Conference back40::soapbox

    Different to Atheists

So.  If Jesus were alive and noting in Soapbox, how many Christians
think he'd be proud of our little StormThumpers?  Pleased by their
examples?   Warmed by their humanity?

They mock, they taunt, they exagerate.  Are these Christian virtues?

Discuss.
\john

    If Jesus were alive....hmmmmm....If some guy claimed to be Jesus today
    they would throw him in a mental institution with all the other Jesus
    people and the Batmans and the Abraham Lincolns.

Jesus is alive.

    In what form ?

 This Christian won't be acting in the 'box for awhile...I'm signing out for
 an undefined as of yet period of time.  While some are bothered by logging
 in and seeing "thumping", I am equally bothered by logging in and seeing
 my Christian Faith (and the author and finisher of my faith) assaulted and
 insulted.

 Adios.



 Jim

	Like themselves..... 

    "Can't we all just get along?"

    If you consider the accounts of Jesus in the gospels, you will not
    necessarily see the image you've conjured in your minds.
    
    -Jesus made a whip of thorns, overturned the tables in the temple, and 
     assaulted all the priests that were selling indulgences.
    
    -Jesus acted completely out of "protocol" on a few
     occasions...insulting his dinner host for his poor congeniality.  Very
     unbecoming by our standards I'm sure.
    
    -Preached things in the synagogue that incited a mob that sought out
     his death...on more than one occasion.  Gentiles were considered dogs
     and this man invited them to the party.  How dare he do this.
    
    -He underminded the Jewish rulers of his time...another no no in his
     culture.
    
    So, you all think I'm telling you what you should do...how you should
    live...how you should believe.  Please provide pointers so that I may
    glean wisdom and knowledge from you and watch my tongue.   
    
    Don't you think you're being a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle oversynsytyve about
    this??
    
    -Jack

    Oh boy,  I htink I'm with the muppet man for all the opposite reasons
    though

    A Christian is an individual who...
    
    -Recognizes their sin nature and is in need of redemption.
    
    -Understands their own good works are not a satisfactory way to receive
     grace and eternal life.
    
    -Recognizes that the way to eternal life is to have our sin taken away
     for us...since we can't do it ourselves.
    
    -Jesus Christ is Gods provision to mankind for the redemption of same.
    
    -Jesus was the perfect sacrifice acceptable to God.
    
    -All who call upon His name shall be saved.
    
    That's my opinion anyway.  I presented this because somebody asked.
    
    -Jack

    re: .12
    
    Seems reasonable.  If you remove "Christian" and replace it
    with "Roman Catholic" (Yes, I know Roman Catholics are Christian,
    I'm just demonstrating that it has a more global perspective) it's 
    just about what I remember the good Sisters of the Presentation 
    teaching me.
    
    Mary-Michael

    Right!  Remember, what makes up the differences between denominations
    are usually issues regarding the fellowship or participation of a
    service.  In my own church for example, there are some who don't
    believe in using anything but an organ and/or a piano.  This is a
    traditional belief.  I am of the belief that anything can be used to
    glorify God and that the old hymns are not the only songs that provide
    inspiration.  
    
    Some churches believe only members can partake of the communion.  Some
    believe in total immersion for baptism.  The bottom line is this...
    Where are you with Jesus Christ...that is the main issue and is
    certainly one worthy of exploration.  As far as the Vatican thing, I
    know of strong believers in Christ who follow the precepts of Rome. 
    Bringing up reasons I oppose Roman Catholic doctrine is simply to
    exchange views and maybe learn from each other.  
    
    This is why I find the reactions...particularly here in the box
    unreasonable.  We got Dick Binder, the replacement icon of Lord Haag
    not talking to me anymore...and we've got a bunch of clones telling me
    how shameful I am for challenging the beliefs of others.  I simply
    can't understand this old lady mentality going on here!!
    
    -Jack

	>>I simply can't understand this old lady mentality going on here!!

	What's with this "old lady mentality" crapola?  You're way
	out in left field these days, Jack, you really are.

     see note 389.6
    

re:         <<< Note 390.12 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

I found it interesting that in that entire litany, there wasn't any mention
of leading a decent life and treating others in a loving/respectful/fair
manner. I found it interesting that a serial axe murderer or a psychopathic
rapist could basically adhere to each and every point on your list and
profess to be a good Christian by those standards. (Try hypothesizing that
model yourself as an exercise, if you doubt me.)

If those are the key points, the godless aren't missing much.

    That's all very well and good.
    
    Problem is we have not argued doctrine at all.  We've argued about
    substantive things like how off the wall I am and how Nazi like I am
    and......

ZZ       Krawiecki, one of the very fundamental issues that I have with you
ZZ       and Martin and Benson is that none of you has the integrity or
ZZ       decency to recognize that villifying a set of people based on
ZZ       their religious beliefs is wrong, viciously wrong.  None of you
ZZ       has the integrity or decency to recognize that respect for other
ZZ       people is important.
  
The closest I came to ever villifying an individual is when I stated that 
Mohammed was an opportunist...just as alot of religious leaders are.  However,
discussing the integrity of doctrinal differences is a very far cry from what 
you are implying above.
     
ZZ       Krawiecki, you sneer about making mountains out of molehills. 
ZZ       Martin flippantly discards any criticism as over-sensitivity and
ZZ       political correctness.  

Yes, thank you Mr. Topaz for providing the evidence above.  As I said, 
exploring doctrinal integrity through direct challenge IS NOT racist or 
villifying.  

ZZ       invariably borne of ignorance.  The bigots will shout the vilest
ZZ       racist shibboleths in one breath, and in the next they'll tell you
ZZ       that they're not racists, or that the intolerance they preach is
ZZ       just a minor detail that shouldn't cloud their Big Picture.
  
Absolutely...no disagreements here.  Now please explain to me anyway how I 
have been a racist here.  Anybody here is welcome to respond.
     
ZZ       And it's up to the rest of us to speak out and not remain silent. 
ZZ       Because the Krawieckis and Martins and Bensons give impetus and
ZZ       credibility to the LePens and Paisleys and Kahanes and Farrakhans
ZZ       of the world.  And there's nothing that can divide a society more
ZZ       than what they represent.
       
  I'll work on it...just as soon as you point out where I have been a racist.
If you can't prove that I have been a racist or a bigot then is it fair to say
I am correct about the sensitivity issue?  You know, sentitivity is not 
necessarily a bad thing...that is unless it gets in the way of learning and
stifling ignorance.  Then it becomes evil to the core.

-Jack

    Now, I'm not at all convinced I want to get involved in such a
    pointless wangle, but:  When someone complains about someone
    "villifying a set of people," statements about "villifying an
    individual" do not constitute a rebuttal.

Vilify.

NNTTM.

    Chelsea:
    
    I realize you don't want to get involved.  But if could clarify
    something.  Are you saying if person A calls me a racist and I say
    prove it, person A doesn't need to?  Not sure what you meant by
    "constitute a rebuttal".
    
    -Jack

    No.  That is not what I said.
    
    Someone accused you of vilifying a set of people.  You said, "Hey, I've
    never vilified an individual."  You did not respond to the charge.  He
    didn't accuse you of vilifying an individual.  If you want to rebut the
    charge, you have to say, "Hey, I've never vilified a set of people."
    
    Of course, the fact that you missed it the first time should have clued
    me in that you were likely to miss it the second time.

	jack, what could easily give someone the impression that you could be
a racist or bigot is in Mr. Topaz's note that so many people (including Otis)
are agreeing with. You label them as liberals or PC, or you say, "don't fall
for it" etc. Think about it and then tell me if one couldn't think that you are
the things they have talked about. Hell, if I didn't know you I would probably
say the same thing based soley on your writings.


Glen

    Chelsea:
    
    Advice well taken.  Mr. Topaz, I disagree with you that I have lacked
    tolerance on a people.  Apparently you seem to think I have.  Could you
    please tell me who I've offended so as not to do it again? 
    
    Thank you,
    
    -Jack

    I will apologize for nothing until the offended party accuses me
    directly and states how I was bigoted toward them.
    
    I will not make general apologies where none are warranted.
    
    -Jack

	.28  good, now pick one of those and write it 99 more 
	times on the blackboard.  ;>

    And no cutting and pasting!

    And no h e with hockey sticks!! :-0

    
    and no short cuts either!
    

    You offend me Jack. Please say you are sorry! :)
    
    ...Tom

    I'm sorry...I'll shower next time I see you!!!  ;')

| <<< Note 390.34 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| I'm sorry...I'll shower next time I see you!!!  ;')

	He doesn't want you to shower for him, JUST apologize man! :-)

    Jack I hope you shower more often than that. 8^)

	speaking of which, you must have quite the little
	water bill yourself there, dee dee.

     >I'll shower next time I see you!!!
    
    That will suffice, as long as you wash your mouth out with soap as well.
    :)
    
    ..Tom

    Jack,
    
    There are times I'd like to thump you!
    
    Nancy

    RE: .13
    
    I agree, but ya know, I've had MANY a "Christian" tell me that I'm
    going STRAIGHT TO HELL for my pagan Catholic beliefs!
    
    Gee, and I thought we believed Jesus as Savior, too?

	Buck.... I could think of a couple of hundred reasons one might use to
say yer going to hell.... :-)

    I believe that there's a special place in heaven carved out
    for Buck. God wouldn't create the likes of Buck just to see
    him rot in hell!

    Unless, of course, God likes Clapton... :-)

    -b

    Buck:
    
    Just because some fly off the handle individual speaks without wisdom
    doesn't mean all Christians concur...or act in the same manner.
    
    -Jack

    If one places their faith in Christ and in works then it is true there
    are Christians who'd feel concerned about that person's soul. 
    
    But then we've been through that debate *so* many times.  Just thought
    I'd clarify, Buck.  There are many in catholicism that don't believe
    that you have eternal assurance of heaven.
    
    Nancy

    
    well the only sure things in life are death and taxes, hope this
    helps. :-)
    
    Mark

Did I miss something or are .46 and .47 indentical?

Did I miss something or are .46 and .47 indentical?

No, they're identical.

No, they're identical.

I'm having problems with double replies..

I'm having problems with double replies..

What kind of problem, Phil?

What kind of problem, Phil?

What's this baloney about "for use only within Digital" when the origin of
the texts is Usenet?

What's this baloney about "for use only within Digital" when the origin of
the texts is Usenet?

    I'm getting the feeling of deja vu

    I'm getting the feeling of deja vu

    
    This is a truly unique, and perhaps even appropriate, rathole... even
    as 'box ratholes go.
    

    
    This is a truly unique, and perhaps even appropriate, rathole... even
    as 'box ratholes go.
    

    
    IS THERE AN ECHO

    
    IS THERE AN ECHO

    CUT IT OUT!  I'm goin' goofy from the doubles!
    
    Dan

    
    ... then stop drinking them.
    

        I keep waking up at night wondering if there is a dog.
        
        Andy (the insomniac dyslexic agnostic)
        
        PS.  It doesn't help that they won't let me back into Texas - I
        keep forgetting the Alamo too...

    Oh, okay.
    
    Beertender, singles from now on.
    
    Dan

    I've been absent from this conference for a while, and most likely will
    be absent again for the most part... but I have to admit that coming
    back in and seeing the volumnous [sp] notes negatively aimed towards
    Christians or Christianity makes me realize that we [Christians] are
    not valued for our differences.
    
    Chelsea said if you can't take the heat, don't enter the debate.  I
    kind of agree with this... but on the otherhand, I wonder if perhaps
    this isn't just another attempt at intimidation.
    
    Being a Christian is not always an easy thing to be, for as the notes
    in here have intimated, there is a lot of hate generated towards those
    who take this stand.
    
    I've made a lot of mistakes in my growing up as a Christian.  And as a
    result I made a lot of mistakes in my noting with many of you.  I
    realize now that some things just don't have to be said, even if they
    are true.  And being right doesn't equal righteousness.  
    
    In case this hasn't come across in my persona, I care for people, all
    people from all walks of life.  I hope that it might be evidenced in my
    ability to pick up the homeless family, for I knew not what their
    belief system or political alignment were.  I only saw human beings who
    needed a helping hand.  
    
    Its different in noting, for our "positions" on political and spiritual
    topics are made known.  And I'm learning that this knowledge ought not
    to change my heart towards people, but enhance the relationship to a
    level of mutual understanding, even in disagreement. 
    
    At my best, I fail often... but I'm not too proud to admit the failure
    and to try again.  Fear of failure accomplishes nothing.  Facing the
    fears, trying again is just one more step in our growing process.
    
    Nancy

    Re: .71
    
    >Being a Christian is not always an easy thing to be, for as the notes
    >in here have intimated, there is a lot of hate generated towards those
    >who take this stand.
    
    If "being a Christian" means going up to people at work and telling
    them all about your religion and how they would be better for it, then
    you're more or less right.  (I see it as animosity rather than hate,
    but it's all a matter of degree.)  If that's not part of "being a 
    Christian," then I'd say you're wrong.
    
    Religion is, for the most part, a private matter, and people are made
    uncomfortable when confronted with private matters in their public
    life.  Of course, they're also made uncomfortable when confronted in
    their private lives, which is why no one is fond of folks who go
    door-to-door handing out tracts and trying to convert (or at least
    create interest).

    .72
    
    Chelsea,
    
    I wish this were true as you've defined it, but it is not.  Just saying
    that you are a Christian creates very caustic reactions from many
    people.  Doesn't matter your interaction with them, just the term.
    
    Nancy

    "Christian" is probably more inflammatory than, say, "Presbyterian." 
    At least for my background.  In the Bible Belt, "Christian" generally
    means non-denominational, fundamentalist, evangelical followers of a
    preacher (whose appearance and mannerisms are often rather similar to a
    used-car salesman).  People like Swaggart and Bakker and Falwell, who
    have managed to give "Christian" some rather negative associations. 
    They generally seem more concerned about _telling_ people they're
    Christian, rather than showing them.  (Of course, if you simply show
    someone you're a Christian, they're apt to think you're a really nice
    person but miss out on the biblical connection.)  I suspect it has
    something to do with being organized around a particular preacher,
    rather than an established doctrine.  It's kind of like they have to
    advertise more, since they're not on some standard list of American
    religions.  A Baptist moving to a new neighborhood can find a Baptist
    church; a Christian moving to a new neighborhood has to shop around a
    lot more.

>    I wish this were true as you've defined it, but it is not.  Just saying
>    that you are a Christian creates very caustic reactions from many
>    people.  Doesn't matter your interaction with them, just the term.


This may have been your experience in some circles. It would be difficult
for you to convince me that this charactterizes the experience universally
perceived by Christians in this forum. Perhaps that is not what you meant
to infer - I have no way of knowing. I believe that there are any number
of good Christians, people of faith not dissimilar to your own, in this
very forum who do not fully share a view such as that. From my own
standpoint, I would have to state that one's simply mentioning their
Christianity to me in no way invokes any sort of caustic reaction from
me. I can quite easily substantiate this if need be, or could many of
my Christian friends in here.

    Well, I don't think Nancy thinks that Brian is Satan for a second.
    Honestly.

ZZ    Religion is, for the most part, a private matter, and people are made
ZZ    uncomfortable when confronted with private matters in their public
ZZ    life.  Of course, they're also made uncomfortable when confronted
ZZ    in their private lives, 
    
    Since faith is a choice that can only be made by the individual, it is
    a private matter.  However, the founder of Christianity did not intend 
    the speaking of Christian matters to be limited to the private church.
    
    I agree with you on the last part...this is most likely why most of the
    apostles were martyred as well as thousands from the beginning of the
    church.  Rome was not comfortable with Christianity as it was a threat
    to their stability.  It brings people out of their comfort zone.
    
    -Jack

    nnancy,
    
    When you admonish someone for relating to people of other religions
    while still proclaiming their adherance to one, it is easy to see how
    you can provoke a negative response.  
    
    I have this feeling that the perported son of your diety would be far
    more comfortable with many heathens than with many of the people who
    proclaim themselves as followers of him in this forum, if only for this
    reason.  
    
    meg

    Nancy, you folks just don't seem to get it.  Your being a christian is
    neither a good thing or a bad thing in many/most/some people's eyes.  
    Discuss your religion, beliefs etc. at will.  The thing most folks that 
    have spoken out against or at least in my case is that there is such a 
    proliferation of religious based notes in here one stops to wonder if 
    we have not become a theology file versus one for general discussion.  
    The last thing this file does is not value diversity regarding "christian" 
    values.  You want to talk about your beliefs in here?  No sweat.  I for 
    one would ask you to pick one of the two dozen or so notes before 
    starting another religious niche note.  The more new notes started to 
    discuss a particular aspect of <insert religion> the higher the noise 
    level is going to be.  The more duplicate topics we have on a given
    subject the higher the noise level is going to be whether it is O.J.,
    new age terrorism, of nuclear fusion.  If you as a christian are feeling 
    persecuted, I suggest it is because the bulk of the religious topics have 
    a christian slant and therefore generate the most noise.  If there were 
    the same number of notes regarding <insert religion> I think the noise 
    level would be the same.  The cries of oppression and persecution from 
    the "true" christian contingnent are laughable.  No one wants to take 
    away your beliefs.  They may be challenged aggressively at times but  
    nobody is out to try to persuade you otherwise.  
    
    Brian

    -1 welcome back, Brian!
    
       Chip

| <<< Note 390.71 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| I've been absent from this conference for a while, and most likely will be 
| absent again for the most part... but I have to admit that coming back in and 
| seeing the volumnous [sp] notes negatively aimed towards Christians or 
| Christianity makes me realize that we [Christians] are not valued for our 
| differences.

	Nancy, could you be more specific? I believe people asked if you could
keep all Christian notes in one note, that people had problems with certain
individuals (style), but I don't recall notes that put down Christianity or 
Christians as a whole. 

| Being a Christian is not always an easy thing to be, for as the notes in here 
| have intimated, there is a lot of hate generated towards those who take this 
| stand.

	Nancy, do you know the difference between hate and some just not
wanting a ton of notes with Christian themes? (in other words, they are sick of
hearing religious this or that) I could dislike you, but does that mean I hate
you? I know for *me*, anyway, I can dislike someone and not hate them. Hate is
at a totally different level. I think you can understand this as I know with
kids you can at times be very angry with them, dislike what they have done, but
still love them. Can you see this? 


Glen

| <<< Note 390.76 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Special Fan Club Baloney" >>>

| Well, I don't think Nancy thinks that Brian is Satan for a second.


