saint Nicholas (the
    eponymous Saint Nick hisself) in the lovely city of Side, Turkiye, just
    last month.  I was pretty underwhelmed, mostly since the bones of the
    holy man himself had been stolen away by denizens of the Italian city
    of Bari some centuries before and no one had thunk to tell me.
    

    .466
    
    > Almost every rule by which we live to enjoy a peaceful co-existence can
    > be found in the Bible.
    
    And most or all of them can also be found in the writings of other
    religions, such as Buddhism and Confucianism.  Judaeo-Christianity is
    not original in its message of love and cooperation.

re .473

But of course the Christian Theological position is that God the Holy Spirit
moves even the followers of pagan religions towards those things which are
true and good.

/john

   .473  what drivel.



	 aagagag.  just kidding.

    .474
    
    Odd how God the Holy Spirit has managed to move all those awful pagan
    religions toward everything true and good except the One True God...

    Dick:
    
    There is a difference in doing good deeds as a vehicle for mewriting
    favor, and doing good deeds as directed by the Holy Spirit.
    
    -Jack

    Original Binder?  You claim to know for a fact that Judeo-Christian
    principles are not original...  interesting, but not surprising.
    
    I believe they are.  Now you are NOT surprised by that, I'm sure.
    
    

    .478
    
    > Judeo-Christian principles ... not original
    
    Well, since we can see the same principles in religious writings
    predating the Exodus, yeah, I'd say they're not original with the Jews.

    The Exodus as in the movement or in the book? 

    
    Great, now I'll be humming the theme from the movie Exodus all day.
    

    all i can say is boy, was paul newman peaking during
    that movie!

    .482
    
    Paul Newman??? :-) :-) :-) :-)

How Atheists should Act in the Box:

Massachusetts G.L.C. 272 � 36.  Blasphemy

Whoever willfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or
contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging
of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or
the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing
to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy
scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than
one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may
also be bound to good behavior.

-----------------

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in reviewing an indictment for
blasphemy for the following statement: "I ... believe that their God,
with all His moral attributes (aside from nature itself), is nothing
else than a chimera of their imagination," determined that the statute
is not violation of any provision in the Constitution of the state, or
in the Constitution of the United States.

The law does not prohibit the fullest inquiry and the freest discussion
for all honest and fair purposes and it does not prevent the simple and
sincere disavowal of a disbelief in the existence and attributes of a
supreme intelligent being.

Under this section, it is blasphemy to deny God's existence with an intent
to impair and destroy the veneration due to him, even if no words of
malediction, reproach, or contumely are used.  Commonwealth v. Kneeland,
37 Mass. 206.

    Well jesus christ, what do you think about that??  :)

    Wow!

    
    Commonwealth v. Kneeland was in 1838 (and *GASP* gold fringe
    was being added to the American Flag at the time).  So it is of
    historical interest.  But probably not something that most citizens
    of the Commonwealth need to think about on a daily basis.
    
    (For god's sake, the requirement that elected officials of the
    Commonwealth take an oath that they "believe in the christain religion,
    and have a firm persuasion of its truth" was only removed in 1821.)
    
    								-mr. bill

	Bill, I was going to ask which century that law came from. Thanks for
providing it. Does this make John an extremist? :-)

    
      Speaking of which, did you notice that in rummaging through
     old files down at the Boston courthouse, they've unearthed
     several late seventeenth century "witchcraft trial" records ?
     Not for Salem, for other cases.  At least one woman was apparently
     given 30 lashes in 1680, for "being a dastardly witch".
    
      bb

    How is that different from a regular witch?
    

	She should have been more like Samantha. Or Sabrina. They were good
witches.

	Btw, did anyone hear that they are going to do a tv show called Sabrina
the Teenage Witch?

    
      Well, dastardliness is in the eye of the beholder.  How would
     you know, for example, if you were a dastardly noter ?
    
      bb

    70% of all noters would believe you to be.

re: Massachusetts G.L.C. 272 � 36.  Blasphemy

Mebbe this weekend I'll go south of the border and blaspheme for a while
with a bad French accent and see what happens.

I'll take some fireworks with me.

    sounds kinda kinky.  french blaspheming and fireworks
    and all.

    Merde aloft!

    French blasphemers are among the best.
    
    Is a dastard anything like a bustard?
    

    .497
    
    > Is a dastard anything like a bustard?
    
    Only in that both can, under the proper circumstances, wear a coat of
    feathers.

re: .451

 I would suggest you do as others recommended in finding a version of the Bible
that is easier to understand than the KJV. Basing your belief on what you've 
heard about the Bible isn't the recommended approach. Yes, there are some 
(many?) preachers & teachers that are self-righteous, and lie, and even worse,
mix enough truth in their lies to lead many astray, with the intent of monetary
gain. But not all are like this. There actually are sincere, God-fearing and
caring pastors & ministers out there in some of your local churches. 

 As far as your open mindedness, and desire to know about God, if in your
heart you are sincere, God will notice, and if you seek Him, will allow
you find Him. Feel free to mail me off line with questions, and I'll do the 
best I can to try and answer them. I too would like to see you in heaven,
as well as everyone else. As far as your perceived inability to believe, 
it's not something you can do with your mind anyway. The natural man (or
spiritually dead, unregenerated man) cannot percieve the things of God, 
for they are spiritually discerned. One must believe from the heart (spirit)
and that is a miracle in itself, and takes God's grace to make it happen.

re: .452

 Jim, I'm not sure if you're entirely correct on "The bible is meant to be 
interpreted by each individual." Since it was written BY God, through men,
God is also needed to help us understand what He wrote, and how it is to 
be interpreted. A simple prayer like "help me to understand" would help.

re: .454

 I have often questioned the beliefs of my upbringing, and also question many
of the beliefs I've found over the years since. Questioning shouldn't be 
criticized, but encouraged. Not questioning SHOULD be criticized. Don't take
things at face value, dig deeper, and you'll find deeper understanding, but,
you'll also find deeper questions. There has been much more than "answered
prayers" throughout my life thus far. I took a chance years ago, and asked,
(well, more demanded) God to prove Himself to me. Since then, He has, and more,
and I feel I've only scratched the surface of who God is. If even that much.

re: .456

 > Is there actually a real noncorporeal God who dwells outside the space-time 
 > continuum?

 Yes, and he MAY dwell inside the the space-time continuum as well, if He so
chooses to do such. (Which so many believe He did 2000 years as Jesus) But it 
is as difficult for me to prove this, as it would be for you, or anyone else, 
to disprove it.

 >no one knows for sure
 
 This is a truism, and why the subject of religion is generally termed "a
matter of faith". As someone mentioned in a previous reply, you can have
faith, however, it may not be pointed in the right direction. 

 >And it doesn't really matter, anyway.
 
 I couldn't disagree with you more. Of course it matters. If the eternal destiny
of the individual hangs in the balance of correct belief, it HAS to matter.
Just ask the millions of people on the earth who have an abiding faith in God.
The nature of their very existance would be radically altered if there were 
no God. Ethics, law, morality, justice, good, and evil are all logical 
derivatives of a belief in a supreme being, namely God. If people universally 
did not believe in God, chaos would reign. There would be no reason to act in 
any other than a self-satisfying manner, regardless of the consequences. The 
strongest would rule, and the weak would perish at their hands. Might would 
make right. Throughout history, we have seen the fallacy of this type of 
structured leadership. Nations, who by some concept of right and wrong, have 
risen up and defeated this way of thinking. Without a set of predefined 
guidelines, how can morality exist? Who sets the standards? Who says what is 
"right" and "wrong", and what IS wrong, what is moral, and what is immoral? 