	He's gotta have a different p-name for that....

	Oh, one last thing Nancy. I know in CHRISTIAN you have set up the
guidelines so only one view can be discussed, and I know that on many occasions
people have talked about others following the premise of the file (you being
one of them), so I hope you realize that the premise for this file is to
discuss things from all views, and not from a one belief view.


Glen

    	I can't believe the heat Nancy is getting here.

>	Nancy, do you know the difference between hate and some just not
>wanting a ton of notes with Christian themes? (in other words, they are sick of
>hearing religious this or that) I could dislike you, but does that mean I hate


Then why in the wide wide world of sports do you continue to rant and rave..why
not just leave it alone???  Your constant yapping at Joe, Andy, Jack et al
perpetuates the very thing you rant about.



Jim

| <<< Note 390.85 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| Then why in the wide wide world of sports do you continue to rant and rave..why
| not just leave it alone???  Your constant yapping at Joe, Andy, Jack et al
| perpetuates the very thing you rant about.

	Jim, what does the above have to do with anything? 

    
    I often wonder the same thing about many of your entries...
    
     
     

>	Jim, what does the above have to do with anything? 



  Its simple really.

	Then please splain...

 Go look at the first line in the last paragraph of .81 where you are
 blathering to Nancy about not wanting a lot of notes with Christian themes..
 Then, go look at how many notes with Biblical/Christian themes to which you
 have responded today (in the last hour if that's too much).  See what I mean..
 You are perpetuating the very thing you are ranting about.





 Jim

| <<< Note 390.90 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>



| Go look at the first line in the last paragraph of .81 where you are 
| blathering to Nancy about not wanting a lot of notes with Christian themes..

	Jim, you need to take up reading comprehension. Was I talking about
myself in any of that note or was I talking about what others could possibly
think (and actually do as I have talked to others in mail)? Now you should be
able to see what was meant. nnttm

| Then, go look at how many notes with Biblical/Christian themes to which you
| have responded today (in the last hour if that's too much).  See what I mean..
| You are perpetuating the very thing you are ranting about.

	So for me to give reasons why others go off when there are many notes
about Christian topics = my opinions? Ok..

	why thank you andy....

                   <<< Note 390.91 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Was I talking about
>myself in any of that note or was I talking about what others could possibly
>think 
    
    	Perhaps it would be better, then, to let those others speak for
    	themselves rather than speculate on what others might possibly
    	be thinking...

    	So from this latest statement from you, should we assume that
    	you do NOT have a problem with the proliferation of religious
    	discussions here?  If so, why team up with those who actually
    	ARE expressing a problem with that proliferation?

    There's a curse on me I think.
    
    :-)
    Nancy

RE:                   <<< Note 390.91 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>



>| Go look at the first line in the last paragraph of .81 where you are 
>| blathering to Nancy about not wanting a lot of notes with Christian themes..

>	Jim, you need to take up reading comprehension. Was I talking about
>myself in any of that note or was I talking about what others could possibly
>think (and actually do as I have talked to others in mail)? Now you should be


Well, if you're so concerned about what others might think, why not just drop
it so those others won't be subjected to the ranting?




 Jim

  .95
	Meg?

    
    RE: .93
    
    > why thank you andy....
    
    and of course you'll pray for me right?
    
    
    
    "Hi God!!  This is 'Diablo' again!... Oooops!! Pardon me God... can I
    put you on hold about praying for Andy? I gotta go snarf some .69's and
    .666's!!  Be right back!"
    

| <<< Note 390.94 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Perhaps it would be better, then, to let those others speak for themselves 
| rather than speculate on what others might possibly be thinking...

	Joe, did you happen to miss the part where I said I had talked to
others in mail? I guess you must have or you would not have written what you
did above.

| So from this latest statement from you, should we assume that you do NOT have 
| a problem with the proliferation of religious discussions here?  

	I don't have a problem with the discussions that are going on at all.
There would be far less problems if they were all in one topic though. But that
won't be happening. 

| If so, why team up with those who actually ARE expressing a problem with that 
| proliferation?

	Joe, you do this often, and maybe one day you will figure this out. It
seems that if I can see what others are saying, I am backing them. Why is that?
I'm actually glad that I can see where others are coming from. It makes it much
easier to see the real person. I don't have to agree with them to see and learn
about their beliefs.


Glen

Christians should SNARF!

    The Bible provides us with an autoexec.curse when you don't pay your
    tithe.

    FWIW

| <<< Note 390.96 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>

| Well, if you're so concerned about what others might think, why not just drop
| it so those others won't be subjected to the ranting?

	You asked a question, I answered it. It's a little late to move all the
topics into one, which I believe it will help keep the complaining down. But
for any new topics, why not keep them in just one note?

| <<< Note 390.98 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas" >>>


| > why thank you andy....

| and of course you'll pray for me right?

	I never said that..... :-)

| "Hi God!!  This is 'Diablo' again!... Oooops!! Pardon me God... can I
| put you on hold about praying for Andy? I gotta go snarf some .69's and
| .666's!!  Be right back!"

	You missed the 100's!

    Glen,
    
    I don't understand why you continue to note in a conference for which
    you have contempt.  
    
    The only thing not allowed for discussion in CHRISTIAN is homosexuality
    and it is equitable, no view is allowed expression.  All other topics
    are open for discussion and we get many views.  The difference between
    this conference and let's say CP, is that the Christian conference is a
    discussion of values based on the Bible as the inerrant word of God.
    
    What happens is that there are people out there who think the Bible a
    good book and may even have studied it, but their discussions rarely
    lead to anything positive, because it boils down to the fact that we
    cannot agree on the premise on which to base a discussion about moral
    biblical views.
    
    You've heard the analogy over and over again, but you refuse to see its
    merit.  Why go into the Fresh Water Fishing notes conference and start
    a discussion a Sea Fishing.  See how far you go.  There may be some
    similarities but they aren't compatible.  I know I'm a fisherwoman. :-)
    
    Take care,
    Nancy
    
    

    Not me,
    
    christians carry enough curses of their own IMO.  they can do
    themselves in when ever they wish.  I on the other hand, would get back
    what I wished on her threefold, so I can only wish that people get all
    the just rwards they deserve.
    
    meg

                   <<< Note 390.99 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Joe, did you happen to miss the part where I said I had talked to
>others in mail? I guess you must have or you would not have written what you
>did above.
    
    	I didn't miss it at all.  Why do you pretend to be the spokesman
    	for those others?  Again I ask, why not let them speak for
    	themselves?

>	I don't have a problem with the discussions that are going on at all.
>There would be far less problems if they were all in one topic though. But that
>won't be happening. 
    
    	You could start by doing precisely what you are calling others
    	to do.  If you don't want to do that, SHUT UP about it happening.

>| If so, why team up with those who actually ARE expressing a problem with that 
>| proliferation?
>
>	It
>seems that if I can see what others are saying, I am backing them. Why is that?
    
    	Uh, because you want to team up with those who are complaining
    	about the proliferation?  I don't understand your confusion here...

| <<< Note 390.104 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| I don't understand why you continue to note in a conference for which you have
| contempt.

	Contempt? Nah. Think it's a one view place? Yeah.

| The only thing not allowed for discussion in CHRISTIAN is homosexuality and it
| is equitable, no view is allowed expression. All other topics are open for 
| discussion and we get many views.  

	Nancy, this I think this is a false statement. There is only one way to
prove it. Can someone go into that file and talk about:

	the Bible is just a book? 
	can someone go in there and proclaim that they follow a Goddess?
	can you talk about witchcraft?

	I mean, I see Tony get lambasted all the time in there for expressing
his beliefs. I'm sorry Nancy, at this time I do not believe that the statement
you made is true.



Glen

| <<< Note 390.106 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| <<< Note 390.99 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

| >	Joe, did you happen to miss the part where I said I had talked to
| >others in mail? I guess you must have or you would not have written what you
| >did above.

| I didn't miss it at all.  

	Nice try Joe, but I don't know anyone who would use the word speculate
when they say they saw the words of talking to others in mail. Maybe the better
wording would have been did you ignore it?

| Why do you pretend to be the spokesman for those others?  

	Joe, I just repeat what I heard to make a point. You want to take it as
spokesman, go ahead. 

| Again I ask, why not let them speak for themselves?

	Some don't always enjoy your noting style, or the noting style of
others. Besides, it was through casual conversations that these things came up.

| You could start by doing precisely what you are calling others to do. If you 
| don't want to do that, SHUT UP about it happening.

	No, you didn't say please.

| Uh, because you want to team up with those who are complaining
| about the proliferation?  I don't understand your confusion here...

	Again, expressing what others think does not = teaming up. but i guess
you haven't figured that out yet

    	Fine.  So let Tony worry about how he feels about that conference!

>	Nancy, this I think this is a false statement. There is only one way to
>prove it. Can someone go into that file and talk about:

>	the Bible is just a book?   
        you do but that is not the premise of the conference
>	can someone go in there and proclaim that they follow a Goddess?

        its been done but that is not the premise of the conference

>	can you talk about witchcraft?

        its been done, but that is not the premise of the conference


  See, the Christian conference, has guidelines that state the premise of
 the conference.  That is what we believe, see.   And folks who believe that
 like to gather there to share in those beliefs, see.  Its kinda like the
 Blues music conference.  It has guidelines.  I suspect that if you were to
 go in there and start a discussion on Classical music, you would be gently
 reminded what that conference is all about.  And if you continued to talk
 about Classical Music, you might receive another reminder and after several
 perhaps people would begin to wonder why you are there..see what I mean?
 Now, we do discuss a number of things and the discussions go on, but..the
 ultimate measure of the discussions goes back to the purpose of the conference
 and if one keeps poking at those guidelines and pushing discussions not 
 in the premise of the conference, one begins to wonder what their purpose
 is...



 Jim

    -1
    
    You took the words right outta me mouth.
    
    :-)
    Nancy

    >You asked a question, I answered it. It's a little late to move
    >all the topics into one, which I believe it will help keep the 
    >complaining down. But for any new topics, why not keep them in just 
    >one note?
    
    But it sure would lower the THUMPER INDEX. BTW the present THUMPER INDEX
    is 15/393*100 = 3.8
    
    ...Tom

| <<< Note 390.110 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| See, the Christian conference, has guidelines that state the premise of
| the conference.  

	Then you know one can not talk about anything, like Nancy said. Your
premise keeps the conference on a one view system only.



Glen

| <<< Note 390.111 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| You took the words right outta me mouth.

	Didn't Meatloaf sing that in '77?

| <<< Note 390.112 by DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!" >>>


| But it sure would lower the THUMPER INDEX. BTW the present THUMPER INDEX
| is 15/393*100 = 3.8

	Hitting next unseen once would be easier....

    
    Note 390.115, Glen:

	>Hitting next unseen once would be easier....
    
    Who are you kidding, Glen?  You know you'd still participate even if it
    *was* all consolidated in one topic!
    
    ;^)
    
    jc
    

>	Then you know one can not talk about anything, like Nancy said. Your
>premise keeps the conference on a one view system only.



Hmmm...think I better check out the Blues conference and see if you're in there
harranging them on their once view only system.  Of course there is a conference
with Christian in the title where you can share whatever belief about God you
like..


Jim

    It all comes down to the superiority wars just as with feminism.
    
    Instead of seeing the CHRISTIAN notes conference similar to the Blues
    conference, he'd rather see it as an "exclusivity" conference.  It's a
    natural reaction, though not a very accurate one.
    
    Nancy

| <<< Note 390.116 by TROOA::COLLINS "From Sheilus to the Reefs of Kizmar" >>>


| Who are you kidding, Glen?  You know you'd still participate even if it
| *was* all consolidated in one topic!


	jc.... I never said *I* would hit next unseen, just that it would be
easier to do so. :-)


Glen

    Social Insurance Number nature.

    when nuns and priests have to be celibate does that include
    masturbation?
    
    ric

 ZZ     What is a 'sin nature'?
    
    I believe our sin nature is our natural tendency to displease God...
    to miss the mark of Gods perfection.  
    
    My understanding is that "sin" was an archery term.  The distance the
    arrow was from the bullseye was called sin....the bullseye representing 
    perfection.  As humans, we naturally miss this mark.
    
    When we accept Jesus as savior, we take on his perfection and in the
    eyes of God the Father, we are righteous.
    
    -Jack 
    

    American Heritage:
    
    Celibate - 1. Unmarried especially by reasons of religious views.
               2. Sexually abstinent.
    
    I guess it would depend on which one you choose!!!! %-&

    Whereby as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin. 
    That man was Adam, when he broke the commandment of God.  While Eve was
    tempted, temptation is not sin.  
    

    The most pervasively damaging, unjust concept projected by the
    christian ethic is the mystical concept of original sin. By condemming
    humans as sinful christian "authorities" have discovered an effective
    tool to condemn everyone, making everyone guilty, keeping them more
    controllable. This causes almost everyone to be victimized by christian
    style "sin" and "guilt", keeping those who perpetuate this hoax in
    power and control.
    
    IMHO of course
    
    ...Tom

        re .127
       
    >you're getting ahead of me
    
    Sorry, you can have a turn. :)
    
    ...Tom

    .129
    
    hmmm very Taoist
    
    perhaps i should take up tennis - except i don't think my right
    shoulder would thank me
    
    ric

    It's interesting that original sin resulted from taking a bite from the
    fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.
    
    Instead of "sinful nature," I would prefer to think of it as
    imperfection.  Humans are prone to imperfection.  "Sinful nature"
    implies that we'll turn to sin if given even the slightest chance, and
    only religion stands between us and complete venality.  This overlooks
    the fact that people are also capable of spontaneous kindness and
    generosity, that we don't always need to be threatened into behaving
    ourselves, and that good behavior can derive from our inherent nature as 
    well as from God or Christ's inspiration or whatever.

I never put much stock in the "taking a bite of the fruit from the tree
of knowledge" myth. I always figured that what they actually did was
something a little more colorful which wouldn't normally be discussed
in mixed company.

 I believe, and I hesitate to get into this, that sinful nature is that we 
 have a "bent" to disobedience.  Those who have kids know that we have to
 teach our children to obey..their natural tendancy is to disobey. We don't
 lose our desire to disobey as we grow older.  Its just been renamed "do
 your own thing", rather than sinful nature.




Jim

    
 >I believe, and I hesitate to get into this, that sinful nature is that we 
 >have a "bent" to disobedience.  Those who have kids know that we have to
 >teach our children to obey..their natural tendancy is to disobey. We don't
 >lose our desire to disobey as we grow older.  Its just been renamed "do
 >your own thing", rather than sinful nature.

    Hmm.  I find this very interesting.  WHY do we have to obey others?  If
    our natural tendency is to "disobey" and we don't lose the desire, why
    do we have to go against our natural tendency and OBEY someone?
    
    I don't want to obey anyone 8^(.



Jim

What they actually did was

	1. Yielded to the temptation to "be like gods", to usurp God's role.

	2. Disobeyed God's explicit command not to eat of the tree.

	3. Then Adam compounded the sin, by blaming God and Eve for his own
	   disobedience: It wasn't _my_ fault. "The woman whom YOU gave me..."

/john

>    Seems like an allegory for the discovery of reason.

Yet to happen to some 'boxers.

    >Those who have kids know that we have to teach our children to obey..their 
    >natural tendancy is to disobey.
    
    Their natural tendency is to be free and independent. Adults seem to
    have lost this desire because ethics such as Christianity teach that
    individuality and independent thought is sinful. Parents tend to force 
    their children into a mold, assuming that it is in the childs best
    interest, when in fact it teaches children minipulation of others.
    Children know this is wrong and rightfully rebel against it.
    
    ...Tom

    RE: .136, John
    
    >Then Adam compounded the sin, by blaming God and Eve......
    
    
    OK so even if he did something wrong, how does that apply to anybody
    else? Call Adam sinful if you want. But, don't call me sinful because
    Adam did something wrong.
    
    ...Tom

    Re: .134
    
    >I hesitate to get into this
    
    Good instinct.
    
    >that sinful nature is that we have a "bent" to disobedience
    
    Which you could also call a "bent" to free will and self-determination. 
    We like to decide for ourselves.  Should adults obey their parents? 
    Should they raise their children as their parents tell them to, even if
    their own beliefs tell them to raise their children differently?

    ZZ   I don't want to obey anyone 8^(.
    
    Mz. Debra:
    
    Loaded question...say you were me and you were working for a wet behind
    the ears manager...who happened to be a woman, what advice would you
    give me...given the above?
    
    -Meaty

    I also believe in free volition and I believe it is a God given right
    to disobey...
    
    But don't call me mean spirited if I don't have a whole lot of sympathy
    when you face the outcome...in other words, please don't drag me into
    the problem so you can have somebody to blame.
    
    General talk...not directed at any particular individual.
    
    -Jack

    Well, you just made a good argument for anti evolutionism.
    
    

    
    RE: .135
    
    Spoiled Brat!!!!
    

    
    Meaty:  we're not talking work, and you know it!  Don't try to drag me
    into this specific discussion AGAIN 8^).
    
    Andy:  8^pppPppPPppppPPPPPPpppPpPPpPpPpPpPP!!!

    Bwaaaahahahaha!!  Who wants to obey...unless it's work related of
    course. 
    
    Seriously though, I find spouses faithfulness as an act of obedience.
    As we can see, there are alot of disobedient people out there.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 390.136 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| 3. Then Adam compounded the sin, by blaming God and Eve for his own
| disobedience: It wasn't _my_ fault. "The woman whom YOU gave me..."

	Hey Deb, at least women will know when men started blaming women for
everything! :-)

| <<< Note 390.142 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Loaded question...say you were me and you were working for a wet behind
| the ears manager...who happened to be a woman, what advice would you
| give me...given the above?

	Jack, if Deb were you she would spell incorrectly all the time. This
would make Deb feel sick. She spells correctly all the time. Please don't make
Deb sick. :-)

| <<< Note 390.143 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| But don't call me mean spirited if I don't have a whole lot of sympathy when 
| you face the outcome...

	Jack, can we call you mean spirited when you do the above before the
outcome has been decided?


Glen

    Re: .143
    
    >But don't call me mean spirited if I don't have a whole lot of sympathy
    >when you face the outcome...
    
    What does this have to do with the nature of man?
    
    
    Re: .149
    
    >I find spouses faithfulness as an act of obedience.
    
    I see it as an act of commitment.  Someone who refuses to stray isn't
    refraining because they're under orders.  They're refraining because
    their idea of marriage includes fidelity, and they feel it's more
    important or satisfying to uphold that ideal than to fool around.

    Bolder-dash!  :-) 
    
    Tom Ralston you are full of prunes!  The art of obedience and respect
    of authority is what keeps a society from anarchy.  
    
    When teaching our children respect and obedience to authority, we don't
    take away their ability to learn, create and live life to its fullest. 
    On the contrary, we empower them to be all that they can and contribute
    to society in a way that is orderly and decent.
    
    My children though obedient, have learned they can speak their opinion
    respectfully at the "right time" versus being disrespectful to me or
    their father in the heat of the moment.  Oftimes what they find out
    after having obeyed first, is that their opinion wasn't complete for
    they lacked all information needed to form said opinion.
    
    As adults we carry over that "bad habit" of short-sighted opinions all
    too easily.
    
    Nancy

>    I see it as an act of commitment.

I'd have to agree with Chelsea on this. I'm reminded of Cosby's routine
about marriage and the "OOO-bey" part.

    
    >I find spouses faithfulness as an act of obedience.
    
	Obedience to whom?  Each other?  God?  If you mean to God,
	that's one thing, but if you mean to each other, well that's sort
	of a sad way to look at it, in my opinion.  (Not to mention
	unromantic.)

    >But don't call me mean spirited if I don't have a whole lot of sympathy
    >when you face the outcome...
        
  ZZZ      What does this have to do with the nature of man?
    
    Alot.  It is in the nature of humankind to rebel as Mz. Debra so aptly
    put it..."I don't want to obey :-("  And I definitely understand her
    feeling.  I feel the same at times...especially when it comes to
    government.  Unfortunately my feelings contradict biblical principles
    of obeying those who rule over you.
    
    Here's an example
    
    Thumper:  God's Word teaches us not to commit adultery.
    
    Thumpee:  Why don't you shut up and mind your business.
    
    Thumper:  Whatever.
    
    Two years later thumpee is in an AIDS ward.
    
    Dukakis, Gephardt, et al: ...and then those radical right wing mean
    spirited selfish imperialistic capitalists don't have the sensitivity
    or courage to look out for their fellow man....
    
    Thumper: (Gee, I told him he shouldn't commit adultery.)
    
    Chelsea, this happens and people simply don't learn.  Why, because
    thumping interferes with the comfort zone in general causes people to
    think about change.  It is human nature to be complacent. 
                                                       
    -Jack

    
>>    thumping interferes with the comfort zone in general causes people to
>>    think about change.  It is human nature to be complacent. 

	Oh my achin' back.  This is so misguided it's not even funny.
	People don't want to be subjected to other people's over-zealousness
	because they're complacent?  Get a grip, Jack.

I coulda put this in 17, I suppose, but I really wonder sometimes,
if some folks don't get down on their knees everynight and thank their
god for sending AIDS to us so that they've got yet another springboard
from which to trumpet their moral superiority and principles . . . 

    Re: .158
    
    >Alot.
    
    Not really.  It has a lot to do with your attitude toward the world,
    but it doesn't have much to do with the nature of man.
    
    >this happens and people simply don't learn.  Why, because thumping 
    interferes with the comfort zone in general causes people to think about 
    >change.
    
    I'm not parsing this.

    
    Note 390.158
    
    (Against my better judgement) Here's another example:
    
    Thumper:  God's Word teaches us not to commit adultery.
    
    Thumpee:  Why don't you shut up and mind your business.
    
    Thumper:  Whatever.
    
    Two years later thumpee is not ill in any way.
    
    Thumper:  God's Word teaches us not to commit adultery.
    
    Thumpee:  Why don't you shut up and mind your business.
    
    Thumper:  Whatever.
    
    Two years later thumpee is not ill in any way.  In fact, thumpee may
    be married!   :^)
    
    jc
                                                       

	jc.... good analogy. I know the extremes are always used, as it helps
make a point. But Jack, you failed to tell us about all the times thumpers have
said this or that was wrong, and it wasn't. How many people have died because
people who THOUGHT they were giving the advice God would want them to hear?

Parents: My child is sick with a high fever.

Thumper: Let the Lord heal the child! If you believe in Him, He will save!!

Parents: WE BELIEVE! WE BELIEVE!

Doctor:  Your child is dead.


	Jack, many people can give the extremes......


Glen

    Hey Jack:
    
    Do you think I'm getting on my knees thanking God for AIDS...simply
    because I used the topic as an example?  Do you think your statement
    would be taken as mean spirited had I said the same thing about Jewish 
    individuals?
    
    Glen, your example is correct as is JC!  The thumper in your example
    failed to inform the listener that everybody is suseptable to death,
    illness, disease, etc.  
    
    -Jack
    
    

    I would be tempted to start a "How A Thumpee Should Act In The Box" but
    it would only wind up under the 1-800-SOAPBOX topic.
    
    ;-)

| <<< Note 390.164 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Glen, your example is correct as is JC!  The thumper in your example
| failed to inform the listener that everybody is suseptable to death,
| illness, disease, etc.


	Jack, what the thumper in my analogy did was step in and speak for God.
Who gave us any cures we have? I believe it to be God. Maybe you're one who
doesn't think this way. If something comes from God, and someone says don't use
it, then to me, anyway, they are superceeding God. Now if you will tell us if
your belief is that God has given humans the ability to find the cures for some
of what ails us, then the analogy fits. If you tell us He isn't the one who
gave us the cures, I'd be inclined to agree with what you said.


Glen

    Note 390.154, Nancy
    
        >Bolder-dash!  :-)
    
    Does this mean running rocks??
    
    >Tom Ralston you are full of prunes!  The art of obedience and
    >respect of authority is what keeps a society from anarchy.
    
    Authority is a man-invented concept used to negate responsibility for
    one's own life. No one, I repeat NO ONE, can know what is best for any
    individual life, except for that individual. Anyone who claims
    authority over someone does it to their own end and not to the benefit
    of the one they are usurping authority over. That being the case anyone
    who forces that authority over another is immoral and not deserving of
    any respect and will never get my attention or allegiance..
    
    Besides, I like prunes.
    
    >after having obeyed first, is that their opinion wasn't complete
    >for they lacked all information needed to form said opinion.
    
    Yes, and now they have your opinion instead of their own. Isn't that
    sweet, since your opinion is always the correct one!
    
    ...Tom

Hey Jack:

     You missed the point.

	A Christian should act like a snarf!

	Jack, here is another thing I noticed about your note dealing with
AIDS. You went with an after the fact model. How about if we use that too.
Remember, this is stuff people thought God wanted, but later realized they were
wrong:

person : Why am I here today?

Christian : You're a witch and you will die!

crowd : NO! This is wrong! Don't do that!

Christian : This is what God wants, the person will die!


	End result is they were wrong. The after the fact is easy to
illistrate. Like yours, knowing the end result is all too easy to push for a
moral ending. It's also oh so easy to show past mistakes. 

	What it comes down to is if someone says they don't want to hear it, if
it's in notes they could hit next unseen, but in life, just stop. If you want
to push your morals onto someone else, don't. Discuss them, but don't push them
like they are absolute or something.



Glen

 No doubt, Jack (.160) there are some that do.  Most, however, get on their
 knees and pray for those who are afflicted, and show them the love that
 Christ would have them to know.  Yes, there are some who call themselves
 Christians who condemn AIDS victims, who even picket their funerals and
  say that God hates fags, or some such nonsense..unfortunately those are
 the ones who get the TV coverage.


 'Tis a shame that somehow the message of Christianity has been so twisted
 and misunderstood (and misrepresented).  It is truly wonderful to be 
 a Christian.


 Jim

        >Bolder-dash!  :-)
    
>>    Does this mean running rocks??
    
    No, it means thicker -  :-)
    
        
>    Authority is a man-invented concept used to negate responsibility for
>    one's own life. No one, I repeat NO ONE, can know what is best for any
>    individual life, except for that individual. Anyone who claims
    
    And at what age do you believe that each individual has the ability to
    know what is best for them.  My 8 year old seems to think that eating
    candy for 3 meals would be the best thing for himself, what do you
    think?
    
    
>    authority over someone does it to their own end and not to the benefit
>    of the one they are usurping authority over. That being the case anyone
>    who forces that authority over another is immoral and not deserving of
>    any respect and will never get my attention or allegiance..
    
    Bull you care talking corrupt authority here.  What you are saying on
    the one hand is that we each know what is "best", and then you say that
    humanity is corrupt and only fends for itself.  You are confused at
    best.
    
    
    >Besides, I like prunes.
    
    Yeah so do the cabbage patch babies. :-)
        
    >Yes, and now they have your opinion instead of their own. Isn't that
    >sweet, since your opinion is always the correct one!
    
    Now isn't that quite an assumption on your part.  Oftimes, I have been
    the one wrong, the key is keeping things from turning into an anarchy
    in the home.  Teaching respect for authority helps this process.  I'm
    beginning to wonder if you have ever raised children or are in the
    process of raising children.
    
    I believe the governmental structure of the home directly relates to
    the way children will behave as adults in society.
    

    If you let your kids eat candy 3 meals a day (if they think they know
    best), then you end up with sick kids with bad teeth.  Guess who pays
    to fix the situation?  If, after fixing the situation, you let them do
    what they think is best, you will pay again in the not too distant
    future.
    
    This is not a far stretch from society's mentality on their own
    morality.  Too many wish to eat candy three meals a day every day, yet
    when the dentist and doctor bills come in, they cannot afford the cost. 
    Those who discipline themselves and take care of their own lives, end
    up paying for those who do not.
    
    We all know right from wrong, and we don't have to read the Bible to
    know it...it's written in our conscience.  However, as with kids, we do
    what we WANT to do- whether it is wrong or not.  We rationalize it and
    eventually desensitize ourselves to it until it doesn't seem wrong at
    all, but a societal norm. 
    
    Today, our norms include many rather un-Biblical lifestyles.  I find it
    no coincidence that with such lifestyles come a variety of societal
    problems.  God would most certainly know which behaviors/lifestyles
    would be damaging to His design, wouldn't He?  
    
    Though you may not believe the Bible is the word of God, it would seem
    that it is spot on in regards to harmful behaviors.  The "thumpers" are
    obligated to speak out on such behaviors, and as such become unpopular
    to those who wish to engage in those behaviors.  It isn't the thumping
    that is really causing all this animosity, it is the effect the message
    has on the hearer in regards to behaviors that they wish to be
    considered "ok" by society and on the individual level.  The theory
    goes that if enough people think it is okay to do a particular thing,
    then such behavior is not a bad thing.  But then come the "thumpers"
    ruining all the fun.
    
    I'm trying to be generic enough in regards to behaviors, as I don't
    wish to be barraged by a string of defensieve replies.  I believe I've
    left it generic enough to be able to fit any one of several
    behaviors/lifestyles that have proven to be damaging to society.
    
                                                                   
    -steve

    Glen:
    
    Oh for crying out loud....Okay..the guy gets syphalis and
    dies...alright!!  SHEEEESH!!!!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 390.173 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>


| Today, our norms include many rather un-Biblical lifestyles. I find it no 
| coincidence that with such lifestyles come a variety of societal problems. God
| would most certainly know which behaviors/lifestyles would be damaging to His 
| design, wouldn't He?

	Steve, all anyone is really saying is let God decide, and not humans.
Pretty simple, isn't it?

| I believe I've left it generic enough to be able to fit any one of several
| behaviors/lifestyles that have proven to be damaging to society.

	Steve, lifestyles that have been proven to be damaging to society? I
think the problem is not all lifestyles that Christians deem as damaging really
are.


Glen

| <<< Note 390.174 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Oh for crying out loud....Okay..the guy gets syphalis and dies...alright!!  


	Jack, you really don't get it, do you..... it doesn't matter what
disease you insert into the equation, and it doesn't change it. You know the
outcome with the after the fact method you used. Because of that, my examples
stand. I wish you would respond to the replies.


Glen

ZZ    Steve, all anyone is really saying is let God decide, and not
ZZ    humans.  Pretty simple, isn't it?
    
    Gee, I always thought that whatever we sown, that shall we also reap.  
    I thought God was letting us decide.   IMO, your statement is flawed.
    We don't let God decide...that's just the point!  You and I are feeling
    the effects of this today!
    
    -Jack

Note 390.175 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" 

    
>	Steve, all anyone is really saying is let God decide, and not humans.
>Pretty simple, isn't it?

    God has already decided.  Many choose not to listen.  This is the
    point.  And we *knowingly* make our choices, which is another issue.
    
    The problem is, humans wish to play by their own rules and ignore what
    is right, which is at the very nature of our rebellion against God.
    
    It matters not if you believe He exists, if He does and has a code of
    conduct for us to follow (for our own good).  You ignore it at your own
    peril (this should not be taken as a "you are going to burn in hell"
    type of peril, as I am referring to more temporal effects here). 
    
    
    -steve

RE: 390.172
    
    >And at what age do you believe that each individual has the ability to
    >know what is best for them.  
    
    Age really isn't the issue, it is parental guidance that is the issue.
    The two most valuable gifts that a parent can give their chldren are
    (1) respect as conscious beings with individual rights, and (2)
    environments that promote honesty, assertive effort, integrity,
    independence, and the skill to accurately perceive reality.    
        
    >Bull you care talking corrupt authority here.  What you are saying on
    >the one hand is that we each know what is "best", and then you say that
    >humanity is corrupt and only fends for itself.  You are confused at
    >best.
    
    Sounds like you are the one confused. I know what is best for me and me
    alone. Apparently, unlike you, I am not so presumptuous to think that I
    know what is best for others. So-called "authorities" presume they know
    what is best for everyone and in fact use their power to force their
    views on others.
    
    
    >I'm beginning to wonder if you have ever raised children or are in the
    >process of raising children.
    
    Wonder no more. I have two fine sons who are intelligent, ambitious and
    independent. One is a Freshman in high school and the other a Pre-Med
    Student in college. I have confidence that both will live a full,
    successful and happy life. When raising them I practiced what I
    "preach".
    
    ...Tom

    Okay Tom, since you have successfully set off two fine young men to
    contribute to society, tell me what you considered behavior from your
    "children" prior to this setting off that required discipline and what
    discipline did you use to curb this behavior?
    
    Nancy

    Re: .173
    
    >If you let your kids eat candy 3 meals a day 
    
    They'll probably get tired of it after a while.  Candy can get just as
    monotonous as vegetables.  Of course, they would probably be too
    stubborn to admit that they'd rather not eat candy all day every day.
    
    Just out of curiosity, what do you give them for snacks when they're
    eating candy for meals?  String beans?

                      <<< Note 390.129 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>

>    Doesn't 'love' mean nothing in tennis?

    	It actually comes from the French term l'oeuvre  (sp?)  which
    	means "the egg" since a zero is relatively egg-shaped.

    l'oeuvre means the work. l'oeuf means the egg.

                      <<< Note 390.131 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>

>    Sin seems to be disappointment at the inability to accept nature. Death
>    is a result of sin, sickness is a result of sin, unhappiness is a
>    result of sin, bee-stings are a result of sin etc.
>    
>    Why am I not happy? Sin.
>    Why am I not rich? Sin.
>    Why can I not accept nature? Sin.
>    Why do I get polyps? Sin.
    
	What a bunch of terrible misconceptions!  No wonder you are so
    	anti-christian.  I would expect ANYONE to be so if the above
    	were the basis for their views.

>>       I think L'�uvre is also a big palace with Mona Lisa.

	Unless you're traveling with George, in which case it's
	the Louver.

    	re .160
    
    	Surely you don't mean to characterize any particular group with
    	that statement, Jack!
    
    	Sure, "some" folks do that, just as "some" folks are probably
    	thanking god for the bombing in Oklahoma City as we speak.
    
    	I find .160 somewhat disturbing.

    
    
    aren't louvres those black things that you see a lot on the back of
    sports cars windows???
    
    

    > They'll probably get tired of it after a while.  Candy can get just
    > as monotonous as vegetables.  Of course, they would probably be too
    > stubborn to admit that they'd rather not eat candy all day every day.
    >
    > Just out of curiosity, what do you give them for snacks when they're
    > eating candy for meals?  
    
    "Bread and jam for Francis".
    
    DougO

            <<< Note 390.162 by TROOA::COLLINS "Just add beer..." >>>

>    Two years later thumpee is not ill in any way.
    
>    Two years later thumpee is not ill in any way.  In fact, thumpee may
>    be married!   :^)
    
    	Jack Martin used a very emotionally-charged example by using
    	AIDS as the result -- even if he had chosed a curable VD as
    	the result.  There are so many ills that are a result of 
    	out-of-wedlock sex.  Some concrete ones would be unwanted 
    	pregnancies (and perhaps abortion as a result), divorce,
    	rape.  Other more subtle ills might be emotional trauma,
    	a loss of respect for sexual contact, lack of trust of
    	current partner, loss of self-respect, LOSS OF THE ABILITY
    	TO GIVE THE GIFT OF ONE'S VIRGINITY to one's true love, a
    	contribution to the overall degradation of society's conscience,
    	a breakdown of one's personal conscience, spiritual illness,
    	guilt.
    

>>     <<< Note 390.192 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

	apropos of nothing, really, most of those could be incurred from
	sex within the marriage as well.

                  <<< Note 390.175 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Steve, all anyone is really saying is let God decide, and not humans.
>Pretty simple, isn't it?
    
    	Pretty simplistic.
    
    	What you seem to be calling for will result in God getting to
    	decide quite a bit sooner than He would if we all followed some
    	moral guidelines.
    
    	You know that I (and others) will merely tell you that what you	
    	are attributing to "human decisions" are really given to us by
    	God in the first place.  Also, failure to heed those decisions
    	often results in clear consequences, so whether it is a "human
    	decision" or God's decision, they are worth following all the
    	same.
    
>	Steve, lifestyles that have been proven to be damaging to society? I
>think the problem is not all lifestyles that Christians deem as damaging really
>are.

	Which ones aren't?  Surely you have something in mind when you
    	wrote that statement.

             <<< Note 390.193 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>

>	apropos of nothing, really, most of those could be incurred from
>	sex within the marriage as well.

    	Not under a marriage where the relationship is lived with the
    	respect and love that the spouses are called by God to share
    	with each other.
    
    	Under "marriage" as practiced and portrayed by much of society,
    	I have no disagreement with your statement.

>>     <<< Note 390.195 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


	Well of course (just as I didn't assume you meant _all_ 
	relationships outside of marriage).