 As far as God being different for each person, most of the Judeo-Christian
world would strongly disagree with you. We believe God has revealed Himself
through His divinely inspired word, and through specific actions which have
been witnessed by impartial observers. With a few insignificant exceptions, 
all Christians believe in the same God, with the same qualities, and the same
revealed nature. The differences between Christians arise from the dogmatic
aspects of religious theocracy, not from the revealed nature of God Himself.
 
 You mention that believers should "learn to accept others for what they are."
This is clearly false. Should I, or anyone else accept a murderer or a child 
molester for what he is? Of course not! We are to love the sinner, but hate 
the sin. Is that what you meant? 

 >Adults have these skills and they do not squabble

 Come on! Wars are started by adults! A great deal of the serious crimes are
commited by adults. It is obvious adults DO NOT have the skills necessary to 
stop squabbling, even the best educated, and "most enlightened" among us.

 > grow up and get off the guy's back 
 
 Who's back am I on? If I AM on anyone's back, it is in a sense of my seeing 
someone blindly headed towards a very unpleasant eternity, and tapping them 
on the shoulder and telling them they don't have to go that way. I would hope 
you would do the same for me, if the situation was reversed. And of course, 
if one doesn't want to hear about it next unseen will work just fine. I'm not 
in here thumping anyone, as having anything shoved down a throat will usually 
make one gag. I'm just trying to present a logical alternative to the problem 
of "lack of belief" atheists seem to have. I'm not touching doctrinal 
differences here. That's for another topic, or even another notesfile. In 
fact, feel free to venture into YUKON::CHRISTIAN for plenty of discussion 
notes on that, and other topics.

re: .463

 >The entire god concept is a mind created reality that has no business in
 >in a conscious rational world.

 Perhaps you should add an IMHO there Tom. IMO, God has business with each and
every component of this not_so_conscious, and clearly not_so_rational world.
Since it was created by Him, and for His good pleasure, He can, and will do
as He sees fit. If you think He needs your permission, well, guess again. ;-)

 False searches? Not so. The searches ARE quite real, whether or not you believe
in the object of those searches. We can search diligently for the Loch Ness 
monster even if some do not believe the monster exists. The search is very real.
The object of the search may, or may not be real, and proving that, one way or 
the other is precisely why we conduct the search in the first place. Unless you
mean the searchers aren't really searching, and they're just pretending to 
search, thereby creating a "false search". Is that your point?

 >... "God" mystically preexisting in nothingness and creating a universe out 
 > of nonreality 

 Please understand that the concepts of "preexisting, "nothingness", and "non-
reality" are all manmade, defined within the limitations of our human minds.
The God of the Judeo-Christian faith is completely outside of any terms you
can use to try to define Him, except for those facets of Himself the He has
chosen to reveal to mankind. You're seeking to put God within the confines of 
manmade precepts. Your terms work well within the extremely limited perceptions
of man but do not, nor cannot apply, by definition, to God Himself. Any terms we
humans use to define God must be by definition far less than adequate, and woe-
fully short of the mark. For example, we define God as omniscient yet we can't
even conceive of what that truely means. Basically, He knows everything, each 
and everything thing, without a single exception. Our intellectual limitations
prohibit us from having a true perspective of what it means to know everything,
unless of course you're talking about teenagers, who will tell you they do ;-)
How can the finite understand the infinate? How can the limited grasp the 
unlimited? A frequest question I ask is not IS there a God, but why does
He have any interest in us little pieces of dust on this round planet, barely
a speck in a HUGE universe? I'm still awaiting that answer. So many of the
questions I have asked God, I seem to get the thoughts: "Even if I sat down and
explained it to you, you do not have the capacity to understand, so just trust
me." It's something I've learned to live with.

 >Most of those conscious beings, advanced perhaps millions of years beyond 
 >our present civilization...

 Since we have absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever, your statement 
requires an incredible burdon of faith (moreso than a belief in God...hmmmmmm?)
We have no proof of such civilizations, although I for one, can't imagine we
(earthlings) are alone in this universe, but if they're out there, they've
probably been warned to stay clear of Earth, due to the chaos that has been
let loose here. But do we know of any civilization beyong our own, at least 
in terms of technology, medicne, transportation, et cetera ad nauseum? We
think "they're out there somewhere", but haven't an ounce of proof. Please
understand that since we believe that our God created all that exists, He
Himself is outside the laws of physics, and the laws of nature, since He created
them as well. We're not refering to some puny little demigod who has power over
the leaves of a specific tree. When we refer to God, we're talking about the
One who created all things from nothing by speaking it into existance. What
existed before that? I have no idea, and I sincerely doubt if we will know
in this plane of existance.
 
 Bottom line, It is better to believe there is a God, and find out there isn't, 
than to not believe, and find out there is. I can prove nothing to you. My 
experiences probably won't do you any good. It is an individual thing, between 
one, and the Creator. 

 Since Biblical scholars have made statements that nearly 80% of Biblical 
prophesies have been fullfilled, the probablility exists the remaining 20% 
will also be, and some think soon. Technology has reached the point where 
implementing the "mark of the beast" is very real. Without this mark (UPC code 
of some sort, or a chip insertion under the skin) no one can buy, or sell 
anything. The one world order, and the one world religion is not far away. 
With the middle east being KEY in the timetable of events (especially Israel), 
keep an eye on the news. Undeniable fact: The end is nearer, either individually
, or on a much larger scale, worldly. At least as we know it to be.

 Regards,

    what drivel.

	Bonnie, get that man a bucket.... oh.... you said drivel.... :-)

    He did make a few valid points. Though
    

  ZZ     what drivel.
    
    I love you Bonnie...but what I see here is a response either out of
    lack of understanding, or fear.  Pick your poison.  
    
    -Jack

    
    I'll have swordfish, mer�i.
                       
    Oh, poison, sorry.
    

    why jack, i was merely mimicing a previous reply from
    the udder side.  cyanide.

    uhhh....sorry

    If you have your NIV handy, my favourite bible verse can be found in
    Ezekiel 23:20.

    
    Ezekiel 23:20.
    
    
    There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like
    those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
    
    

    That wasn't Glenn...that was that hussy Diedra! :-)

    RE:
         Ezekiel 23:20.
    
    
        There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like
        those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
    
    
    No @&*# does it really say that. 
    
    I know what I am doing when I get home. Reading that bible until I get
    cramp..or something 

    Only in the NIV.

    >Only in the NIV.
    
    No prizes for guessing what I am going out and buying in the morning.

    >> Is there actually a real noncorporeal God who dwells outside the space-
    >> time continuum?
    >
    > Yes, and he MAY dwell inside the the space-time continuum as well...
    
    You assert, without qualification that such is your beliefe not based
    on fact, that such a God exists.  Such an assertion requires proof.
    
    >> And it doesn't really matter, anyway.
    > 
    > I couldn't disagree with you more. Of course it matters. If the eternal
    > destiny of the individual hangs in the balance of correct belief, it
    > HAS to matter.
    
    It matters to the individual only.  I don't care whether your God
    exists.  My beliefs, whatever they may be, refer only to *my* God.
    
    > The nature of their very existance would be radically altered if there
    > were  no God. Ethics, law, morality, justice, good, and evil are all
    > logical  derivatives of a belief in a supreme being, namely God.
    