    
    Note 390.192, Joe:
    
    	>There are so many ills that are a result of 
    	>out-of-wedlock sex.  Some concrete ones would be unwanted 
    	>pregnancies (and perhaps abortion as a result),
    
    ...can happen within marriage, too! (as Lady Di said)
    
        >divorce,
    
    Divorce out-of-wedlock?!?!  :^)
    
    	>rape.
    
    ...is NOT synonymous with out-of-wedlock sex, Joe.  Get a grip!
    
        >Other more subtle ills might be emotional trauma,
    	>a loss of respect for sexual contact, lack of trust of
    	>current partner, loss of self-respect,
    
    I can honestly say that none of the above have ever been a problem for
    me as a result of out-of-wedlock sex.
    
        >LOSS OF THE ABILITY TO GIVE THE GIFT OF ONE'S VIRGINITY to one's
        >true love,
    
    The flip side being the ability to provide your true love with more
    fulfilling sex based upon acquired experience...

        >a contribution to the overall degradation of society's conscience,
    
    Blaming ME for that, are you?
    
    	>a breakdown of one's personal conscience,
    
    Hardly.
    
        >spiritual illness,
    
    As in, not religious?  Yes, you are right.
    
    	>guilt.
    
    HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!
    
    jc
    

>    	Not under a marriage where the relationship is lived with the
>    	respect and love that the spouses are called by God to share
>    	with each other.

Not real sure where this is going but under the above definition, one of
both of the spoused can most certainly get AIDS and a host of other
infections, diseases, etc.

I agree if'n you're just talking about STDs.

TTom

    FreIt's a lot of work to lay an egg.nch
    
    roughly translated:
    
    Pondre des oeufs, c'est un travail forc�.
    
    => laying eggs, that's hard work.

re: .189

>    	Surely you don't mean to characterize any particular group with
>    	that statement, Jack!
    
Nope - just "some folks" - just like I said in .160, Joe. "Some folks".

>    	I find .160 somewhat disturbing.

Like much else in here is to me or others, it may well be disturbing
to you. Hope I clarified that.

    I like my l'oeuvres over easy, with a little tabasco.

            <<< Note 390.197 by TROOA::COLLINS "Just add beer..." >>>

>        >divorce,
>    
>    Divorce out-of-wedlock?!?!  :^)
    
    	Maybe you don't need it explained.  Maybe you do.  The smiley
    	confuses me.
    
>    	>rape.
>    
>    ...is NOT synonymous with out-of-wedlock sex, Joe.  Get a grip!
    
    	Never said it was.  In fact I never said that out-of-wedlock sex
    	will lead to ALL these things -- especially at the individual
    	level.
    
>        >Other more subtle ills might be emotional trauma,
>    	>a loss of respect for sexual contact, lack of trust of
>    	>current partner, loss of self-respect,
>    
>    I can honestly say that none of the above have ever been a problem for
>    me as a result of out-of-wedlock sex.
    
    	And I never said that any specific individual would necessarily
    	experience any one or more of these.
    
>        >LOSS OF THE ABILITY TO GIVE THE GIFT OF ONE'S VIRGINITY to one's
>        >true love,
>    
>    The flip side being the ability to provide your true love with more
>    fulfilling sex based upon acquired experience...
    
    	And what if, after marriage, one spouse finds that the other
    	just can't do it as well as some previous partner?  See
    	"divorce" above.  Or substitute a lifetime of discontent.
    	"Acquired experience" could very easily imply "acquired
    	diseases" or acquired emotional baggage.
    
>        >a contribution to the overall degradation of society's conscience,
>    
>    Blaming ME for that, are you?
    
    	Not individually, but in concert with the rest of society's
    	acceptance and propogation of the notion of things like
    	"acquired experience", yes you can take partial blame for it.

    RE: Note 390.182
    
    >Okay Tom, since you have successfully set off two fine young men to
    >contribute to society, tell me what you considered behavior from
    >your "children" prior to this setting off that required discipline and
    >what discipline did you use to curb this behavior?
    
    Nancy:
    
    I'm not sure what your question is and I'm not sure what behavior you
    speak of. I think that behavioral problems and problems between parents
    and children often develop from the parents' failure to respect their
    own children and parent's failure to treat children as human beings
    with individual rights. Parents, for example, commonly initiate force
    and physically assult their children under the euphemisms of spanking,
    protection and discipline. If children are not granted respect, they
    may never develop respect for themselves, for their parents, people or
    values. Such children often develop into the takers of this world,
    they survive by usurping their living as politicians, trouble-making
    lawyers, destructive bureaucrats, criminals, theologians, media
    journalists or educators who hold little or no respect for honesty. In
    general they develop into someone who takes more from society than they
    give.
    
    If a parent repects the rights of their children, that respect is
    honestly and rightfully returned. Because of this respect my children
    trusted me not to lead them astray when I explained my thoughts. My
    children were always, even from a very young age, allowed to make their
    own choices. This after I explained the possible consequences that
    could result from certain possible choices. They now seem to make
    decisions that are good for their lives.
    
    IMO
    ...Tom

>    	And what if, after marriage, one spouse finds that the other
>    	just can't do it as well as some previous partner?  See
>    	"divorce" above.  Or substitute a lifetime of discontent.

And what if, after marriage, one spouse finds that the other
just can't do it well period even though they have no frame
of reference with which to compare it? Again a lifetime of
discontent.

C'mon, Joe. Where are we going with this?

Again, as far as the preservation of the virginity goes, how about
the widow, the widower, and the divorced individuals? They don't
necessarily have any virginity to offer a future spouse. Does this
mean they should spend the rest of their days in solitude because
they are "unworthy"?

    Tom,
    
    Did you ever have sibling rivlary between children?

    >Did you ever have sibling rivlary between children?
    
    Yes.
    
    ...Tom

its

    Note 390.206, Joe:
    
    	>Maybe you don't need it explained.  Maybe you do.

    A kind fellow 'boxer clarified your point for me.  :^)
    
    	>And I never said that any specific individual would necessarily
    	>experience any one or more of these.

    No, but you claim that they *could*, and that seems to be enough reason
    for you to pass judgement.
    
    	>And what if, after marriage, one spouse finds that the other
    	>just can't do it as well as some previous partner? 

    One is less likely to be sexually incompatible with a spouse when one
    has already slept with that person prior to marriage, I would think.

    	>"Acquired experience" could very easily imply "acquired
    	>diseases" or acquired emotional baggage.

    And could very easily not, as well.  And a religious upbringing could
    *very easily* imply "acquired emotional baggage", I have found.
    
        >...in concert with the rest of society's
    	>acceptance and propogation of the notion of things like
    	>"acquired experience", yes you can take partial blame for it.

    Uhhh...how much "partial blame" do you intend to take for the more
    extreme forms of religious fundamentalism, homophobia, religious or
    sexual discrimination, "preistly pedophilia", or any of the other
    negatives that tend to get linked to the church?  I saw the kind of
    bile spread by some members of the church during Oregon's Ballot 
    Measure 9.  How much blame do you take for that?

    jc

        <<< Note 390.208 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>And what if, after marriage, one spouse finds that the other
>just can't do it well period even though they have no frame
>of reference with which to compare it? Again a lifetime of
>discontent.
    
    	How do they know the other CAN'T do it well?  What are they
    	expecting -- what society has convinced them they should expect?
    
    	Virgin couples will stumble, and bumble, and grow together in 
    	knowledge and experience and love.  Sharing virginity is only
    	one gift.  Sharing the mutual discovery is yet another.  Your 
    	suggestion might also encompass extramarital affairs so that 
    	fresh "experiences" can be introduced into the relationship.  
    	This is a very weak reason at best for supporting out-of-wedlock 
    	sex.  And let's not forget that all this "experience" comes at 
    	the risk of additional exoposure to disease.
    
    	The most recent US census statistics show that pre-marital sex 
    	leads to a higher rate of divorce -- in fact it is doubled.
    	"Experience" doesn't seem to be all you are trying to crank it
    	up to be,

>C'mon, Joe. Where are we going with this?
    
    	The question is, where are you going with this?  You all choose
    	to pick each possible problem and examine it as an isolated
    	issue, where in reality as a society we are experiencing them all
    	at an ever-increasing rate that parallels our societal decline
    	in sexual morality.  Divided, you can conquer these and dismiss
    	them -- each is easily beaten up in isolation.
    
	It is an overall mindset.  A degeneration of social conscience.
    	Perhaps you might want to consider that beating up on the
    	individual issues might just be an attempt at an appeasment
    	of conscience.
    
>Again, as far as the preservation of the virginity goes, how about
>the widow, the widower, and the divorced individuals? They don't
>necessarily have any virginity to offer a future spouse. Does this
>mean they should spend the rest of their days in solitude because
>they are "unworthy"?
    
    	Actually, remarriage after widowhood carries many of the same
    	problems as marriage after divorce or premarital sex.  (In 
    	addition to the emotional problems of having lost a loved
    	spouse.)  There are special support groups to address their
    	special issues.  Yes, one of the problems is an issue of
    	comparison -- not only sexually, but comparisons of habits,
    	openness, struggles with memories, etc.
    
    	Having said that, I find it rather unfair that you should 
    	attempt to use the pain of widowhood to hide behind when
    	you try to justify sexual immorality.

            <<< Note 390.214 by TROOA::COLLINS "Just add beer..." >>>

>    	>And I never said that any specific individual would necessarily
>    	>experience any one or more of these.
>
>    No, but you claim that they *could*, and that seems to be enough reason
>    for you to pass judgement.
    
    	Not passing judgement.  Making observations.  Feel free to 
    	turn a blind eye to them if you want.
    
>    One is less likely to be sexually incompatible with a spouse when one
>    has already slept with that person prior to marriage, I would think.
    
    	As I mentioned in .215, couples who have premarital sex are 
    	statistically 50% more likely to divorce according to the US
    	census.

    
    Note 390.216, Joe:
    
    	>Not passing judgement.  Making observations.
    
    Your `disclaimer du jour' doesn't fool us, Joe.   :^)
    
    Anyway, I should know better than to bother with this topic...
    

    Re: .215
    
    >How do they know the other CAN'T do it well?
    
    You mean barring discomfort and/or a relative lack of pleasant
    sensations?  Gosh, I dunno.
    
    >The most recent US census statistics show that pre-marital sex leads
    >to a higher rate of divorce
    
    Fifty times on the blackboard:  "Correlation is not causality."
    
    >Yes, one of the problems is an issue of comparison
    
    And since these people cannot give each other the "gift" of virginity,
    does that make their love any less true?  If no, then why is it only
    the gift of virginity outside marriage which 'cheats' a spouse?

           <<< Note 390.218 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    Fifty times on the blackboard:  "Correlation is not causality."
    
    	"Is not"?  How about "is not necessarily..."  Why must there
    	NOT be a relation between the cause and the correlation? 
    	Because you don't want to believe it?  
    
    	Do you need undeniable proof for everything?  Does it have to hit
    	you between the eyes like a brick before you believe something?
    	Would you be willing to believe that there is even SOME relation
    	between the two?
    
>    And since these people cannot give each other the "gift" of virginity,
>    does that make their love any less true?  If no, then why is it only
>    the gift of virginity outside marriage which 'cheats' a spouse?

    	Never said that their love is less true, nor did I say that 
    	couples who experience premarital sex (either with each other
    	or with other people) have a love that is any less true.  I
    	only said that sex with others can bring problems into their
    	relationship.
    
    	And I also did not say that *ONLY* the gift of virginity outside
    	of marriage cheats the spouse.  You are usually better than
    	that, Chelsea.

    This whole idea ,created by Religious fundamentalists, that immorality
    and immoral acts relate to sex is rediculous. 
    
    ...Tom

    	Ridiculous to you, Tom.
    
    	From a purely sociological point of view, do you see the
    	possibility that following sexual guidelines as espoused by
    	mainstream Christianity would greatly reduce the problems
    	I've been addressing today?

    
    Note 390.221, Joe:
    
    	>From a purely sociological point of view, do you see the
    	>possibility that following sexual guidelines as espoused by
    	>mainstream Christianity would greatly reduce the problems
    	>I've been addressing today?
    
    The *possibility*?  Certainly.  But based on the numerous cases of
    "preistly pedophilia" that continue to float to the surface, and cases
    such as the Swaggart and Bakker scandals, do you not at least see the 
    *possibility* that the guidelines the Church espouses in relation to sex 
    may be so unnatural as to be virtually impossible for a society as a 
    whole to adhere to, especially a society like the U.S., in which freedom 
    and individuality are such valued commodities?
    

>								 Your
>        suggestion might also encompass extramarital affairs so that
>        fresh "experiences" can be introduced into the relationship.

"Might" being a key word in the above. It "might", but it wasn't meant to
so can we drop that ridiculous supposition, or is it necessary to your
thesis to assume that consideration of any sex outside of marriage also
requires full acceptance and approval of extramarital affairs?

>       This is a very weak reason at best for supporting out-of-wedlock
>       sex.

In which case we needn't belabor this either.

>        The most recent US census statistics show that pre-marital sex
>        leads to a higher rate of divorce -- in fact it is doubled.

Well, I supose I'll take your word for the "statistics" however I wasn't
aware of the fact that the Census bureau was now the definitive 
sociological expert on what divorces result from.

>        "Experience" doesn't seem to be all you are trying to crank it
>        up to be,


OK, Joe - I'll bite. What am I/are we "trying to crank it up to be"? I
could have sworn this whole discussion stemmed from a "mind your own
business" commentary rather than a "Do this - it's Neat!" suggestion.


>       Having said that, I find it rather unfair that you should
>        attempt to use the pain of widowhood to hide behind when
>        you try to justify sexual immorality.

You shouldn't try to stretch so far, Joe. You'll strain yourself.

    With all of this talk about sex in this topic, should christians be
    having sex in the box?  

	Brian, only with their married spouses. :-)

    Chelsea:
    
    Would it be fair to compare divorce statistics in the early 20th
    century to those of today?  
    
    One might conclude that living together/free lifestyles/promiscuity/
    unfaithfulness of the average person today does in fact have an effect
    on the divorce rate.  In the early 20th century, were the mores of
    society different to have kept the divorce rate down?
    
    Anybody can answer.  I'm just driving the point that behavior can be
    causal.
    
    -Jack

    .226
    
    Since anybody can answer, maybe it hasn't occurred to you that the
    cause of the rise in the divorce rate might be due to the fact that
    divorce isn't stigmatized as it was in the early 20th century.  Back
    then, marriage was a lifetime commitment.  Today it's not.  But that's
    not entirely due to "living together/free lifestyles/promiscuity/
    unfaithfulness" - some of it is simply an insistence on greater
    personal freedom in all areas of one's life.
    

    So what we have done is redefine what marriage is about.
    
    I find this disturbing.  Reason being is that this so called freedom
    perpetuates misery on children, definitely causes riffs between the
    husband and wife, definite money problems in alot of cases and other
    social ills which reek havoc on society.  We have dead beat dads, moms
    on welfare, day care issues, and children who statistically are more
    likely to drop out of school and turn to crime if they are from a
    broken home.
    
    Three cheers for the wisdom of the baby boomers...dopes!
    
    -Jack

    .228
    
    > Three cheers for the wisdom of the baby boomers...dopes!
    
    You, of course, are not a baby boomer?
    
    You might find the following definition amusing.  It's from the
    Curmudgeon's Dictionary:
    
        marriage n.  Formerly, a lifelong contract for love, companionship,
        and mutual benefit between two parties of opposite sexes. 
        Presently, a socially acceptable agreement by two parties to share
        bed and board until they tire of each other's company.
    
            I shall marry in haste, and repeat at leisure.
    
        				- James Branch Cabell, "Jurgen"

    Re: .219
    
    >How about "is not necessarily..."
    
    Because that would not be true.  Correlation means that two things
    show up together.  Causality means that one caused the other.  These
    two definitions are not equivalent; therefore, correlation is not (and
    never will be) causality.
    
    >Why must there NOT be a relation between the cause and the correlation?
    
    There can be.  But that relationship is NOT equivalence.  And you
    cannot assume that the relationship is always present.  Correlation
    does not constitute proof of causality; it is merely evidence that
    causality might be present.
    
    >Do you need undeniable proof for everything?
    
    I need reasonable proof.
    
    >I only said that sex with others can bring problems into their 
    >relationship.
    
    And a lack of sexual experience can bring problems into the
    relationship.  Different problems, of course, but problems.

    Re: .226
    
    >Would it be fair to compare divorce statistics in the early 20th
    >century to those of today?
    
    It's fair to compare anything.  The question is what it's fair to
    conclude.  The two periods don't just differ by societal mores; they
    also differ in laws and economies.

    Jack, 
    
    one might conclude that "women" tolerated mens "affairs" or
    "indiscretions"(sp) back in the early 20th century. "Women" were 
    EXPECTED to be "house"wives and nothing more, Not now though! Women
    have more opportunity to make "choices".  
    
    Today people are waiting longer, taking thier time making
    the "decision of a life time" and yes, "taking the perverbal car out
    for a test ride" before making a life long investment. Back some 40
    years ago, you got what you got. My family was formed from just that
    type of attitude, as were many of our families in the baby booming
    years. As far as my text books go, baby boomers are between the years
    1945 - 1964. My whole family falls in that time frame. Most of the 
    families I know do, most are also labled "dysfunctional" 
    Divorce is still what is was, a horrible and terrible thing to go through 
    on our way to continue our lives. 
    Women (and men) are coming forward with abuse, neglect and domestic 
    upheaval. Should we save a marriage that is doomed or should we move on 
    with our lives in hopes of a better future? Should we indure abuse for
    the sake of the "Society lable of divorce". Dream on with that one. 
    
    The children know only what we tell them. If we pit ex against ex, 
    the child will have problems..but if a divorce is made to be peaceful
    and not cut throat, the children will see compromise, affection and
    learn the realities of the world....we don't always get it right the 
    first time. People make mistakes and it's ok to do so, no shame, no 
    blame. Adults need to keep the children out of the battle, because they
    are just victims with no choices except for what we give them.   
    
    This is ALL in my humble opinion. I know many people that are divorced.
    I know some that the kids were miserable when the parents lived
    together, and now the kids are happy. I know woman and men who can't
    seem to get on with their lives, so they make the ex-spouse the target
    for thier misery. It's never nice Jack, but sometimes, a marriage that 
    is not functional, is just as nasty. 
    
    me.
    

    Good points...however, I don't know about this trying the car out
    before buying it.  Statistically, the divorce rate on people who live
    together is higher than those who do not.  I have heard this but not
    sure where the data comes from!
    
    -Jack

    .210
    
    So how did you handle sibling rivalry.  
    
    BTW, in the shower this morning the term "blind" obedience came to
    mind.  I think perhaps this is to what you are referring and if this is
    to what you are referring, then we agree.
    
    Nancy

        <<< Note 390.223 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>>        suggestion might also encompass extramarital affairs so that
>>        fresh "experiences" can be introduced into the relationship.
>
>"Might" being a key word in the above. It "might", but it wasn't meant to
>so can we drop that ridiculous supposition, or is it necessary to your
>thesis to assume that consideration of any sex outside of marriage also
>requires full acceptance and approval of extramarital affairs?
    
    	My thesis states that the continuous loosening of sexual morals
    	as a whole in this society parallels the proliferation is sexually-
    	related problems that we face.  As I said before, taking individual
    	issues in isolation makes it hard to see the complete toll.  You
    	are attempting to do that again.
    
    	And your sudden problem with words like "might" is rather unfair
    	at this point as this whole discussion -- on both sides -- your
    	participation included -- has used non absolute terms, and 
    	rightly so because absolutes are subject to easy dismissal.
    	Now, whether your statement meant to include extramarital
    	affairs or not, the logic behind your statement supports its
    	inclusion, and thus demonstrates why your statement must be
    	exposed as flawed.

>OK, Joe - I'll bite. What am I/are we "trying to crank it up to be"? I
>could have sworn this whole discussion stemmed from a "mind your own
>business" commentary rather than a "Do this - it's Neat!" suggestion.
    
    	Why should it not be my business to speak out against social
    	cancer?  Do you think it is better to simply ignore such social
    	ills?  I suspect you do.

    	re .227
    
    	Dick --  Do you think that the current acceptance of divorce is
    	a good thing?  Or even simply better than the societal view of
    	it 90 years ago?

           <<< Note 390.230 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    >Why must there NOT be a relation between the cause and the correlation?
>    
>    There can be.  But that relationship is NOT equivalence.  And you
>    cannot assume that the relationship is always present.  Correlation
>    does not constitute proof of causality; it is merely evidence that
>    causality might be present.
    
    	That's all I've tried to make of it -- that the causality might
    	be present.  You're the one who cares about the forest for the
    	trees and would rather quibble over specific semantics and
    	equivalencies.  You are the one who is using the word ALWAYS.
    
>    And a lack of sexual experience can bring problems into the
>    relationship.  Different problems, of course, but problems.

    	So which problems are more likely to occur?  Which problems
    	are more severe?  What is your point?

                    <<< Note 390.232 by ABACUS::MINICHINO >>>
    
>    Most of the 
>    families I know do, most are also labled "dysfunctional" 
    
    	I find this hard to believe, unless we are using some unreasonably-
    	broad term for ""dysfunctional".  Or maybe this is just a birds-of-
    	the-feather issue.
    
>    Women (and men) are coming forward with abuse, neglect and domestic 
>    upheaval. Should we save a marriage that is doomed or should we move on 
>    with our lives in hopes of a better future? Should we indure abuse for
>    the sake of the "Society lable of divorce". Dream on with that one. 
    
    	The problem with this thinking is that you are assuming that
    	the majority of divorces are a result of the problems you list,
    	whereas they are only a very small portion of them are for
    	such reasons.  In fact, over 60% of divorces are due to a 
    	lack of communication -- disagreement over money, over religious
    	differences, over child rearing, etc.  Not sexual incompatibility,
    	not abuse, not infidelity.  
    
>    I know some that the kids were miserable when the parents lived
>    together, and now the kids are happy. 
    
    	Again, this does not support the common cases.  In general the
    	kids of divorced parents are NOT happier, or even happy.  Too
    	many studies support this to simply dismiss it because you know
    	a few who seem otherwise.

>    	Now, whether your statement meant to include extramarital
>    	affairs or not, the logic behind your statement supports its
>    	inclusion, and thus demonstrates why your statement must be
>    	exposed as flawed.

Aw, c'mon, Joe. You're trying to pull a Jack Martin here. Ww both
know that shouldn't be necessary. The logic behind my statement doesn't
support it other than in an opinion, certainly not in the words.

>>OK, Joe - I'll bite. What am I/are we "trying to crank it up to be"? I
>>could have sworn this whole discussion stemmed from a "mind your own
>>business" commentary rather than a "Do this - it's Neat!" suggestion.
>    	Why should it not be my business to speak out against social
>    	cancer?  Do you think it is better to simply ignore such social
>    	ills?  I suspect you do.

Huh? Why not answer the question? What do you think anyone is trying
to crank it up to be. My guess is that you fully realize such a claim
is a red herring which you'd rather not expose. 

    El Delbalso.... I've been expecting you! Sit down....drink?
    
    Ohh let me guess... Vodka Martini, shaken not stirred?

Too strong for me, Martin.

    Water with a twist of lemon ?

    
    Do you expect him to talk, Blofeld?
    
    :^)
    

Much more my style . . . 

    After a couple of Vodka Martinis I'd expect anyone to talk !!!! :*)

        <<< Note 390.239 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>The logic behind my statement doesn't
>support it other than in an opinion, certainly not in the words.
    
    	Sorry.  I disagree.

>Huh? Why not answer the question? What do you think anyone is trying
>to crank it up to be. 

    	What I said was being cranked up was the notion that pre-marital
    	sex is beneficial to the married couple.  I believe that you
    	were one proponent of the idea, stating that it adds experience
    	to the sexual relationship.  Are you saying that the idea of
    	pre-marital sex was NOT being supported here being beneficial?

| <<< Note 390.236 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Dick --  Do you think that the current acceptance of divorce is a good thing? 
| Or even simply better than the societal view of it 90 years ago?


	Joe, I'm not Dick, but I'll answer anyways. :-)  If a marriage is not
together for love, is it a marriage? Just being together for the sake of being
there, is not any type of real marriage to begin with. Does staying together
make it one if no love is involved? 

	But on the other side, I think a lot of marriages today don't start out
based on love, (at least from both parties, some with none) they are more based
on convience and they're supposed to be married, so they do it.


Glen

>    	Sorry.  I disagree.


Well, go ahead and indulge yourself then, Joe, but the fact remains that
no one said anything about approving of extramarital affairs.

>    	to the sexual relationship.  Are you saying that the idea of
>    	pre-marital sex was NOT being supported here being beneficial?


The only thing that was being said was that "it's no body else's business".
If you can find something to the contrary, please do so. (Or, at least
that's all I was saying.)

                  <<< Note 390.247 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
    
>	But on the other side, I think a lot of marriages today don't start out
>based on love, (at least from both parties, some with none) they are more based
>on convience and they're supposed to be married, so they do it.
    
    	I'll address this one first.  You are 100% correct.  Yes,
    	convenience, or parental expectation.  But also lust.  Or
    	to give the baby a name.  Or for money.  Or for so many
    	other things.  Most couples destined for divorce simply so
    	not have a sense of the responsibility and commitment they
    	are pretending to have.
    
    	And far too many clergy, counselors, parents, etc., fail
    	to insist upon the couples understanding this.  Sometimes
    	these same people in authority allow the "marriage" to
    	proceed eventhough they can detect that the betrothed
    	simply do not have the maturity or the understanding or
    	the INTENTION to make it work.  And for purely secular
    	marriages there is little hope of instilling these things
    	in the couples.
    
>	Joe, I'm not Dick, but I'll answer anyways. :-)  If a marriage is not
>together for love, is it a marriage? Just being together for the sake of being
>there, is not any type of real marriage to begin with. Does staying together
>make it one if no love is involved? 

    	If they are not together for love, then at least in the eyes of
    	the Church the marriage never occurred.  That is the material
    	for an annullment.  However, some marriages originally WERE
    	together for love, and over time the love tarnished and faded
    	away.  The original romance that put a luster on that love
    	diminishes.  They no longer feel the spark of passion.  They
    	get into a routine.  The novelty wears off.  They say that they
    	are no longer in love because they no longer feel the romance.
    	The concupiscence/desire is gone.  Focus switches from each other
    	to the children, and they lose sight of what they saw as special
    	in each other.  
    
    	They say the are no longer in love.
    
    	The problem is that saying this at this point is a cop-out.
    	Love is more than just a feeling -- if it is even a feeling
    	at all.  Love is working on keeping the other #1 in your 
    	life.  It is DECIDING to go beyond the drudgery to look
    	for that special person who was ther on your wedding day.  
    	It is deciding to give of oneself when you know the other
    	isn't pulling his/her weight.  It is going beyond tallying
    	who is giving what so that it is an even 50-50 split.  Love
    	is working at making it a 100-100 relationship.  It is
    	unconditional.  It is overcoming the disillusionments to
    	build a LIFETIME of growth.  Finding love an making it work
    	at the low times is far more satisfying than any degree of
    	romance or lust.
    
    	Today far too many couples hit that loss of initial romance
    	and throw in the towel.  That's not "out of love", except
    	by contemporary standards.  Throwing in the towel at that
    	point leaves two broken people where love could have been
    	repaired and even improved, and it leaves in its wake a
    	wasteland of shattered lives of their families and children.

    
    	>It is deciding to give of oneself when you know the other
    	>isn't pulling his/her weight.  It is going beyond tallying
    	>who is giving what so that it is an even 50-50 split.  Love
    	>is working at making it a 100-100 relationship.
    
    
    But Joe, how long is one supposed to hang in there giving 100% when the
    other person is giving 0%?

        <<< Note 390.248 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>>    	to the sexual relationship.  Are you saying that the idea of
>>    	pre-marital sex was NOT being supported here being beneficial?
>
>
>The only thing that was being said was that "it's no body else's business".
>If you can find something to the contrary, please do so. (Or, at least
>that's all I was saying.)
    
    	I submit as evidence:
    
.197>    The flip side being the ability to provide your true love with more
>    fulfilling sex based upon acquired experience...
    
.214>    One is less likely to be sexually incompatible with a spouse when one
>    has already slept with that person prior to marriage, I would think.

    
    	and YOUR very own:
    
.208>And what if, after marriage, one spouse finds that the other
>just can't do it well period even though they have no frame
>of reference with which to compare it? Again a lifetime of
>discontent.

    	This doesn't look like simply, "it's no body else's business"
    	to me, but rather several endorsements of premarital sex, yours
    	included.
    
    	If you want to change your message to "leave me alone, it's
    	nobody else's business", then your dropping of this notion
    	will merit you my avoidance of this issue with you.

>    But Joe, how long is one supposed to hang in there giving 100% when the
>    other person is giving 0%?

For better or for worse... till death us do part.

/john

Joe,
   I wonder if you're aware of the number of marriages out there
  which may be of "convenience", or to give the baby a name, or
  to satisfy parental/societal concern, etc. which DON'T necessarily
  throw in the towel too soon. The ones that hang in there for any
  number of years in order to actually and truly provide a good
  solid home environment for the kids. The ones that are truly
  good examples of relationships which are masterpieces in fidelity.
  But at the same time, which are full of veiled misery simply due
  to the fact that a pair of people shouldn't really be together.
  But even though that's recognized, they stick together because
  they've been brought up to recognize that it's "the right thing".

  Until one day when they finally decide, just for a change, to get
  real honest. And admit it was a mistake. Once the kids are out
  of the nest, and there's no one else left to be hurt, except for
  themselves in the eyes of the society that can't fathom why in
  hell they always looked so perfect.

    <<< Note 390.250 by POWDML::LAUER "Little Chamber of Creamy Presents" >>>

>    But Joe, how long is one supposed to hang in there giving 100% when the
>    other person is giving 0%?
    
    	In a truly loving relationship, this isn't an issue, or at least
    	it isn't an issue for long.  If your expectation of marriage is
    	that your spouse will do 0%, you are setting yourself up for
    	failure.
    
    	How sad that these discussions of marriage always seem to turn
    	to the broken examples -- the abusive relationship, the cheating
    	realtionship, the alcoholic relationship, the one where one
    	spouse does 100% and the other zero.  These are not what is
    	being called for.  These are not equitably representative.
    	These are more the exception than the rule, and if more people 
    	went into marriage with a mindset as described in .249 instead 
    	of the self-centered attitude prevalent in today's society, they
    	would be even more rare.  
    
    	If the Dick's curmudgeon has his way, the marriage in .249 will 
    	someday become counter-cultural.  Maybe it is already...  How 
    	terribly tragic!

re:     <<< Note 390.251 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


Joe,
    If you truly think that that there's real validity in that response,
specifically in tying my .208 commentary into the "endorsements" that
you listed, then we may as well drop this right here and now, as it's
quite obvious that you are no longer reading the words which are here,
but only trying to mold them into your own philosophy. For the life of
me, I can't understand what your intent in doing so might be. I've always
thought better of your integrity. A comment was made by you about the
"pitfalls" you perceive in pre-marital sex. I mentioned a counter point
not to devalue your commentary, but to shed a different light on it.
Again, if this is what you want to do here, please feel free to indulge
yourself.

    	re .253
    
    	Sure, Jack, they exist.
    
    	What's your point?

No point, I guess, Joe. If you can't see it, why should I waste
any more time . . . 
G'night.

    	re .255
    
    	Fine, Jack.  Let's drop it.  You're not the only person 
    	I saw endorsing it.  Until your .223, I was not aware
    	that this particular thread was about "mind your own
    	business" at all.  In that light, .208 speaks pretty 
    	loudly.  The other two shout it out even more.  You asked
    	me to show the words that spoke to something other than
    	"mind your own business" with respect to endorsing
    	premarital sex.  You were caught in your own web, and 
    	now you must backpedal by attacking my integrity.
    
    	I stand by my entries.  You are welcome to do the same
    	with yours.
    
    	From now on I know that you are talking about "mind your
    	own business."

Web, my butt . . .

    	Hey, HEY!!  Violation of the queensbury rules!  You said 
    	g'night.  You're supposed to be gone!
    
    	:^)

Incurable insomnia . .. 

:^)


(OK - G'night - If'n you come back again, I'll just start off
 tommorrow elevating my blood pressure agin' you instead of the
 Boston Talk Radio Witch. :^)

    >But on the other side, I think a lot of marriages today don't start out
    >based on love, (at least from both parties, some with none) they are
    >more based on convience and they're supposed to be married, so they do
    >it.
    
    works in lots of other cultures
    
    .253
    
    well said that man
    
    ric

 ZZ   No point, I guess, Joe. If you can't see it, why should I waste
 ZZ   any more time . . . 
    
    Hmmmm...seems I've heard this before.
    
    Could it be Jack that you aren't communicating the message
    properly...or is it that WE don't get it!?
    
    -Jack

    .236
    
    No.  No.

                         SONG--PHYLLIS.

			Good morrow, good lover!
				Good lover, good morrow!
			I prithee discover,
				Steal, purchase, or borrow
					Some means of concealing
					The care you are feeling,
					And join in a measure
					Expressive of pleasure,
			For we're to be married to-day--to-day!
				Yes, we're to be married to-day!

BOTH.			Yes, we're to be married, etc.

	STREPH. (embracing her).  My Phyllis!  And to-day we are to be made
		happy for ever.
	PHYL.  Well, we're to be married.
	STREPH.  It's the same thing.
	PHYL.  I suppose it is.  But oh, Strephon, I tremble at the step
		I'm taking!  ...
...
	PHYL.  We won't wait long.
	STREPH.  No.  We might change our minds.  We'll get married first.
	PHYL.  And change our minds afterwards?
	STREPH.  That's the usual course.

    ZZ    No.  No.
    
    You have this uncanny habit of repeating yourself! :-)

    .266
    
    Get a grip, Jack.  :-)  Two questions were asked, I answered both.

    
    Christians are advocates by definition.  THe Box is appropriate for
    advocates, so they should be welcomes.  They must follow the usual
    rules of debate, that's all, and they have no basis for objection
    when roughed up like any other advocates.
    
    There are many groups with representatives in the Box who claim some
    universal truth, be they DougO, Phil, Meowski, or Benson.  It is a
    fact that all these people become irate when they meet others who
    simply don't subscribe to their supposedly universal assumptions.
    
    The tendency is to lash out at the unbeliever (in whatever you
    believe in).  The point to remember, though, is that lashing out
    type notes are ineffective.  Calm ones work better.
    
      bb

| <<< Note 390.249 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| Yes, convenience, or parental expectation. But also lust. Or to give the baby 
| a name. Or for money. Or for so many other things. Most couples destined for 
| divorce simply so not have a sense of the responsibility and commitment they
| are pretending to have.

	Joe, we both agree on something! The clouds are disapating and I can
see the sun now! Cool. :-)

| And far too many clergy, counselors, parents, etc., fail to insist upon the 
| couples understanding this. Sometimes these same people in authority allow the
| "marriage" to proceed even though they can detect that the betrothed simply do
| not have the maturity or the understanding or the INTENTION to make it work.  

	Again, we totally agree that this does happen! It's an everyone can be
at fault thing, not just a one sided one.

| And for purely secular marriages there is little hope of instilling these 
| things in the couples.

	On this I have to disagree. One does not need to include religion in a
marriage for real love to be present. It is my belief that religion can
strengthen ones love for another, but that is *my* belief, and it is an
individual type of thing. But I also believe that religion can break apart a 
loving relationship. This I feel is more of an individualy based thing as well. 
I know you have seen some who go overboard with their religions. I believe these
people may in turn end up pushing away their spouse if they don't change, or 
don't change quick enough. I know I have seen it happen. 

| If they are not together for love, then at least in the eyes of the Church the
| marriage never occurred.  

	Will the church give the couple their money back???? :-)

| However, some marriages originally WERE together for love, and over time the 
| love tarnished and faded away. The original romance that put a luster on that 
| love diminishes. They no longer feel the spark of passion. They get into a 
| routine. The novelty wears off. They say that they are no longer in love 
| because they no longer feel the romance. The concupiscence/desire is gone. 
| Focus switches from each other to the children, and they lose sight of what 
| they saw as special in each other. They say the are no longer in love. The 
| problem is that saying this at this point is a cop-out.

	I partially agree with this. Again, I think it is a very situational
thing. There are many reasons that one could fall out of love. Your one
example, of putting their focus on their children is something that can happen.
But it does not cover everyone who falls out of love. So many reasons can cause
this to happen, and to say it is a cop-out for everyone, would be wrong. (imho)



Glen

| <<< Note 390.252 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| >    But Joe, how long is one supposed to hang in there giving 100% when the
| >    other person is giving 0%?

| For better or for worse... till death us do part.