    Nonsense.  Most atheists are ethical, law-abiding, moral persons
    without needing the crutch or excuse of a God to fall back on.
    
    > If people universally did not believe in God, chaos would reign.
    
    More poppycock.  Chaos does not reign in countries where the population
    does not subscribe to Judaeo-Christian beliefs, and it does seem to be
    fairly rampant in countries where Islam, whose God is the same God as
    yours, holds sway.  I will agree that might very much *did* make right
    when it came to the Holocaust that the Israelites conducted under good
    old Joshua.
    
    > As far as God being different for each person, most of the
    > Judeo-Christian world would strongly disagree with you.  We believe...
    
    We, the Catholics?  Or we, the Baptists?  Or we, the Methodists?  OR
    we, the Russian Orthodox?  Or we, the Anabaptists?  Or...?  Or...? 
    Or...?  There is much commonality of belief, but the nitty-gritty of
    how each individual human responds to God is unique.  My Jesus doesn't
    have hair the same color as yours, maybe, or maybe mine has his hair in
    a braid down the middle of his back instead of in that lovely do that
    Warner Sallman painted for us all.  And Martin Luther King's Jesus
    probably had darker skin than either yours or mine.  Get the point?  I
    doubt it...
    
    > You mention that believers should "learn to accept others for what
    > they are." This is clearly false. Should I, or anyone else accept a
    > murderer or a child  molester for what he is?
    
    Don't waste my time with such flimsy strawmen.  You know quite well
    that I refer to the general run of people, who are as good and upright
    as your holier-than-thou self but who have no need to trumpet their
    goodness to the skies.
    
    >> Adults have these skills and they do not squabble
    >
    > Come on! Wars are started by adults!
    
    No.  Wars are started by children in grown-up bodies.  Crimes are
    committed by children in grown-up bodies.  To be an adult is to know
    right from wrong, to respect your fellows and the world we all live in.
    
    > grow up and get off the guy's back 
 
    > Who's back am I on? If I AM on anyone's back, it is in a sense of my
    > seeing  someone blindly headed towards a very unpleasant eternity, and
    > tapping them  on the shoulder and telling them they don't have to go
    > that way.
    
    Tap once.  If the person won't hear, leave him alone.  He's made his
    choice, and - if you really believe in your God - it's God's turn now
    that you have made the single step of ensuring that the other person is
    aware of God and his plan of salvation.
    
    > feel free to venture into YUKON::CHRISTIAN for plenty of discussion 
    > notes on that, and other topics.

    Just be sure you don't enter any notes that might be interpreted as
    questioning the party line.  Notes like that get deleted - so much so
    that CHRISTIAN_PERSPECTIVE exists for people who don't buy the thumpism
    that all the CHRISTIAN noters pat each other on the back with.

    > My experiences probably won't do you any good. It is an individual
    > thing, between  one, and the Creator. 

    How nice of you, in responding to Tom Ralston, to affirm what you deny
    in my remarks.

| <<< Note 389.503 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| I love you Bonnie...but what I see here is a response either out of
| lack of understanding, or fear.  Pick your poison.

	Ho ho..... this coming from someone who gets his rocks in an uproar if
someone says he is afraid of homosexuals! 

 Z   Ho ho..... this coming from someone who gets his rocks in an uproar if
 Z   someone says he is afraid of homosexuals!
    
    I get my balls in an uproar Glen, because I see this as a crutch for
    spineless individuals who don't have the balls to realize that
    maybe...just maybe people don't agree with you on homosexual
    relationships for the sheer reason or their convictions on the matter.
    
    -Jack

	Then Jack, you're a hypocrite. You can't say one group can't do it, but
then you go off and do it. 

    When do I do such a thing?!

    So, I guess my moon thing wasn't very convincing eh?

| <<< Note 389.517 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| When do I do such a thing?!

	.503

    I made no remarks toward any group.  I was making an observation as to
    how Bonnie responded...furthermore, I broke it down to two
    possibilities showing a need for clarification.  This is far more
    commendable than the tactics of the spineless dolts you hang around
    with!
    
    -Jack

    i agreed with jack's "lack of understanding" part to
    the reply "what drivel" ;>  
    

    Thank you

| <<< Note 389.520 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| I made no remarks toward any group. I was making an observation as to how 
| Bonnie responded...

	Wow... you are lame. If someone makes an observation about someone
say....homophobe.... you go ballistic about the fear thing. Yet you toss it
around like cookies! So yes, you are a hypocrite.

re: .513
        
>>    You assert, without qualification that such is your beliefe not based
>>    on fact, that such a God exists.  Such an assertion requires proof.
  
 What qualifications would you acknowledge? If I were an ordained minister, 
would you then accept what I say as valid? As I stated, I am unable to prove, 
and you are unable to disprove. A stalemate of sorts. Whatever proof you desire
will one day be given to you, at whatever time God decides to do just that.
    
>>    It matters to the individual only.  I don't care whether your God
>>    exists.  My beliefs, whatever they may be, refer only to *my* God.

 I've already stated my thoughts on this. What puzzles me, is since you have 
a belief in "*my* God", whoever, or whatever that is to you, why are you here
defending an atheistic view? 

>>    Nonsense.  Most atheists are ethical, law-abiding, moral persons
>>    without needing the crutch or excuse of a God to fall back on.

 Since I don't personally know any atheists, I can neither confirm or deny your
statement. However, I think that those who are not law-abiding, moral people
are not necessarily claiming to be atheists, but act as if there is no God, and
therefore act as if there will be no judgement or penalty for their actions. As
far as needing God to fall back on, since I was young He has always been there,
whether to fall back on, cry out to, or just to talk to. A far better "crutch"
than other alternatives.
    
>>    More poppycock.  Chaos does not reign in countries where the population
>>    does not subscribe to Judaeo-Christian beliefs, and it does seem to be
>>    fairly rampant in countries where Islam, whose God is the same God as
>>    yours, holds sway.  I will agree that might very much *did* make right
>>    when it came to the Holocaust that the Israelites conducted under good
>>    old Joshua.
  
 If no one believed in God on this earth, chaos would reign. As it was in the 
days of Noah, just prior to the flood, violence and immorality were everywhere.
It is the grace of God, and the prayers of those who know God (not just know 
about God) that keeps the "water behind the dam". After the rapture of the 
church, the dam will break and you'll see chaos like never before. What makes 
you think the God I speak of is the same God of the Islam faith? I can't comment
much as I have not studied the Islamic religion. Joshua was only doing as he was
commanded to. Don't blame him for being obedient.
    
>>    We, the Catholics?  Or we, the Baptists?  Or we, the Methodists?  OR
>>    we, the Russian Orthodox?  Or we, the Anabaptists?  Or...?  Or...? 
>>    Or...?  There is much commonality of belief, but the nitty-gritty of
>>    how each individual human responds to God is unique.  My Jesus doesn't
>>    have hair the same color as yours, maybe, or maybe mine has his hair in
>>    a braid down the middle of his back instead of in that lovely do that
>>    Warner Sallman painted for us all.  And Martin Luther King's Jesus
>>    probably had darker skin than either yours or mine.  Get the point?  I
>>    doubt it...
 