	John, that would be pretty stupid for the person who is getting nothing
back. You can quote marriage vows all you want, but I also noticed that you
never quoted the love and honor part that preceeds the till death do us part.
You're always leaving out the key lines....

| <<< Note 390.254 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| >    But Joe, how long is one supposed to hang in there giving 100% when the
| >    other person is giving 0%?

| If your expectation of marriage is that your spouse will do 0%, you are 
| setting yourself up for failure.

	Joe, did you even read what she wrote? She didn't state her
expectations, she gave you a clear example of what people actually have gone
through. Address that please.

| How sad that these discussions of marriage always seem to turn to the broken 
| examples -- the abusive relationship, the cheating realtionship, the alcoholic
| relationship, the one where one spouse does 100% and the other zero.  

	Gee Joe, and to think you were discussing how people get married for
the wrong reasons, that clergy even know beforehand it shouldn't happen, but
they marry the people anyway. If it was something you really thought was sad,
why did you address it?



Glen

| <<< Note 390.263 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Could it be Jack that you aren't communicating the message properly...or is 
| it that WE don't get it!?

	The latter. I fully understood Jack's position in this string, and when
he was addressing you in the other string(s). 



Glen

Ok, Jack, and Joe. Now that I've had an opportunity to get a good night's
sleep and have the use of decent editing capabilities, I will spell out
what "the point" is.

Generally, I find that my commentary along many of these lines hasn't
so much to do with the subject matter of the topic in question, but
more with the various senseless tangential issues which spin off of
them.

Fortunately, unfortunately, or however, we have a contingent here who
has this urgent need to compartmentalize everything and everybody. I
see it so repeatedly frequent in notes from Joe, from Al, from /john,
from, Jeff, and from Jack. Everything has to be put in its place by some
set of limited moral principles.

"Oh. There's someone who didn't honor their marriage vows for better
 or for worse till death them do part. I'll just put them in the
 Unprincipled_lying_cheating_honorless_degenerate_destroyers_of_a_
 moral_society_scummy-little-box."

"Look. That person says they believe in what they call a 'pro-choice'
 outlook. Since they obviously belong there, I'll just go and put them in the
 Baby_killing_pro-abortion_might_as_well_not_have_any_laws_scummy-little-box."

"Did you hear that? They said that they don't find it morally repugnant to
 consider the possibility of sex outside of marriage. Well, I'll fix them
 by putting them in the Date_raping_disease_spreading_infant_fornicating_
 axe_murderers_scummy-little-box"

"Hey - she said she's an atheist. I must hurry and put her right quickly
 into the They_hate_all_Christians_and_bash_thumpers_till_they_bleed_and
 if_you're_not_careful_they'll_kill_you_scummy-little-box."

And so it goes. Or so you think. Of course, actually, if you'd stop to
think and look at the larger picture in which some of these behaviors lie,
you'd begin to realize that no one _really_ fits any of these ridiculous
molds that you'd like to shame them into wearing so that, . . . what?
So that they'd "see the light"? And magically change to make you happy?
I think not.

While, all the time, you've kinda ended up putting yourselves in your own
scummy-little-box. I hope it's comfy in there.

 .273  bravo!  bravo!  bravissimo!

    oh fer crying out loud MOLAR::DELBALSO stop entering notes i agree with
    so much will ya !??!?!?!? 8^)
    
    
    >While, all the time, you've kinda ended up putting yourselves in your
    >own scummy-little-box. 
    
    that's the "judge not lest ... " thing isn't it
    
    ric

    Re: .237
    
    >That's all I've tried to make of it -- that the causality might be 
    >present.
    
    How quickly you forget.  From your .215:
    
    |The most recent US census statistics show that pre-marital sex leads
    |to a higher rate of divorce
    
    No "might" about it.  You stated that statistics show that pre-marital
    sex CAUSES a higher rate of divorce.  Now you're trying to weasel out
    of that statement.  So you have no grounds to accuse me of quibbling.
    
    >So which problems are more likely to occur?  Which problems are more 
    >severe?
    
    I don't know.  Neither do you.  The point is, if you're going to claim
    that something shouldn't be done because it might lead to problems,
    then people should neither abstain from nor engage in pre-marital sex
    -- something they'll have trouble doing.

    Re: .252
    
    >>But Joe, how long is one supposed to hang in there giving 100% when the
    >>other person is giving 0%?
    >
    >For better or for worse... till death us do part.
    
    Or you manage to get an annulment.

    Yes...it has been pointed out to me from time to time and I don't deny 
    that at times I am guilty.  However, I don't believe I've done it
    lately.  As an example, I was explaining to Michelle Minichino that
    STATISTICALLY, couples who live together before marriage are more
    likely to divorce.  STATISTICALLY, children from broken homes are more
    likely to commit crime, drop out of school, or commit suicide.
    
    -Jack

    
    DEL - BAL - SO!
    
    DEL - BAL - SO!
    
    DEL - BAL - SO!
    
    DEL - BAL - SO!
    
    DEL - BAL - SO!
    
    DEL - BAL - SO!
    

    .278
    
    Jack, there's a problem with statistics, best explained by the
    following Curmudgeon's Dictionary entry:
    
        statistics n.  Mathematical figures purporting to describe reality,
        sufficiently arcane that they can be explained in whatever way
        makes the prospects most attractive to the customer.

                  <<< Note 390.269 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| And far too many clergy, counselors, parents, etc., fail to insist ...
>
>	Again, we totally agree that this does happen! It's an everyone can be
>at fault thing, not just a one sided one.
    
    	The success or failure of the marriage still rests squarely
    	on the shoulders of the couple.  Once married, it is only
    	the couple who can work at making the marriage work.  Yes,
    	I see fault of others from before the marriage was made, but
    	let's not diminish the individuals' responsibility!
    
>| And for purely secular marriages there is little hope of instilling these 
>| things in the couples.
>
>	On this I have to disagree. One does not need to include religion in a
>marriage for real love to be present. 
    
    	I was thinking more of the spur-of-the-moment, Elvis-chapel-in-Reno
    	type of marriage.  None of these things, on either side, can be
    	stated as absolutes except in a theoretical sense.  In that light,
    	I hope you see my statements as tempered away from absolutes.
    
>But I also believe that religion can break apart a 
>loving relationship. 
    
    	In theory, a marriage bonded in a particular religion should not
    	cause this.  It is my belief that a marriage is better off if
    	both partners are of the same religious faith expression, and also 
    	of the same degree of liberalism/orthodoxy/tradition within that 
    	faith.  Interfaith marriages are more likely to break than same-	
    	faith marriages.
    
>| If they are not together for love, then at least in the eyes of the Church the
>| marriage never occurred.  
>
>	Will the church give the couple their money back???? :-)
    
    	I know you asked this tongue-in-cheek, but no, they will not
    	get a refund.  They received a service for which they paid, and
    	will often end up having to pay again to undo the service --
    	just as a man who gets a vasectomy and later regrets it will
    	have to pay to have it reversed, or a person who pays to have
    	his house painted and later on regrets the color and pays to
    	have it repainted.
    
>There are many reasons that one could fall out of love. Your one
>example, of putting their focus on their children is something that can happen.
>But it does not cover everyone who falls out of love. So many reasons can cause
>this to happen, and to say it is a cop-out for everyone, would be wrong. (imho)
    
    	Again, absolutes.  My .249 was long enough as it was.  Certainly
    	you didn't expect me to cover every case.  I've already expressed
    	in this discussion that I know there are exceptions.  I stand
    	by my position that "falling out of love" is a cop-out -- for 
    	most cases.  Love is made.  It is not magic.  It is not fleeting.
    	It involves work, and turning one's back on that effort is a
    	cop-out.

                  <<< Note 390.271 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Joe, did you even read what she wrote? She didn't state her
>expectations, she gave you a clear example of what people actually have gone
>through. Address that please.
    
    	Funny.  In .270 you chide John for:
    
    >but I also noticed that you
    >never quoted (etc.)
    >You're always leaving out the key lines....
    
    	Likewise I notice that you left out where I directly addressed
    	the question in .254.  Specifically, it shouldn't happen in a
    	loving relationship.  What exactly are you looking for me to
    	address?  Do you want me to give my blessing for that situation's
    	divorce?  Had I said that, you'd be chiding me for "my brand"
    	of religion, or some other similar straw man.  I've already
    	acknowledged that dysfunctional marriages exist.  I'm not sure
    	what more can be said about such things.  As I went on to say
    	in .254, I'm focusing on what it takes to make a successful
    	marriage.
    
>	Gee Joe, and to think you were discussing how people get married for
>the wrong reasons, that clergy even know beforehand it shouldn't happen, but
>they marry the people anyway. If it was something you really thought was sad,
>why did you address it?
    
    	Because it was brought up.  As I said above, my real focus here
    	is on what works.  Rather than address damage control after a
    	marriage falls apart, I'd rather focus now on what can prevent
    	the need for damage control.  It is coearly evident that there
    	are enough people already who are willing to spend the time on
    	damage control, so I don't see why I should spend the effort too.

        <<< Note 390.273 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>more with the various senseless tangential issues which spin off of
>them.
    
    	Senseless to you.  It is obviously ot senseless to those who
    	argue passionately on either side of the issue.

>Fortunately, unfortunately, or however, we have a contingent here who
>has this urgent need to compartmentalize everything and everybody. I
>see it so repeatedly frequent in notes from Joe, from Al, from /john,
>from, Jeff, and from Jack. Everything has to be put in its place by some
>set of limited moral principles.
    
    	Is this pot-and-kettle material?  Haven't you just
    	compartmentalized us into the set of those who compartmentalize?
    
    	:^)
    
    	But even further, don't you see that those arguing with me want
    	to "compartmentalize" the morality I support into relative degrees
    	of acceptability?  Situation-x should be discarded from my position
    	because of reason-y, as should situation-a for reason-b.  The
    	compartments you mentioned as examples are compartments of your
    	own making.  The hyperbole in them makes them all the more 
    	ridiculous.  I'm surprised that some have chosen to cheer you
    	in your name-calling, but that's the way of the world I guess.

                     <<< Note 390.275 by RDGE44::ALEUC8 >>>

>    that's the "judge not lest ... " thing isn't it
    
	If you know anything about the biblical verse you attempt to use, 
    	you would know that it doesn't end with that (MT 7:1).  Jesus
    	goes on to say that once we get rid of the board in our eye,
    	we can then see clearly to help our brother.  (MT 7:5)
    
    	I'd say that those of us who are in healthy, loving, long-term
    	marriages are in a pretty good position to help others see what
    	works for us, for example.  Same for those of us who benefitted
    	from pre-marital chastity, and even for those who suffered the
    	plank-in-the-eye of broken chastity and have managed to clear
    	out that plank, repented, and now see the costs and want to 
    	speak out to others of the risks.

    	re .280
    
    	Ridicule the statistics if you want, but to what end?  Do we 	
    	ignore what they tell us?  Do you agree that the relationships
    	Jack has supported with those statistics actually exist?

    .284
    
    sorry, my misinterpretation
    
    what i meant was judging others doesn't define them, it defines you
    
    i always thought that's what that meant - my error
    
    ric

| <<< Note 390.273 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>



	Jack, I can't think of any way you could have been more simplier in
explaing your point. I still expect their responses to be followed by an, "You
still don't get it". I want to thank you for posting that note as I think you
have said what many may have thought, but couldn't find the right words. I'm
glad to see that a good nights sleep can do good for people. :-)


Glen

| <<< Note 390.278 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| STATISTICALLY, couples who live together before marriage are more
| likely to divorce.  STATISTICALLY, children from broken homes are more
| likely to commit crime, drop out of school, or commit suicide.

	But Jack, you went on to say you don't know where the statistics came
from, just that you heard them. Kind of adds a new twist to it all, doesn't it? 

    What does the word marriage mean anyway?
    
    I don't think that marriage necessarily means "legal" or church
    "approved" marriage, but means any serious long term, romantic love
    relationship mutually agreed on by each partner. "Legal" or church
    "approved" marriage has no bearing on the success or failure of a
    relationship. The mutual decision for sharing a life in a serious
    sexual-love relationship is the fundamental entity for building a
    romatic-love relationship that delivers pleasure and long-range
    happiness. 
    
    It seems that most valid, growing romantic-love relationships can and
    do lead to this type of marriage, usually a flourishing, lasting
    marriage. However, nonmartial sexual relations can provide a full range
    of sexual value and pleasure.
    
    ...Tom

    
    
    
    
    
    
    .278
    
    So JACK MARTIN....(if you feel you need to use my full name guess I'll
    jump on board too...)
    
    Because YOU say statiscally couples that live together before marriage
    are more likely to end in divorce....it's so!
    
    Where might those statistics be? 
    Where are they to show me. 
    
    I am siting (imho) what I have seen in my life. Period. 
    The divorced couples I see, all went to pre-canea(sp) classes. 
    All were miserable couples to begin with, all had one reason
    or another to get married, not all of which was "I was in love". 
    Why weren't they stopped then and there. The priest thought it's ok. 
    aren't they supposed to guide these young couples entering into this
    SERIOUS, LIVE LONG COMMITTMENT?
    
    I would like to see stats on that broken home that broke because the couple 
    wasn't "trying" to make it work, produced a child that committed crime, 
    school drop out and committed or attempted suicide. 
    
    Then, find me the statistics that show a broken home from violence, 
    domestic dispute, abuse, living in misery and spousal incompatablity 
    that cause children to commit crime, drop out of school or commit
    suicide and have very low self esteem...(which is the prelude to the 
    above).
    
    I bet the higher ones come from the disrupted broken home...I hate to
    smash reality in your lap but many, many divorced couples did the "I
    take my vows seriously" lets work it out, and no matter how hard they
    try, it won't work. It may have worked when they were young and
    they had a future together. They didn't plan on growing apart. It
    happens, it always happened, it was just frowned upon and not talked
    about. 
    
    Annulment and divorce aren't the same thing, right???  If you pay the 
    church enough money, they will turn a dumb cheek and the marriage never
    existed....BUT, get a divorce and leave the church out of the financial 
    loop...NO WAY!....We don't recognize that as a divorce. 
    
    I'd love a good heated conversation about THAT HIPOCRACY!!
    
    One shouldn't enter into a marriage expecting to CHANGE their spouse. 
    That unfortunately (IMO) is what happens now a days. Getting married
    doesn't solve the problems, being married isn't a requirement for
    living a full live anymore. Unfortunately, society has set limits that
    we have no worth unless me are united in marriage. Yeah right!
    
    I know people that get married, and months later find that maybe this
    wasn't right, but decide to SAVE the marriage with a kid...WRONG> This 
    just creates the viscious circle we are all too familar with. Then the
    kid becomes the victim. 
    
    I do believe in the sanctity of marriage. But I don't believe that if
    it's over I should beat it to death and cry cry cry that my marriage
    failed and oh I can't go on, oh what a failure. There are two sides to 
    every story.  There is always a reason for events happening in life.
    
    In my opinion, I think we as a society spend far too much time trying
    to "fix thy nieghbor" instead of taking care of business at home. We
    are all in each others living rooms each night on Oprah airing our
    dirty laundry about what is right and wrong. Who is to determine what
    is right for one person...is it right for all people.
    
    If we took care of home and ourselves and everyone didn't know
    everyones business, I bet the kids would get a good understanding of
    what is expected of them. I see many young adults with the right idea
    and a good head of their shoulders, but we as a society don't focus on
    them, we focus on the few that make the many look bad. It's a shame. I
    think that the young adults are a great generation with many ideas,
    someone capable needs to lead them. Then, Jack we can stop abortion,
    divorce, abuse, low self esteem and hipocrasy! 
    
    We need to stop being judge jury and executioner to the next
    generation, then maybe someday we can all be our own judge. We can
    focus on how good WE can be instead of wondering how BAD "they" are.
     
    
    Sorry to ramble...you do get me going on debate.....
    michelle
     
     

    .289
    
    i *nearly* agree with you, Tom, 'cept i think it can be equally valid if
    you delete the "romantic-love" thing - lots of other cultures have
    partners raising families quite successfully (that is the bottom line,
    no?) without any of the mushy stuff.
    
    ric

    .273 DelBalso for president!!! (or emperor, whichever comes first).
    
    .290 Good one Michelle; wasn't rambling at all, made sense to me.
    
    My ex and his 3 siblings could be poster children for the damage 
    that can be done when a couple "stays together for the sake of
    the children".
    
    

    Michelle:
    
    Believe it or not, I'm on your side.  As far as the statistics, I
    thought it was rather decent of me to mention I can't remember where
    they came from.  I do know the information on children from broken 
    homes and the statistics came from Dr. David Brudnoy on WBZ Boston.
    Brudnoy has his enemies but he is objective...and
    wouldn't make these statistics up.  However, in the interest of truth I
    will find those statistics...on both divorced married couples who first
    lived together and children turning to crime, etc.
    
    Glen, I sure wish we were all as smart as you!!!  Jezebel!
    
    -Jack
    

| <<< Note 390.281 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| >| And far too many clergy, counselors, parents, etc., fail to insist ...
| >
| >	Again, we totally agree that this does happen! It's an everyone can be
| >at fault thing, not just a one sided one.

| The success or failure of the marriage still rests squarely on the shoulders 
| of the couple. Once married, it is only the couple who can work at making the 
| marriage work. Yes, I see fault of others from before the marriage was made, 
| but let's not diminish the individuals' responsibility!

	Joe, while I agree with this fully, you have confused me. The part I
was adressing above had to do with the before marriage part. Whatever happens
after the couple is married was addressed in a different part of my note. So
why you wrote what you did above is beyond me. Although I will say the 1st
thing I thought of was Jack's note where a person says one thing, and when
you're done replying to it, you have put people into catagories. 

| >| And for purely secular marriages there is little hope of instilling these
| >| things in the couples.
| >
| >	On this I have to disagree. One does not need to include religion in a
| >marriage for real love to be present.

| I was thinking more of the spur-of-the-moment, Elvis-chapel-in-Reno type of 
| marriage.  

	Again, I still disagree. When one decides to get married has nothing to
do with their love/commitment for each other.

| None of these things, on either side, can be stated as absolutes except in a 
| theoretical sense. In that light, I hope you see my statements as tempered 
| away from absolutes.

	Neither can a marriage that is religious. Your point?

| In theory, a marriage bonded in a particular religion should not cause this.  

	In theory, yes, I agree fully. In reality, this is not the case.

| It is my belief that a marriage is better off if both partners are of the same
| religious faith expression, and also of the same degree of liberalism/
| orthodoxy/tradition within that faith.  

	I agree, but also realize that one, love isn't always bond to a certain
religion/denomination, and two, one can be saved at any point in their lives,
so one could already be married when they become saved. Too many variables to
keep it to one system.

| Interfaith marriages are more likely to break than samefaith marriages.

	Well, a Charmatic Catholic and a regular Catholic might have some
conflicts. 



Glen

    re: .291,ric
    
    >i *nearly* agree with you, Tom, 'cept i think it can be equally valid
    >if you delete the "romantic-love" thing - lots of other cultures have
    >partners raising families quite successfully (that is the bottom line,
    >no?) without any of the mushy stuff.
    
    Depends on the individual. If sex or a feeling of love is not considered
    inportant to that individual, then OK, whatever works to the
    satisfaction of each individual involved. Families can consist of any
    number of persons of any sex or sexual preference. Success is not
    dependent on any specific dogma, only on the needs and wants that lead
    to the pleasure and happiness of each person involved.
    
    The sex/love part is important to me though! :)
    
    ...Tom

| <<< Note 390.282 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Likewise I notice that you left out where I directly addressed the question 
| in .254. Specifically, it shouldn't happen in a loving relationship. 

	Gee, her question was about a specific type of relationship and you
answered it should be a problem with a DIFFERENT type of relationship. You did
NOT address her response, you answered with a totally different type of
relationship. Not to mention you went into it saying if that was what you
expected.... (paraphrasing) which also did not deal with what she was asking.
You had once again answered with something totally different. 

| What exactly are you looking for me to address?  

	Read the above again. Just because you throw an answer out does not
mean you even came close to addressing what was asked, which is the case with
this.

| Do you want me to give my blessing for that situation's divorce?  

	You just don't get it.

| Rather than address damage control after a marriage falls apart, I'd rather 
| focus now on what can prevent the need for damage control.  

	Then doesn't it make sense that your entries would reflect this and not
both situations?



Glen

            <<< Note 390.289 by DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!" >>>
    
>    "Legal" or church
>    "approved" marriage has no bearing on the success or failure of a
>    relationship. 
    
    	Nowadays, "church approved" marraiges nearly parallel the
    	track record of marriage in general.  The latest US census
    	statistics (which are getting somewhat old, are they not?)
    	said that i-in-2 marriages end in divorce.  If the couple
    	was married "in the church" (under the sanction of any
    	religion, not just Christian, etc.) then 1-in-3 ended in
    	divorce.  If they attended church (not necessarily together)
    	then 1-in-4 divorced.  If they attended church together then
    	1-in-10 divorced.  If they prayed together then less than
    	1-in-100 divorced.
    
    	Now, I understand fully that the call for a deeper marital
    	commitment often parallels the call to a deeper spirituality,
    	so let's not travel down causal ratholes, TYVM.  
    
    	I present these statistics to be taken or rejected as you all
    	please.

    
    ZZZ        Joe, while I agree with this fully, you have confused
    
    Uhhhhhh....Glen doesn't get it!
    
    Butt-head

    Yo Tom Ralston, did you miss my question to you way back in the middle
    of the marriage discussion?
    
    :-)

                    <<< Note 390.290 by ABACUS::MINICHINO >>>
    
>    Because YOU say statiscally couples that live together before marriage
>    are more likely to end in divorce....it's so!
    
    	US Census statistics say it, not Jack Martin.
    
>    The divorced couples I see, all went to pre-canea(sp) classes. 
>    All were miserable couples to begin with, all had one reason
>    or another to get married, not all of which was "I was in love". 
>    Why weren't they stopped then and there. The priest thought it's ok. 
>    aren't they supposed to guide these young couples entering into this
>    SERIOUS, LIVE LONG COMMITTMENT?
    
    	This has already been addressed.   See .249.  See also the book
    	"Marriage Savers" by Michael J. McManus.  Our churches have
    	grown derelict in their duty to foster strong marriages in
    	their respective faith traditions.  McManus says that our
    	churches have become marriage factories, and I agree.
    
>    I bet the higher ones come from the disrupted broken home...I hate to
>    smash reality in your lap but many, many divorced couples did the "I
>    take my vows seriously" lets work it out, and no matter how hard they
>    try, it won't work. 
    
    	70% of couples who try hard enough to attend a Retrouvaille
    	weekend fix their marriages.  Retrouvaille is a weekend for
    	couples who are in trouble in their marriages, separated, and
    	even divorced.  To attend, they have to show a desire to
    	make it work.
    
>    Annulment and divorce aren't the same thing, right???  If you pay the 
>    church enough money, they will turn a dumb cheek and the marriage never
>    existed....BUT, get a divorce and leave the church out of the financial 
>    loop...NO WAY!....We don't recognize that as a divorce. 
>    
>    I'd love a good heated conversation about THAT HIPOCRACY!!
    
    	An annulment requested without fee because of financial hardship
    	is statistically more often approved than those who pay the fee.
    	And that fee is NOT some astronomical amount like you might
    	imagine.  It is often just a few hundred dollars, and that is
    	to cover administrative and recording costs as would any secular
    	business activity.  What does it cost to get a mortgage and
    	home inspection?
    
    	The annulment is supposed to determine (and if appropriate declare)
    	that the couple did not have the proper maturity, intentions,
    	preparedness, etc., to be married.  If annulled, the Church
    	declares that the marriage never existed from the very start,
    	therefore (in the eyes of the Church) does not need to be
    	divorced.  (Legally it still needs to be divorced.)
    
    	Personally I believe that the Church is much more lenient in its
    	willingness to declare a marriage annulled, so I see hypocrisy
    	as you do, though perhaps not to the extent that you might.  I
    	also see that because the Church is derelict in its responsibility
    	to launch off only solid marriages, it must then have to patch
    	up that dereliction with a surplus of annulments.
    
>    One shouldn't enter into a marriage expecting to CHANGE their spouse. 
    
    	Agreed.  I missed this one when I was listing off various 
    	wrong-footed marriage foundations.  This one may be bigger
    	than any of the ones I listed!
    
>    being married isn't a requirement for
>    living a full live anymore. Unfortunately, society has set limits that
>    we have no worth unless me are united in marriage. Yeah right!
    
    	The history of our society throughout the ages has placed a
    	special value on the family and on the marriage that is the
    	foundation of the family.  The recent breakdown of society
    	has paralleled society's discarding of those family values.
    	Draw your own conclusions.
    
>    I know people that get married, and months later find that maybe this
>    wasn't right, but decide to SAVE the marriage with a kid...WRONG> 
    
    	Yup!  Another good example.
    
>    In my opinion, I think we as a society spend far too much time trying
>    to "fix thy nieghbor" instead of taking care of business at home. 
    
    	The breakdown of society **IS** my business.  And yours, and
    	everyone else affected by it.
    
>    If we took care of home and ourselves 
    
    	But we as a society are doing this less and less.
    
>    what is expected of them. I see many young adults with the right idea
>    and a good head of their shoulders, but we as a society don't focus on
>    them, we focus on the few that make the many look bad. 
    
    	Precisely what I was saying about marriage in .254!

    Tom Ralston and Nancy Morales are talking marriage?!?

                  <<< Note 390.295 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Joe, while I agree with this fully, you have confused me. ... So
>why you wrote what you did above is beyond me. 
    
    	For clarification.  We agree, so leave it at that, OK?
    
>| None of these things, on either side, can be stated as absolutes except in a 
>| theoretical sense. In that light, I hope you see my statements as tempered 
>| away from absolutes.
>
>	Neither can a marriage that is religious. Your point?
    
    	Theoretical.  Under the ideals of religious marriage, things
    	generally work, and I can say with confidence that they do
    	so more often than without a religious foundation.  You may
    	not agree, but we get closer to the absolutes with a religious
    	foundation.
    
>| In theory, a marriage bonded in a particular religion should not cause this.  
>
>	In theory, yes, I agree fully. In reality, this is not the case.

    	How often in reality is it not the case?  
    
>| It is my belief that a marriage is better off if both partners are of the same
>| religious faith expression, and also of the same degree of liberalism/
>| orthodoxy/tradition within that faith.  
>
>| Interfaith marriages are more likely to break than samefaith marriages.
>
>	Well, a Charmatic Catholic and a regular Catholic might have some
>conflicts. 
    
    	Which is why I also mentioned the degree of tradition, etc.

                  <<< Note 390.297 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Gee, her question was about ...
    
    	Great.  So if Deb has a problem with my answer, let her ask
    	about it.  Your questioning of "he said, she said, you said, I
    	said" got too confusing for me to try to parse any more.

>	Read the above again. Just because you throw an answer out does not
>mean you even came close to addressing what was asked, which is the case with
>this.
    
    	I never seem to address what you want.  Maybe you don't ask
    	your questions clearly enough.
    
>	Then doesn't it make sense that your entries would reflect this and not
>both situations?
    
    	Sheesh.  If I DON'T answer something, you get upset.  Now if
    	I *DO* answer it, you get upset too.
    
    	Chill out.

    Mr Topaz, gimme some! Gimme some now! I want some of that, whatever it
    is!

    
    <--- Why, so you can anagram all your personalities?
    

    I just want a gram of that anagram drug.

    Sorry, I didn't have time to note yesterday and one falls behind
    quickly in one day. I SET/SEEN BEFORE this morning.
    
    What or where was your question?
    
    ...Tom

    ------------------------------->

    Uhhhh.... sorry. (tm)

    re: .303 
    
    (((BLUSH)))

    
    <------------------ {shudder}

    You're a lucky man Tom Ralston. 

    .303
    
    AAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!
    I about spit my coke all over my screen.
    
    I'll look it up.

    Tom see note .234.
    
    

    Nancy
    
    >So how did you handle sibling rivalry.
    
    Sibling rivalry always seemed to be the thinking by one child that the
    other child is receiving more, either more material goods or more love
    from parents. If one child does receive more attention or rewards, for 
    the same effort then the rivalry is justified. In my home I required
    the jealous child to justify his feelings with facts. The child who was
    causing the rivalry was essentially making an acusation that may or may
    not be true. That child was required to prove his case. We always
    discussed this as a family and resolved any problems by taking actions
    to insure equality. Remembering that sometimes the jealously is
    justified keeps the parent from automatically being on the opposite
    side of the jealous child.
    
    My sons were taught that they were responsible for their own success,
    that their Mother and Father would supply them with the essentials of
    youth and that love was plentiful and distributed equally. Also, they
    were taught that each person's life is their's and their's alone and
    that their success was the outcome of honest effort. Also, I loved my
    boys very much and they knew it. 
    
    >BTW, in the shower this morning the term "blind" obedience came to
    >mind.  I think perhaps this is to what you are referring and if
    >this is to what you are referring, then we agree
    
    Blind obedience implies an external authority. External authorities are
    a myth that don't jive with reality. External authorities exist when
    the someone unthinkingly or out of fear accepts, obeys and follows the
    commands and wishes of that authority. In reality no one has genuine
    authority over anyone else. Once we realize this fact we can say no,
    causing this "authority" to disappear because they wouldn't have the
    power to survive.
    
    ...Tom

    Tom and Nancy, I just want you to know I'm very happy for both of you.
    You're both very lucky people.

| <<< Note 390.293 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>



| Glen, I sure wish we were all as smart as you!!!  Jezebel!

	Well Jack, you were smart enough to figure out I'm a Jezebel... :-)

| <<< Note 390.305 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| >	Read the above again. Just because you throw an answer out does not
| >mean you even came close to addressing what was asked, which is the case with
| >this.

| I never seem to address what you want.  Maybe you don't ask
| your questions clearly enough.

	Considering others have noticed your problem and said something about
it, it may not have anything to do with me at all Joe.

| Sheesh.  If I DON'T answer something, you get upset.  Now if
| I *DO* answer it, you get upset too.

	When you do answer, it would be nice.

    
    Well, Joe, I don't feel that I really got an answer from you to my
    question.  I definitely got one from John 8^).
    
    So let's say you're married, and you're doing your level best and
    giving 100%, and your spouse is giving nothing.  Nothing emotionally,
    nothing physically, nothing financially.  Nothing.  How long are you
    supposed to give your 100% before you throw in the towel?  Are you
    supposed to give until you're completely burnt out and ruined, or are
    you allowed to give up and run at some point and get on with your life?
    
    According to John, you're not allowed to give up and run, ever.  Do you
    agree?  Should I go back to being miserable?

Sue him for breach of contract and get a court order for fulfillment.

    .296
    
    hey i never said the sex bit wasn't important!!! 8^)
    
    but this "romantic love" thing is imho a supportive myth that grew
    along with, and to support the, "till death us do part" dogma of
    Christianity.
    
    also i think people only used to live till 40 or so in them days when
    all this was evolving, and so only used to have to live with each other
    for 10-15 years as opposed to 40+ nowadays. society is imho evolving 
    new systems to cope with this major difference.
    
    ric

    
    So John, speaking of arrested/fined/imprisoned, what's new with you
    8^)?

        <<< Note 390.273 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

I hate bandwagons. But I'm willing to put one leg up onto yours, Jack.

You're absolutely right.

Unfortunately, you've been selective in how you applied this very 
insightful observation. 

That's why I'm reserving my other leg.

You unintentionally (?) chose members of the box's rather lose Christian 
coalition as your examples. Hardly ends there. In fact, it took only a 
couple days of observing this forum (which I dutifully did before jumping 
in) to realize that the soapbox was less something to stand on than 
something to put people and ideas into. And we're ALL guilty of it from 
time to time.

Jack, you may have enjoyed the lion's share of praise here, but bb, in .268 
may have taken the best shot.

Tom

>>Jack, you may have enjoyed the lion's share of praise here, but bb, in .268 
>>may have taken the best shot.


	naaah.  Jack - hands down.

    A serious relationship can last and grow throughout life. But if growth
    stops and cannot be revived, the relationship should end before the
    growth potential of either partner diminishes. If a good relationship
    does end, however, each partner can and should retain the values and
    benefits of the relationship. Whenever love dies, reasons always exist.
    But, the reasons are not always obvious. A person can better prepare
    for a future relationship by identifying the reasons for failure
    through high effort and honest introspection.
    
    ...Tom

    <-------
    
    I'm glad you and Nancy are going into to this with your eyes wide open.
    Lucky and wise.

>    So John, speaking of arrested/fined/imprisoned, what's new with you
>    8^)?

Even though the prosecutor tried to get me to "admit to sufficient facts
for a finding of guilty" in return for asking the court to "continue the
case without a finding," the judge suggested insted that I should retain my
plea of not guilty; the court then promised to dismiss the case in six months.

/john

    
    	John, where can I read about this?
    

    
    .331:
    
    Just another example of how rampant crime runs unchecked in society!
    
    :^)
    

    	re .322
    
    	What, specifically, are you looking for, Deb?  My blessing
    	on divorce in these cases?  What good would that do?  What
    	position am I in to decide what they should do?  Personally
    	it seems like an intolerable situation, and I do not pretend
    	to say that these don't exist.
    
    	Quite likely, the Catholic Church would annul such a marriage.
    
    	My focus is more on preventing such marriages from getting
    	that way.  As I said in my original response to you, a
    	truly loving marriage would not end up like that.  A marriage
    	that is well formed from the beginning would probably not
    	evolve into this.  A marriage that is well nurtured throughout
    	the years will also not be likely to degrade to that.  That
    	is why my wife and I have chosen marriage support as our
    	ministry.  We work in our parish with engaged couples, and
    	we work through Marriage Encounter to renew the romance and
    	the communication in existing marriages.  We also encourage
    	couples like the one you described to attend Retrouvaille
    	weekends.  If they really want to work to restore their
    	marriage, they can make it.  If they DON'T want to work
    	at it, then sadly the lawyers get them.

    Tom,
    
    So it is fair to say that you knew what as "best" for your children in
    resolving their disputes, correct?  You gave them guidance which you
    felt was the best guidance you could give your children.
    
    :-)
    
    Regarding marriage during Biblical days, well Sarah was near 100 when
    she gave birth to her son, Isaac.  

    She was 90.

    I believe that if a husband abandons a woman then she should not be
    held to that marriage.  She should be granted a divorce.  If this
    person is a Christian, and he is not, then she is free to remarry.  If
    they both are Christians and he abandons her and has sexual intercourse
    with another woman, she is free to remarry.  Otherwise, divorce can
    still be granted, but remarriage is not correct.
    
    I am divorced.  My situation follows the situation of an unbeliever
    leaving a believer.  I am free to remarry...but I still don't feel
    right about it.  Whilst remarrying my ex is available to me and he'd
    like that, its not desirable for me.  Yet at the same time, I have a
    difficult time envisioning myself with someone else permanently.
    
    It's my own struggle... of feeling connected to this man forever
    inspite of his abuse, abandonment and alcoholism.  Which btw, he's now
    been sober for near 18 months.
    
    Nancy

     >So it is fair to say that you knew what as "best" for your children in
     >resolving their disputes, correct?  
    
    NO, The method that I used allowed my children to use reality and
    honesty to discover what was best for them as an individual.
    
    >You gave them guidance which you felt was the best guidance you could give 
    >your children.
    
    I gave them my opinion, but at no time were they forced to comply with
    my desires unless that committed an objective infraction. This would be
    an infraction of exerting ones ideals through force or manipulation. It
    is surprising how thought, reality and reason always seems to come up
    with the most mutually beneficial result.
    
    ...Tom
    

    
      What a lot of misery divorce is.
    
      What a wonderful thing NOT to have.
    
      bb

    What a lot of misery staying in a loveless marriage is.
    
    What a wonderful thing NOT to have.

    
    .334
    
    I wasn't looking for your blessing, Joe - I just wanted to know if you
    believed that there were some marriages that couldn't or shouldn't be 
    saved, because from your previous notes I got the feeling you didn't.
    
    Thanks for responding.

    	.339 and .340 are not the only choices.

    Of course they aren't. But if those choices are made, they are not
    necessarily wrong.

    
    boy, from reading the last few replys, I'm kinda glad I'm not
    married. But, if i ever do, I sure don't want to make a career out
    of it.

| <<< Note 390.323 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| -< Have him arrested, fined, & imprisoned if he continues in breach >-
| Sue him for breach of contract and get a court order for fulfillment.

	r u being serious with this answer?

| <<< Note 390.333 by TROOA::COLLINS "Just add beer..." >>>



| Just another example of how rampant crime runs unchecked in society!