 We, the people who are the church who believe in the risen Christ. Since God 
looks on the heart, and not the denomination you belong to, there is no point 
in arguement. And since there is currently no one around to verify the physical 
appearance of Jesus Christ during His earthly visit, no one really knows what 
He looked like. I couldn't care less what color He was in His earthly form, 
nor how long His hair was. What I do care about is that He died in my place, 
to provide my quite undeserved salvation. For this I am very grateful, eternally
so in fact. As it may take that long to be able to express my appreciation.

>>    Don't waste my time with such flimsy strawmen.  You know quite well
>>    that I refer to the general run of people, who are as good and upright
>>    as your holier-than-thou self but who have no need to trumpet their
>>    goodness to the skies.
    
 No, I don't know quite well to what you are referring, until you explained it.
As far as your reference to me as "holier-than-thou self", you don't know me
too well. I have often hesitated to refer to myself as a "Christian", as I am
as far from perfect as one can be, and still be saved. Sometimes I wonder if
I'm a hypocrite, because I don't walk the talk as I should, and don't live the
suggested lifestyle. I am BIG on being saved by grace. As far as trumpeting my 
goodness to the skies? I don't know how you can come to this conclusion.
    
>>    No.  Wars are started by children in grown-up bodies.  Crimes are
>>    committed by children in grown-up bodies.  To be an adult is to know
>>    right from wrong, to respect your fellows and the world we all live in.
    
 Again, I don't desire to argue with you. Perhaps we can agree if these people
are called immature adults?  
  
>>    Tap once.  If the person won't hear, leave him alone.  He's made his
>>    choice, and - if you really believe in your God - it's God's turn now
>>    that you have made the single step of ensuring that the other person is
>>    aware of God and his plan of salvation.
    
 I've tapped, and responded to your comments. Nuff said.

>>    Just be sure you don't enter any notes that might be interpreted as
>>    questioning the party line.  Notes like that get deleted - so much so
>>    that CHRISTIAN_PERSPECTIVE exists for people who don't buy the thumpism
>>    that all the CHRISTIAN noters pat each other on the back with.

 It is my understanding the mods there will discuss, and agree upon the 
decisions made to set_hidden, or delete. Take it up with them if you don't
agree with their decisions.

>>    How nice of you, in responding to Tom Ralston, to affirm what you deny
>>    in my remarks.

 I reread my entry, and could see no conflicting statement as you say
is there. Me thinks you just like to argue for the sake of argueing. ;-)

Regards,

TTWA:
    Has Shallow ever written a note that fits on one screen?

RE: .524

>What qualifications would you acknowledge? If I were an ordained minister, 
>would you then accept what I say as valid? As I stated, I am unable to prove, 
>and you are unable to disprove. A stalemate of sorts. Whatever proof you desire
>will one day be given to you, at whatever time God decides to do just that.
 
Disproof of a assertion is not required. This is a cheater's trick used often
by politicians, religious leaders and the news media. They make an unprovable 
assertion in order to set themselves up as an authority, which they are not. 
   
>Since I don't personally know any atheists, I can neither confirm or deny your
>statement. 

You probably know many atheists, they just don't shout from the roof tops like
over zealous Christians.

A Christian group at my son's high school banded together and ripped off
the Darwin and Evolve fish on cars in the school parking lot. I'd call
this criminal, wouldn't you? Of course, it was in the name of Jesus!

>If no one believed in God on this earth, chaos would reign. 

Another unprovable assertion. God has supposedly reigned on this earth for
many thousands of years. Do you see order?

>We, the people who are the church who believe in the risen Christ. Since God 
>looks on the heart, and not the denomination you belong to, there is no point 
>in arguement. 

The things that mysticism is made of. You have no basis for argument, that's
why there is no point.

>It is my understanding the mods there will discuss, and agree upon the 
>decisions made to set_hidden, or delete. Take it up with them if you don't
>agree with their decisions.

Cop-out, the facts are that if you write something contrary to the personal
thinking of the moderators, you are set hidden. No dissension is allowed.

         Someone would have to have an awful lot of faith to put that Noah
    and the flood part in there. It sounded mighty silly in Sunday school
    when I was 7, and it sounds downright ridiculous coming from a grown
    and educated man. Do these people purposely keep themselves ignorant?

    My education mentioned something about the end of an ice age about
    12,000 years ago.   A two mile thick ice sheet covering half the world
    might leave a bit of a pond, and a strong folk memory that was later
    transcribed into the Bible. 

 Z   A Christian group at my son's high school banded together and ripped off
 Z   the Darwin and Evolve fish on cars in the school parking lot. I'd call
 Z   this criminal, wouldn't you? Of course, it was in the name of Jesus!
    
    Tom, if anything you are also deploying the same tactics as a
    politician...you are implying guilt by association.  Of course this is
    criminal but do the actions of misinformed, immature children destroy
    truth?  I think not.
    
    -Jack

 Z   Someone would have to have an awful lot of faith to put that Noah
 Z   and the flood part in there. It sounded mighty silly in Sunday
 Z   school when I was 7, and it sounds downright ridiculous coming from a
 Z   grown and educated man. Do these people purposely keep themselves ignorant?
    
    Edward, if you did a comprehensive study on the Old Testament, I'm sure
    you would find other incidences far more unbelievable than this. 
    However, I will note here that what you are showing the world is that
    you have put limitations on an almighty God.  In other words Edward,
    God's power is merely limited to your understanding of who God
    is...which goes back to my question I asked you a few weeks ago...how
    great is the God you serve?  You answered by saying, I believe, that
    you don't serve God....which of course perpetuates your view of other
    peoples beliefs.
    
    Ask yourself the questions...is there a God and if so, did God really
    create the universe?  If the answer is in the affirmative, then the
    Noah incident is a mere pittance in comparison.
    
    -Jack

    >Tom, if anything you are also deploying the same tactics as a
    >politician...you are implying guilt by association.  Of course this is
    >criminal but do the actions of misinformed, immature children
    >destroy truth?  I think not.
    
    A few points here Jack:
    
    1. My comment related to a generalization made that religious people are
       somehow moral and law abiding and atheists aren't, which any
       thinking person would know to be nonsense. I was simply trying
       to point out how some religious folks will commit criminal acts as
       well.
    
    2. I don't consider 16 to 17 year olds "immature children". I would
       think that most of them have been taught from a very young age what 
       it means to be a Christian. They are people capable of rational thought,
       who decided that something they don't agree with deserved to be 
       destroyed.
    
    3. Personally I don't attribute their actions to all Christian, that
       would be irrational. Likewise it is irrational to attribute
       immorality and crime to all atheists.
       

    .524
    
    >> You assert, without qualification that such is your beliefe [sic]...
    >
    > What qualifications would you acknowledge?
    
    A qualification of your assertion, which qualification I said was
    lacking.  Learn to read, and learn to use a dictionary.  You have made
    a flat assertion that God exists.  I require you now to prove that
    assertion or, failing proof, to withdraw it.  Proof in the putative
    afterlife does not satisfy the criteria for supporting documentation in
    a discussion in the present life.
    
    > I've already stated my thoughts on this. What puzzles me, is since
    > you have  a belief in "*my* God", whoever, or whatever that is to you,
    > why are you here defending an atheistic view? 

    I am not defendsing an atheistic view.  I am proposing ideas for
    thought and discussion.  The way to examine yourself is to see what is
    outside you and what you look like from the outside.  You look
    hidebound and narrow-minded from my vantage.  My God, if he exists,
    does not like the bigotry that your apparent attitude bespeaks.
    
    >> Nonsense.  Most atheists are ethical, law-abiding, moral persons
    >> without needing the crutch or excuse of a God to fall back on.

    > Since I don't personally know any atheists, I can neither confirm or
    > deny your statement.
    
    Good.  Stop right there.  You have no position from which to argue that
    a belief in God - your God - is the basis of morals and ethics.
    
    > However, I think that those who are not
    > law-abiding, moral people are not necessarily claiming to be atheists
    
    Who said they are so claiming?  You said that moral and upright people
    cannot be atheists, and I took issue with that unproven and unprovable
    statement.
    
    > but act as if there is no God, and therefore act as if there will be no
    > judgement or penalty for their actions.

    Every individual has the right to believe that there is no afterlife
    and hence no judgment therein.  You have the right to believe that
    these things do or will exist.
    
    > As far as needing God to fall
    > back on, since I was young He has always been there, whether to fall
    > back on, cry out to, or just to talk to. A far better "crutch" than
    > other alternatives.
    
    Aha.  You have *believed* that the circumstances and experiences of
    your life reflect the presence of God.  You cannot prove that he has
    been there, but you refuse to accept the possibility that all of your
    beliefs are nothing more than the result of your need to believe that
    your life is not without meaning; you do not accept the possibility
    that you yourself have created your God.  Children talk to their Teddy
    bears, and some of them even think the Teddy bears talk back or even
    influence their, the children's, lives.  A belief in God can be compared
    to such a childish belief.  You will note specifically that I do not
    assert that the two beliefs *are* equivalent.
    
    > If no one believed in God on this earth, chaos would reign. As it was
    > in the  days of Noah, just prior to the flood, violence and immorality
    > were everywhere.
    
    Proof, please?  According to the chronology of Genesis as computed by
    James Ussher, the world is this year 6,000 years old.  This age is
    demonstrably false.  There is very good archaeological evidence, even
    to the inclusion of chronologies written by the people themselves, that
    the civilization of Egypt began before Ussher's date of creation.  But
    the Egyptians, who did not believe in God, were not a chaotic people;
    they were in fact one of the most pacific civilizations ever to have
    existed.
    
    Noah?  According to the Bible?  Explain the Epic of Gilgamesh, please?
    
    > It is the grace of God, and the prayers of those who
    > know God (not just know  about God) that keeps the "water behind the
    > dam".
    
    Codswallop.  Your believing such nonsense does not make it so.
    
    > After the rapture of the  church...
    
    ...which every generation of Christians since Paul believed could not
    but occur in their own lifetimes.  Oopsie.
    
    > What makes  you think the God I speak of
    > is the same God of the Islam faith? I can't comment much as I have not
    > studied the Islamic religion.
    
    Maybe you should study Islam.  Getting your head out of the sand could
    hardly damage you.  You would find that the basic foundation of Islam
    is that Allah was, and is, the only God, who was the Father of all and
    who worked through the Patriarchs and the Prophets, among which latter
    Muslims include Jesus.  Allaho Akhbar.
    
    > Joshua was only doing as he was commanded to. Don't blame him for
    > being obedient.
    
    Commanded by a God who loves the people he has created?  He loves them
    so much that he commits them to death in a Holocaust?  Pardon me if I
    should appear dubious.
    
    >> We, the Catholics?  Or...?
    >
    > We, the people who are the church who believe in the risen Christ...
    
    ...do not all believe the same things.  You dare not speak for all
    Christians, lest you be damned for presumption. If nobody else is
    willing to curse you for your hubris, stop by my office and I'll
    oblige.
    
    > Since God looks on the heart...
    
    Indeed he does.  Do you think he will like the divisiveness and
    self-righteous smugness he must see in yours?  Read 1 Corinthians 13:12
    and then come back and tell me again how you have all the answers
    because Jesus died for you.
    
    >> Just be sure you don't enter any notes that might be interpreted as
    >> questioning the party line...
    >
    > It is my understanding the mods there will discuss, and agree upon
    > the  decisions made to set_hidden, or delete. Take it up with them if
    > you don't agree with their decisions.

    They don't want free discourse among believing Christians, they want -
    and implement - an Orwellian style of Big Brotherism.  I don't note
    there.
    
    > I reread my entry, and could see no conflicting statement...
    
    You said that God is an absolute in attempting to rebut my remarks and
    then, in a reply to Tom, said that it's an individual thing between
    each person and God.  You don't see this as contradictory?  YOu need a
    lesson or two in rhetoric.

    Dick:
    
    Just one little observation.  I am somewhat surprised at you for making
    presumptions on God's sovereignty and personhood.  You just mentioned
    the holocaust as an example that God's loving nature is not in harmony
    with allowing such things to happen.  
    
    One sobering fact in life is that we all die.  I wonder why you seem to
    be willing to accept that reality from God and yet the manner of how we
    die, the lesser of the two is something you question God's sovereignty
    over.  
    
    One may ask why God allowed Nero to light the evening chariot races
    with Christians hanging on crosses set aflame.  I don't see God as
    culpable for a situation we put ourselves in in the first place.
    
    -Jack

    .533
    
    > You just mentioned
    > the holocaust as an example that God's loving nature is not in harmony
    > with allowing such things to happen.
    
    Jack, I tried once before to explain to you the essential difference
    between God's ALLOWING bad things to happen and his actively COMMANDING
    them to happen.
    
    Exodus 20:17 says:
    
        Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet
        thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor
        his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
    
    Any thing that is thy neighbour's.  Except, apparently, his house, and
    his wife, and his menservants, and his maidservants, and his oxen and
    asses, and everything else that is his, when you think you can acquire
    it by conducting a Holocaust.  Which is what the Israelites did under
    Joshua.  Remember, please, that the Jewish Scriptures were not written
    down until several centuries after the occupation of the Holy Land. 
    What better way to justify your murderous theft of someone else's land
    than to write it up as commands from your "loving" God?
    
    > One sobering fact in life is that we all die.
    
    Indeed we do.  Death is part of life.  But death at the hands of other
    human beings who are, at the very best, no better than you are but who
    think they have a Mission from God, is not the ideal way to accomplish
    your own demise.  You may rest assured that the Amalekites and the
    Moabites and all the others who were slaughtered by Joshua's army
    thought *they* had a mission from their gods, too - a mission to raise
    crops and animals and feed their families.  And since nobody can prove
    that his god really *is* the only god or is better than anyone else's
    god, all viewpoints are deserving of equal respect.  Too bad Joshua
    didn't think of that, huh?

 Rather than cut and paste, which would add to the length of this reply, and
make some complain, I'll just address some of your comments. I hadn't planned
on replying past  .524, but some of your comment require I do.

 Tom, I don't feel I'm an over zealous Christian, shouting from the rooftops,
but I can see how it may be interpreted as that. I agree that what was done
in the parking lot was wrong, and I don't defend their actions, but Jack is
right, you can't judge all from the actions of a few. My qualifications to me,
are my experiences throughout my life. My belief in the Bible, and the God in
it, has been formed through a process. First, there was the thought; Is there
a God? The next step is wonder, where you think about the thought to different
degrees of theory, based on the amount of investigation you undertake. The
next step is opinion, which can vascilate, depending on, again the amount of
continued research, and the experiences one may have while searching. These
bring you to belief, where this is what is the individual have concluded is
the truth. Whether this truth is the ultimate truth, or "a truth", on the way
to discovering what IS the absolute proof, remains to be seen in the future,
affected by knowledge and experience added to, or contradicting what was an
earlier "belief". What stage of the process are you in?

 Unprovable assertaions? Unprovable by me anyway. I sincerely wish I could
prove things to you, and anyone else who is unsure of their beliefs, but it
is not within my ability to do. Do I see order? In some things, yes, but I
also see chaos. Classic good vs evil scenerio. Supposedly? God has reigned 
over the entire universe from eternity past, and will continue to in the future.
When Adam and Eve fell, a certain amount of control over this planet was 
forfeited to the now, "god of this world", a.k.a. satan, as in world "system 
of things". This to me explains the chaos. What are the stakes in this spiritual
battle between good and evil? The souls of the inhabitants of the earth. Hell
was created for the devil and his angels, not for humans. But if people wish
to exercise their God given free will, and choose not to believe in what is
the "obvious to some, unseen by others" truth, then that is their choice.

 What is obvious to me, among other things, is who besides Jesus, turned time
around? It was B.C., then A.D. Yes, some have not chosen this calender as the
way we measure the years, but don't the majority acknowledge it? Did Buddha
claim to be "THE" Son of God? Only Jesus did, although other "religions" will
acknowledge Jesus to be a "god" or one of the prophets, they don't make claims
that Jesus was the ONLY son. Did anyone besides Jesus die a horrible death on
a cross in the place of the believer, so that they do not have to suffer the
penalty that sinfull man deserves? Did anyone besides Jesus rise from the dead,
to ensure His "last will and Testament" is carried out? The first statement 
about the calender is considered a fact. The rest is considered beliefs, and 
not necessarily a fact to you. But to many, it IS a fact, as much of a fact as 
the calender is. Jesus said a lot here on earth, teaching many things. Since
one of the things He stated was "I am the way the truth and the light, no man 
comes to the Father but by me", I consider that sufficient reason to believe 
the rest are wrong, and therefore, lies. You may not as it is your choice. I
have made mine.

 Yes, I guess I do have an awful lot of faith to believe in the account of Noah
and the Adam and Eve account as well as the rest of the Bible. And little or
no faith in some of the subjects taught to me in schools, and other things
considered myths by some, and beliefs by others. Especially if it is a direct
contradiction to what is taught in the Bible. If I was the only person on the
earth to believe such as I do, you would have good reason to have your doubts
about what I say. There are countless numbers of people throughout history that
have chosen, for whatever their individual reasonings are, to believe in the
God of the Bible. Many of these people believed without the benefit of what so
many would call proof, or physical evidence. This took faith. Many people who 
were alive in the time Jesus was on earth, saw His miracles, and believed on 
Him then as well. And yet, many did not. And still to this day many do not, 
including many people of the original "chosen people", the descendants of 
Abraham, to whom the Messiah had been sent, as promised, and prophesied 
throughout the Old Testament.

 Dick, again I wish I could prove this belief to you too. I can't, but I won't
withdraw earlier statements of my belief on your say so. If You REALLY want 
proof you'll search for it, and perhaps you'll someday come to the same belief 
that I and many others have come to. It is my prayer you do. If I appear narrow
minded to you, I guess I can take that as a positive thing, as over the years,
I have, though the process mentioned earlier, developed the mindset that I have
found what I was looking for, so why look further? Allah is not the God I found.
And Jesus wasn't a Muslim. As far as questioning God's love for what He chooses
to cause or allow in His universe, this is not unusual. I have done much 
questioning of that myself throughout the years. My own personal conclusion, 
which may or may not be in agreement with other believers, regardless of 
denomination, is that we humans were not given the capacity to understand how,
or why God does much of anything. And does God owe us an explanation? I don't 
think so, and much less of one to someone who *demands* anything from the King 
of the Universe. How pompous and proud humans can be, to blame God for this or
that, when so many of our troubles are our own doing, or just the way life is,
or the works of the enemy of God and mankind. I don't like acknowledging this
before perfect strangers, but since none of you are perfect ;-) I used to shake
my fist skyward, and yell and scream at God, venting anger and frustration at
Him, very much like a spoiled brat not getting his own way. As I aged, grew,
and matured, I looked back and wondered why I didn't get hit with a lightning
bolt. I also wondered how God, looking down from His throne in the heavens,
at this screaming little speck of life, thought. Not that it is possible for
me to see through God's eyes, but it did give me an outside perspective of
how I must have looked to Him. Ridiculously silly at the least. So God didn't
damn me for that, and I hardly think He will damn me for "speaking for all
Christians", as for one, to my knowledge, I'm not speaking for "all", as all 
people who claim to be Christians do not all believe in exactly the same 
doctrine, and IF I do say things that are contradictory to the beliefs of 
basic Christianity, I would hope, and expect for *them* to correct me. And what 
lies am I telling Dick? Can you prove any of the things I've said are lies? 
And how do you see self-rightous smugness in my life?  What has given you this 
perception? 

 In 1 Corinthians 13:12 "though we see through the glass darkly", I certainly
agree, I don't have all the answers, or even all the questions. However, if the 
things I've said are contradictory to what other Christians believe, than if 
given proper scriptural backup am proven wrong, I'll stand corrected, and 
admit error in belief. What I have stated are my beliefs, which you may see
as an opinion, or even a lie. But to me, it's the truth. And much of what I 
have learned in my search of the truth I do not like, but accept it as the 
reality I now perceive. The future, as told of in the prophetic accounts of
the Bible, is not a pretty sight for those who are not Christians. Both in
the short term, and especially the eternal. It's in the Book. If you don't
wish to accept the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God, then it is again
your choice. But since there may be your eternal destiny as the stakes, it would
be worth your effort to investigate, before coming to the conclusions you so
stubbornly cling to. 

 The epic of Gilgamesh is a story, the historical account of Noah is not. But
that statement requires faith in the second part of the sentence. As far as
the timetable of the rapture, perhaps it was wishful thinking on the part of
those who believed it would happen in their lifetime. Many of the signs spoke
of by Jesus had not happened then, but most of them have now. Especially Israel
becoming recognized as a nation in 1948, and Jerusalem becoming the capitol in 
1967. As far as time as God sees it, since a day is as a thousands years to Him,
then He's only been gone a couple of days. Perhaps the 3rd day (the year 2000)
will be it? No man knows for sure, and we sure like to think we know, as it 
gives many comfort to think we're not long for this world. But then, what's
50, 60, or even 90 or 100 years out of eternity? Could it be as much as a 
second out of a 100,000 milliniums?

 Yes, I do refuse to think the circumstances and experiences are anything less
than divine providence, and I also deny the possibility I have created My God.
It is not my imagination, but my perception of spiritual reality. Alas, I can't
prove anything to you, even by relating some of my experiences I've had over
the years, that have convinced me of my belief. And I am now wondering even
if I could prove things to you, if you would refute it anyway, as you seem
quite solid in your belief, whatever it may be, as I haven't seen a clear 
definition from you about "your God". There is much more I could elaborate on,
but I don't think you're giving anything I, or any other Christian, much
thoughtful consideration of what we have entered. I think I've added enough 
in this topic so if I may end with this:
 
 The worst that can happen to me, if after this life there is nothing, then I
have been fooled into believing a nice fairy tale. The worst that can happen
to you, is that after this life there IS the God of the Bible waiting to judge
you, without the benefit of having the Judge's Son as your attorney pleading
your case, then you go to hell. Worst case scenerio, is not in your favor.

Regards,

Bob

     .535
    
    > When Adam and Eve fell...
    
    There never existed a couple named Adam and Eve who lived in a place
    called the Garden of Eden.  "Adam" means "man" and "Eve" means
    "mother."  Are you incapable of recognizing metaphor when it is handed
    to you on a plate?
    
    > What are the stakes in this spiritual battle between good and evil?
    > The souls of the inhabitants of the earth.
    
    If God really cares about all the souls of all the people on this
    planet, why has he throughout all of history made it impossible that
    some number of them should ever in their lives have the opportunity to
    hear the Good News?  Even after Jesus was born, lived, and rose - even
    today in fact - some people will never have the chance to go to heaven
    according to the theology that says that to be saved a person must
    profess Jesus.
    
    > Hell was created for the
    > devil and his angels, not for humans.
    
    Right.  God, who is all-good and incapable of evil, creates an evil
    place into which he will cast evil creatures (the devil and his
    minions) and into which he will allow said evil creatures to snatch
    people who do not profess Jesus (see above).  Doesn't that smack of
    oxymoron to you?  It should.
    
    > What is obvious to me, among other things, is who besides Jesus, turned
    > time around? It was B.C., then A.D. Yes, some have not chosen this
    > calender as the way we measure the years, but don't the majority
    > acknowledge it?
    
    No, the majority do *not* acknowledge it.  At least not as the point
    when God did something.  There are more nonChristians on this earth
    than there are Christians.  NonChristians who use the time system you
    describe do so out of convenience in communicating with Christians. 
    Scientists universally refer to B.C. as BCE (Before the Common Era) and
    A.D. as CE (Common Era) - no reference to Christianity.  Some
    scientists further disassociate with even these abbraviations and refer
    to dates before CE with negative numbers and after the beginning of CE
    with positive numbers.  It's just a convenient stick in the sand that
    most people today recognize.
    
    And let us not forget that Jesus was not born in the year" A.D." 1.  He
    was born, most probably, in February or March of the year -6.
    
    > Did Buddha claim to be "THE" Son of God?
    
    Does Buddhism consider such a scheme necessary?  I suggest you study
    Buddhism, too, after you finish studying Islam.  A good college course
    in comparative religion might benefit you, assuming that your faith is
    strong enough to stand up against being exposed to things you have
    until now apparently not dared to see.
    
    > Only Jesus
    > did...
    
    Wrong.  Many others have claimed to be God, and many have died for
    their statements.  Some of them were Roman emperors.  The obvious
    counterargument to your position is that only Jesus happened to be in
    exactly the right place at exactly the right time to make the ploy
    stick.
    
    > Did anyone besides Jesus die a horrible death on a cross in the
    > place of the believer
    
    Was anyone besides Jesus executed for sedition by the Romans?  (Hint: 
    the answer is in the affirmative.)  Again, there is the obvious
    counterargument that only Jesus, or his school of disciples, was
    working the scam that you have fallen for.
    
    Bear in mind also that more of the theology you believe was formulated
    by Saul of Tarsus after what he claimed was an epiphany than was
    formulated by Jesus.
    
    > Did anyone besides Jesus rise from the dead,
    > to ensure His "last will and Testament" is carried out?
    
    Did Jesus rise from the dead, or did his followers pull a classic, and
    very well understood, sorcerer's trick?
    
    > Jesus said a lot here
    > on earth, teaching many things. Since one of the things He stated was
    > "I am the way the truth and the light, no man  comes to the Father but
    > by me", I consider that sufficient reason to believe  the rest are
    > wrong, and therefore, lies.
    
    Yes, he did.  Have you investigated the teachings of the Essenes?  The
    Essenes were the *third* sect of Judaism, the sect that the Pharisees
    and Sadducees managed to suppress.  Oddly enough, Jesus' teachings map
    almost exactly one-for-one onto the documented, recorded teachings of
    Essene Judaism.  Even to the "I am the way" line.  There is a nonzero
    probability that Jesus was an Essene.
    
    > Yes, I guess I do have an awful lot of faith to believe in the account
    > of Noah and the Adam and Eve account as well as the rest of the Bible.
    
    Or an awful lot of na�vet�.  The simple fact is, my friend, that you
    need not believe those obvious hokum stories in order to believe in
    Jesus.  You accept freely that the book of Revelation is filled with
    imagery, not literal facts, and you must surely know that the book of
    Job is allegorical fiction and that the Song of Solomon is allegorical
    poetry; why then do you believe so firmly in primitive myths that are
    demonstrably false and are not necessary to your eternal salvation?
    
    Automatically attributing things you don't understand to the workings
    of God is one way of denying the intelligence, the intellectual
    curiosity, with which God so richly endowed Homo sapiens sapiens.  Not
    too long ago, the laser would have been considered a miracle;
    holographic projection would have been accepted out-of-hand as divine
    visions.  Do you know Clarke's Third Law?  "Any sufficiently advanced
    technology is indistinguishable from magic."  Ponder on that.  The
    Universe is a wonderful place, and in it many wonderful things happen. 
    But not all of the ones you can't explain must of necessity be
    miraculous.
    
    > If I was the only person on the earth to believe such as I do,
    > you would have good reason to have your doubts about what I say.
    
    For more than a thousand years, the official position of the entire
    Christian community, a position supported by interpretation of the
    Bible, was that the Earth was the center of the Universe.  Oopsie.
    
    For more than four thousand years before Jesus, more than three
    thousand years before the Hebrews went through the Holy Land like a
    scythe through a bountiful corn harvest, the Egyptians believed in the
    afterlife of the soul, the assumption of a spiritual body, and the
    goodness of heaven.  The beliefs you cherish are not unique to, or even
    original with, your theology.
    
    > There
    > are countless numbers of people throughout history that have chosen,
    > for whatever their individual reasonings are, to believe in the God of
    > the Bible.
    
    Indeed.  But not all of them also buy the mythology of Genesis.
    
    > Dick, again I wish I could prove this belief to you too. I can't, but I
    > won't withdraw earlier statements of my belief on your say so. If You
    > REALLY want  proof you'll search for it, and perhaps you'll someday
    > come to the same belief  that I and many others have come to. It is my
    > prayer you do.
    
    FWIW, I have since 1973 professed Jesus.  But Jesus, whose wonders I
    have witnessed personally in my own life, never once told me I had to
    be a fool to love him.  He gave me eyes and ears and a brain and the
    injunction that I shoudl use them to see his glory in the eons-long
    evolution of the natural world instead of imputing that world to magic.
    
    > Allah is not the God I found. And Jesus wasn't a Muslim.
    
    Yes, he is.  Just ask any Muslim.  Jesus was a Jew.  Do you follow what
    he followed?  Do you eat pork?  Do you eat lobster or crab?  Remember,
    the lifting of the proscription on pork is *not* something Jesus said,
    it is something Simon the fisherman saw/heard in a dream.  I've had
    dreams, too.
    
    > we humans were not given the capacity to
    > understand how, or why God does much of anything.
    
    Oh, now I remember!  God created us in his own image, i.e., like him. 
    But when we started to figure things out (the forbidden fruit) he
    panicked, afraid that we should be as gods in our knowledge, and
    pitched us out on our ear.
    
    Where did Cain's wife come from?
    
    > However, if the  things I've said are contradictory to what
    > other Christians believe, than if  given proper scriptural backup am
    > proven wrong, I'll stand corrected, and  admit error in belief.
    
    If you are prepared to believe only the literal words of the Bible,
    there is no way to prove anything to you.  You have already made up
    your mind and do not wish to be confused with facts.  I, a professing,
    born again Christian, do not believe as you do with regard to the
    origin of things.  We do, most probably, share our belief in the
    essentials of salvation, but beyond that we've a few differences.  I've
    counted bristlecone pine tree rings, and I've seen creosote bushes and
    dinosaur bones.
    
    > The epic of Gilgamesh is a story, the historical account of Noah is
    > not. But that statement requires faith in the second part of the
    > sentence.
    
    See?  You've decided to believe in the mythology of a primitive and
    illiterate nomadic people, written down centuries after it began to be
    told orally, in preference to the documented record of a literate and
    civilized people.  Your loss.
    
    > As far as the timetable of the rapture, perhaps it was
    > wishful thinking on the part of those who believed it would happen in
    > their lifetime.
    
    As it is equally wishful thinking of those who now believe so firmly
    that they establish dates for it and then look like idiots when their
    dates pass unenRaptured.  The fact is that the Bible says *no* human
    can or will know when it will happen, and Jesus says it will happen
    when we *least* expect it, as the coming of a thief in the night.  So
    you can happily point to all the fulfilled propechies, and even if you
    could demonstrate that *every one* of them is fulfilled, you *still*
    won't know when the Rapture will happen.  Or, in fact, *if* it will
    happen.  Not all Christians buy the Rapture, either, remember.
    
    But living in your world does have one advantage:  You need not bother
    to think.

    .536
    
    And uhm how do reconcile the descendants of Adam and Eve with this
    metaphor?
    
    There is more evidence in scripture that Adam and Eve were created
    humans than not.  I guess that would mean that whereas by one man sin
    entered into the world and death by sin, that would not refer to Adam,
    but someone else who fell from grace?
    
    Your statement that Adam and Eve are metaphors is wholey [pun intended]
    :-).  This view cannot be supported except through *supposition* as
    scripture clearly reveals Adam as man, carnal, flesh.  
    
    Dick,  do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God?
    

    scripture is not evidence of anything. It's scripture.
    
    

    Oh! Thanks for showing me the ropes man! I owe you one eh?

    I believe that the bible is the word of somebody or some people, but 
    who is to say that God said these things and not some wacky guys
    claiming to be close to God?  There are alot of people today who claim
    to be close to God and alot of them seem like a joke to me.  I guess
    that is where "faith" comes in.  I can`t seem to find any.

>    For more than four thousand years before Jesus, more than three
>    thousand years before the Hebrews went through the Holy Land like a
>    scythe through a bountiful corn harvest, the Egyptians believed in the
>    afterlife of the soul, the assumption of a spiritual body, and the
>    goodness of heaven.  The beliefs you cherish are not unique to, or even
>    original with, your theology.

   "Whatever part of truth was known to the pagan peoples and was later
    to be recognized and taken up by Christianity, the wisdom of Roman
    law, the philosophical truths arrived at by Plato and Aristotle--
    all this came to them from the providence of the one God acting
    through the ministry of the angels.  Origen declares that this
    applies to the philosophy of the Egyptians and the astrology of
    the Chaldeans and even the Hindu claims pertaining to the science
    of the Most High God.  We read in Scripture that there are princes
    over each nation -- and the context makes it quite clear that they
    are angels and not men.  It is these princes and the other powers
    of this world who each have a separate science and a special doctrine
    to teach."
    
Edited from Danielou, "The Angels and Their Mission" with reference to the
traditional teaching that the nations have been distributed among the
angels.

    Case closed, eh?

    .536
    
    >There never existed a couple named Adam and Eve who lived in a place
    >called the Garden of Eden.
    
    Unprovable assertion.  Tsk tsk...the very same thing you nailed Shallow
    over.  In your belief structure there may not be an Adam or Eve
    persona, but that is YOUR belief structure.
    
    Many believe that there was indeed a man called Adam, and a woman
    named Eve.  The names given were demonstrative of their significance.
    
    
    -steve

    Case closed, eh?

    Yeah, and they actually removed one of Adam's ribs and made Eve out of
    it.  I believe that.  Sure.

 Z   Yeah, and they actually removed one of Adam's ribs and made Eve out of
 Z       it.  I believe that.  Sure.
    
    Very nice of Mr. Goodwin to put a God who created the universe into his
    own little world of finite possibilities.
    
    -Jack

    yes, and i liked the movie, too.  always been
    a tracy/hepburn fan.

    re: .547 
    
    Who is "they"?

    Eh?

    > Yeah, and they actually removed one of Adam's ribs and made Eve out of
    > it.  I believe that.  Sure.
    
    
    Who is "they"?

    > Who is "they"?
    
    Well, I figure any entity that created one entire human being, but then
    chose to use a rib from that one to make a 2nd one, must have been a
    committee of some sort.  Possibly a congressional committee composed of
    male chauvinists with a sense of humor.  After all they also created
    zebras, giraffes, dickbilled platypusses, republicans and democrats,
    yes?

    Uh, please make that DUCKBILLED...
    
    Grmmmph  typing too fast...  fumblefingers...

    I had trouble with "floppy disk" in a memo to my management once too...

    re:-1
    
    NO, is so difficult to believe that there is something out there that
    you do not understand. If you do not understand, why do you seek to
    offer stupid reasons as why things happened. Let me guess, you think we
    evolved, YEAH RIGHT. 
    
    You may think you came from a monkey. But I have more self esteem!!

    Other amoeba have said the same thing.  But you'll change your mind
    when you are swinging through the trees.                          

    They are the trinity = Father, Son and Holy Ghost. :-)  
    
    HTH

    >is so difficult to believe that there is something out there that
    >you do not understand [?]
    
    Of course not.  I know full well that I, and everyone else in the
    world, know very little about the universe, how it got here, and where
    it is going.
    
    So since we're all guessing and making things up for whatever reason, I
    can amuse myself with "explanations" just as well as the next person. 
    
    If you choose to take your explanations so seriously that you become
    wounded by anyone who doesn't share your enthusiasm for them, then you
    would seem to have a personal problem.

<<-�.556 

  Yabbut if you came with a monkey, what would that do for your self esteem?

kb

    > You may think you came from a monkey. But I have more self esteem!!
    
    Actually, my father used to sing "Gorilla My Dreams" to my mother, and
    she used to tell him, "You'll simean your dreams", so you may have
    something there.  And if I were you, I'd try to do something about it.
    

    As far as being descended from "monkeys", I think you had best look up
    the latest information on the evolution of humans.  The Monkey thingie
    is just another thumper strawhuman IMO
    
    meg

    Could somebody please define what a strawhuman is?  
    
    Thank you!

"politically correct" version of strawman.

    jack, think 'the wizard of oz'.  /hth

    Meg, your bastardizing the English language again.  

    Obviously more accurate than "straw monkey."

    bit of a no-brainer, really.

    Suggestion:  Go to the zoo and videotape a couple of gorillas having it
    on with each other, then go home and videotape yourself and friend
    doing the same thing, then view the two tapes, and THEN tell me you
    don't think there is a relationship there somewhere.  :-)

    I think I'd rather have seen Glen's 69 snarf!

    .569
    
    Uhmmmm, God created both... yeah that's the ticket, but I know in the
    atheist string this probably not probable. :-)

    So, god created man in his image and then created monkeys in man's
    image. I like it. :)

    re .569
    
    So this would explain why I've always liked smacking my mate around
    while fornicating.

    .572
    
    :-)
    
    .573
    
    EGAD, buster, keep your personal preferences to yerself!
    
    :-)