	SCREAM!!!!!  This was too funny Joan. Now fly down here and clean my
screen!

    Divorce imo is horrible.  Especially with children.  My ex-husband has
    demonstrated some extremely wonderful things over the last year, but
    most recently has become very bitter and resentful againj towards me. 
    He teeter totters in between love and hate.  
    
    He's also very very very good with the boys.  I have since his sobriety
    extended the periods of time in which he interacts with the boys and
    basically given him carte blanche to share all holidays that fall on my
    "legal" time.
    
    I am very proud of his progress because I believe it takes strength of
    character to get sober and become the father he's become.  But that
    doesn't mean he's become the ideal husband for me.  
    
    The "if" statements have haunted me to the point of ridiculousness. 
    The attached is my view of what happened in my marriage, if you're not
    interested in a Christian pov, don't read further:
    
    

On January 14, 1992, with tears flowing down our faces, we looked at each 
other with love still effervescent in our eyes as the judge declared our 
divorce final.  Even with all of the hurt and pain that came into that love, 
it still had power to keep us connected.  That love still shared the 
unconditional gift of our children, of an uninhibited physical relationship, 
of many holidays and special times.  Yet, it was *over* with the words 
spoken, "So, ordered".  

I don't know how to describe the emotions at the very hour, moment, you are 
about to hear a judge declare, "So ordered".  It was finally final, a 
heartbreaking divorce dividing mother and father and children.  

The pain was real, the rejection was real, the anger was real and the 
feeling of powerlessness was real.  The dream of one spouse, family and home 
no longer existed.  Thoughts of loneliness, financial struggles, parental 
challenges and shame that I failed in my walk with God, once again all 
flashed before me.  These feelings of loss were worse then if he had died.  
At least with death, there are no options, but with God there were options 
that could have saved this marriage.  

Powerlessness is the epitomy of emotional torture.  Yet, it is within that 
same feeling of powerlessness therein lies the answer.  By admitting that we 
are powerless over anything, or another person is exactly where God want us 
to be.  It is then, that God can do His greatest work within a person. 

Also, as a Christian, I have had to deal with the emotions of failure, 
shame, and guilt in this divorce. God promises no condemnation to them that 
know Him (John 3:17).  He wants us to find victory in all that we do, even 
our failures, for through the pain and conviction of sin, God can continue 
to mold us into vessels of unconditional love. God revealed to me that 
divorce is not the end of my Christian life, it is the beginning of 
acceptance of God's unconditional love by allowing Him to mend my broken 
heart.  

God's power became vague when I was caught up in the whirlpool of sin.  
Whether it be the sin of someone else or my own sin.  For example, when I 
pled with my husband to "understand" what HIS drinking was doing to our 
family, I believed "my wisdom" should motivate him to change.  Inevitably, 
God could not work in his life, because I was too busy working in his life.  
And God could not work in my life because I was too preoccupied with trying 
to get my husband to "just see" his sin, that I was not looking at my own 
sin.  I had bound God's hands and intervention with all of my earthly 
wisdom.  Anything that I could have, would have and currently could do, 
would only be temporary, a bandaid, but God's in the business of 
transforming lives for eternity.

Nancy
    

Swiped from DECUServe Who-Am-I #686.490; written by Bill Shumaker,
posted by Roger Bruner:
    
    I think that to understand Jesus's words these days, you have to 
    know a little bit about physics.
    
    First of all, to understand why Jesus felt forsaken by God when 
    he was at the same time God, we have to abandon, as best we can, 
    a human "point of reference".  By that I mean that reliance on 
    our experience alone only allows us to fully understand events, 
    beings, etc., that exist in what we experience as time and space. 
    And our experience of time and space represents, even in the 
    known universe, a relatively small slice of the fullness of time 
    and space.  For us, two things -- or two persons -- cannot occupy 
    the same space at the same time.   That's because we tend to 
    think of time and space as constants, that time is moving 
    "forward" at a pace that doesn't change, and that space is 
    measureable in a constant way. But physics has proven that these 
    are not constants.  Time moves along at different speeds under 
    different conditions, and space is not uniformly measurable 
    depending on conditions.  At the quantum level, where nuclear 
    particles react, time and space don't even make sense from our 
    perspective.  It's a rule for us that to get from point A to 
    point B ten feet away that we have to cross that ten feet.  But 
    at the quantum level, an electron may be in one point in space 
    one moment, and then at the next moment be in a relatively 
    distant point in space without ever have crossed the intervening 
    space.  Physicists can only talk about the position of electrons 
    in terms of probabilities, never with precision.  
    
    The flip side of the quantum coin are the events that theorists 
    think occur if you happen to wander into the vicinity of a black 
    hole.  It sucks you in at such a high speed that the passage of 
    time is altered radically, to the point where it passes at a much 
    slower rate than it does in our "normal" slice of the universe.  
    The rate of the passage of time decreases with velocity, and an 
    example of that is that the astronauts who went to the moon, 
    because of the velocities they achieved, are actually younger 
    than they would have been had they not made the journey.  
    Understandable? No.  True? Yes.
    
    All of which is to say that our human perspective allows us to 
    experience only a very thin slice of the dimensionality of the 
    universe.
    
    In fact, some physicists say there are as many as eleven 
    dimensions in the universe; other conservatives say only six.  
    But we can only percieve three, or four if you count time as a 
    dimension. One physicist even went so far as to say that, 
    literally, there is a sense in which the entire universe is 
    wrapped up in every atom.  We can't even begin to comprehend that 
    kind of notion, yet from a scientific perspective, it is true.
    
    (Any halfway literate Star Trek fan knows about the existence of 
    parallel universes -- a theory that is probably true -- but 
    incomprehensible.)
    
    So if we have such comprehension limitations as humans, that is, 
    limitations to our ability to reason, and if there is a creator 
    of all of this, (I'm assuming you believe in a Creator -- if not, 
    understanding physics can shed some light on that one too -- but 
    that's another story...) then certainly He has power and freedom 
    in relation to His creation.  He is capable of doing anything 
    with it he chooses to.  So if there is a creator being who 
    created time and space, then he must then be able to exist -- 
    outside of our limited view of time and space -- in the same 
    place, at the same time, in different manifestations.  Thus, 
    taking only rules of physics into account, you have to say that 
    it's possible for such a being to exist as one entity, and also 
    as two (even three -- as in the Trinity! ...but that's another 
    story, too...) entities at the same time in the same place.  
    
    That makes no sense, from the a limited human rational 
    perspective.  And yet it is very, very possible.
    
    And if existence outside our perspective of time and space is 
    possible, then existence completely outside the boundaries of 
    time and space is possible. 
    
    That one entity, who we believe exists simultaneously outside 
    time and space, and willingly within time and space, is who we 
    call God.  
    
    I believe that all people, deep within their being, know that 
    there is an incomprehensible being greater than them who lives 
    outside their frame of reference, and that people have been 
    searching for Him throughout history.  The Apostle Paul even 
    talks about such an awareness in the first chapter of Romans.  
    And there have been all kinds of attempts to describe this being, 
    resulting in a huge variety of religions.
    
    Christians believe that the entity, or God, has a deep love for 
    us as a best possible father would love his children, and that He 
    chose to reveal himself to us, and that then when we failed to 
    understand, and failed to return the love he had for us, he 
    joined us as a human -- co-existent with his infinite nature -- 
    something we can't understand but something that is certainly 
    possible -- to provide a means for us to meet him face to face 
    from within our frame of reference.  So that we would know that 
    he understands the fullness of our experience, he personally 
    experienced all the horrible desperate events we can possibly 
    face -- fear, torture, humiliation, pain, suffering, and many 
    more, plus the thing we fear the most -- death.  In the fullness 
    of Jesus' life, then, we have a "door" or a "way" to union with a 
    God we cannot possibly understand.  We have to believe what he 
    tells us about himself, or have "faith" that these possibilities 
    exist that we cannot know about on our own.
    
    Of course if we believe that it is possible for us as humans to 
    know everything  (as someone like the pop astronomer Carl Sagan 
    does) that is knowable through the use of our minds, then this 
    doesn't make sense.  But if we are realistic we have to concede 
    that we cannot find out everything.  We're just plain too 
    limited.  (For instance, how could we ever find out what is 
    happening at the edge of the expanding universe right this 
    minute?  We would have to be able to travel significantly faster 
    than the speed of light to arrive in time to see the next 
    instance, which is impossible.  And even if we could get there, 
    what lies just beyond the edge of the universe?  The word 
    "beyond" doesn't work, because it's a word born of time and 
    space, and betrays again our limitations.  Yet something must be 
    "there"...)
    
    My study of world religions, and my meditation on science and 
    religion, and my personal "encounter" with the Being that is 
    beyond us, tells me that what Jesus said and what the Church over 
    the centuries has concluded about what Jesus said is true.  
    
    So when Jesus cried out "Why hast thou forsaken me?" He was, 
    simultaneously from inside and outside of time and space, pulling 
    us, even the most miserable of us, with Him into another level of 
    existence that we can't even begin to comprehend. So when our 
    death finally comes, if we believe His revealing of Himself to 
    us, if we have yielded ourselves to Him in this life, He will 
    free us of the limitations of time and space, and we will join 
    Him in another plane of existence that, if nothing else, will be 
    very, very interesting...

    .351
    
    nice, but so much anthropomorphising! also, it reads like a synopsis of
    "The Tao of Physics" or "The Dancing Woolly Masters"
    
    i think talking about "god" has so much baggage associated with it
    because of the Judeo-Christian culture which anthropomorphises the
    concept into (extreme example) an old guy with a long white beard
    sitting on a throne "up there" somewhere, or some (singular) higher
    consciousness benevolently or otherwise watching proceedings like
    an aquarist watching his fish. that's one way humanity chooses to view
    the possibilities, but there are others.
    
    ric
    

    >First of all, to understand why Jesus felt forsaken by God when
    >he was at the same time God, 
    
    This is one of the problems I have with religion, Christianity in
    particular. Even what appears simple to understand in the Bible and makes 
    even some sense, when related to the rest of the story, is made
    complicated and confusing unnecessarily. 
    
    As a non-theist I see it like this, which appears apparent when reading
    the Bible.
    
    	1. The so-called trilogy is a godhead of sorts consisting of three
    	   separate beings:
    		God the Father
    		God the Son
    		God the Holy Ghost
    
    	2. Jesus being God the Son was abandoned by God the Father and
    	   presumably God the Holy Ghost. He now being left completely
    	   alone.  
    
    The entire time/quantum/physics nonsense is the result of someone,
    probably a professed Christian, not understanding the story. I don't
    claim to know the Christian dogma, but from a logic standpoint it seems
    straight forward. But probably just in my mind.
    
    ...Tom

>    	1. The so-called trilogy is a godhead of sorts consisting of three
>    	   separate beings:

Trinity.

Persons.

    God comes in a 3 volume set?

	yeah..... volume I, God
		 volume II, Jesus
		Volume III, Holy Spirit

    >       1. The so-called trilogy is a godhead of sorts consisting of
    three
    >          separate beings:
    
    You're thinking of Emerson Lake and Palmer.
    
    -Jack

    >Trinity.
    
    Yea, I guess that does make more sense, thanks.
    
    >God comes in a 3 volume set
    
    Hahahaha --- after that I think I like trilogy better.  :)
    
    ...Tom

re .351

>   And if existence outside our perspective of time and space is
>   possible, then existence completely outside the boundaries of
>   time and space is possible.

in theory, yes.

>   That one entity, who we believe exists simultaneously outside
>   time and space, and willingly within time and space, is who we
>   call God.

why should there be just ONE entity, why shouldn't there be a seemingly
infinite number of entities existing completely outside the boundaries
of time and space?



andreas.

    re .359
    
    Because some people like to make "god" in their own images and limit
    him/her.  While this is limiting "god" they are happy with this
    limitation.  

>   Because some people like to make "god" in their own images and limit
>   him/her.  While this is limiting "god" they are happy with this
>   limitation.  

... and from this limited image to derive the rules of what thou shalt and
what thouh shalt not. pretty neat!



andreas.

(Gee - I haven't logged into my DECUServe account for months.)

    > ... and from this limited image to derive the rules of what thou
    > shalt and what thouh shalt not. pretty neat!
    
    Minor nit.  From the Christian perspective, the "thou shalt's" and the
    "thou shalt not's" are not derived from a limited image of God, but from
    God's revelation of what we should and should not do. 
    
    One is man-made (your example).  One is God revealed.  There is a big
    difference.  
    
    Of course, you are free to argue whether God actually revealed these 
    "thou shalt's" to us, but that's another subject.
    
    
    -steve

    .364 (formerly .362, please don't move it again!)
    
    > Minor nit.  From the Christian perspective, the "thou shalt's" and the
    > "thou shalt not's" are not derived from our image of God, but from
    > God's revelation of what we should and should not do.
    
    Minor nit.  Actually, the "thou shalt"s and "thou shalt not"s are
    derived from our image of God, as developed from the writings of people
    whom we believe to have been inspired.  We call them "revealed," but
    they are revealed only in the sense that we choose to believe that they
    are.  There is no way to prove that they are revealed; matters of faith
    are inherently unprovable and most certainly not self-proving.

re .364    

>   Minor nit.  From the Christian perspective, the "thou shalt's" and the
>   "thou shalt not's" are not derived from a limited image of God, but from
>   God's revelation of what we should and should not do. 

sure. only that .359 (.351 actually) makes it fairly clear that the nature 
of god is speculative. this would make god's revelations speculative also.



andreas.

ps. don't tell me! you're going to say all was revealed by j.c., right? ;-)

    Steve,
    
    You mean "god" CHANNELLED information to those who wrote the words of
    "god" into your book of shadows?  This sounds suspicsiously like
    psychic phenomena or automatic writing.  I don't suppose your god's
    prophets used a ouija board or something?
    
    meg

    John, thanks for posting that.  I enjoyed it!
    
    Re: Trinity
    
    I think Triunity is a more appropriate term.  The Hebrew word used for
    God in Genesis 1 is "Elohim" which is a uniplural noun form.  When man
    was created, God said, "Let *us* make man in *our* image."  Man is a
    triune being as well: body, soul, and spirit.  Each one conforms to the
    nature/image of God.
    
    If you use the whole Bible as context, there are several passages that
    reveal to you the triune nature of God.

1. Each is called God:  Father - Romans 1:7.  Son - Matthew 1:23; Romans 9:5;
   Hebrews 1:8.  Spirit - Acts 5:3-4; Ephesians 2:22.
    
2. Each is called Lord:  Father - Matthew 11:25.  Son - Acts 2:36; Romans 10:9.
   Spirit - 2 Corinthians 3:17.
    
3. Each is called Creator: Father - Isaiah 42:5, 45:18; 1 Corinthians 8:6.
   Son - John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2; 1 Corinthians 8:6.  Spirit -
   Genesis 1:1-2; Job 26:13,33-34.
    
4. Each is called Comforter:  Father - Isaiah 51:3,12; 2 Corinthians 1:3-4; 7:6;
   2 Thessalonians 2:16-17.  Son - John 14:18; Philippians 2:1; 2 Thessalonians
   2:16-17.  Spirit - John 14:16-17,26; Acts 9:31.
    
    On the other hand, there are several passages telling us that God is
    one, the first and last, and no god is before or after Him.  If you
    don't use the whole Bible as context and as the single integrated
    message system that it is, you will run into problems and apparent
    contradictions.  The problems and contradictions are resolved in the
    full context of the Bible.
    
    if you're interested in more just ask,
    Mike

    another article along the same lines as what John entered.
    
    {from "Grace Outside Time" by Chuck Missler, November 1994}
    
    The latest discoveries in quantum physics and astrophysics provide
    remarkable evidence of God's ongoing involvement in the creation of
    time, space, and matter.  The latest insights of Einstein's General
    Theory of Relativity reveal that time itself is a created property as
    1 of 4 dimensions of our universe.
    
    In 2 Timothy 1:9, the apostle Paul makes a remarkable statement that
    God's grace "was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of
    time."  A study of the Greek phrase "pro chronon aionion," translated
    "before the beginning of time," shows the independent existence of
    God's grace in Christ outside of our time domain.  Consider the
    following observations:
    
    1) The Greek preposition "pro" corresponds closely to our own English
    preposition "before," which can connote either position or
    chronological order.  For example, we can speak "before someone" in the
    sense of giving a speech to them, or we can speak "before someone" in
    the sense of talking prior to their getting a chance to do so.  Both
    meanings are included within the preposition "before."  The Greek
    preposition "before."  The Greek preposition "pro" can mean the same
    thing.
    
    2) The Greek word "chronos" means durations of measurable time such as
    seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, decades, centuries,
    millenia, epochs, etc. (the quantization of time into units, as is now
    recognized in quantum physics is thus implied!).
    
    3) the Greek word "aionion" used in 2 Timothy 1:9 means time in the
    sense of the dimension of time itself.  The word appears to be derived
    from 2 Greek words which, taken together, mean "time which is not
    self-existent"; i.e., time which starts with a point but which
    continues toward some unknown destination.  This origin for the Greek word 
    "aionion" (time) is provocatively similar to the defintion that most 
    modern physicists use to define "time"; i.e., a 1-way physical dimension 
    in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place but in which travel can go 
    forward but not backward.
    
    Putting all 3 observations together, it is grammatically possible that
    the apostle Paul is telling Timothy that God's gift of grace was given
    to us both spatially in front of, as well as antecedent to the creation
    of, measurable time.  It was given to us outside of our time domain of
    cause-and-effect phenomena AND BEFORE THERE WERE CAUSE-AND-EFFECT
    PHENOMENA.  God's grace eternally existed for us literally "before time
    existed."  That's why the NIV translates the verse by saying that God's
    grace was given to us before time began.
    
    His grace exists outside of cause-and-effect phenomena, that is why
    it's grace!  It's independent of human actions, thoughts, words,
    choices, or attitudes.  Think about this the next time you're worried
    about how many of your sins were covered by Christ's grace or what part
    you can play in receiving the gift.  His grace was given to you and
    displayed in the presence of, antecedent to, and independent of all of
    your sins and choices.  Since Christ's grace existed for you in His own
    timeless eternity, not one human act or choice has been excluded from
    grace.  But it still needs to be received, or accepted.
    
    Perhaps another fundamental lesson that all of the theologians among us
    can learn from is that a basic understanding of general relativity can
    go a long way toward reconciling the apparent paradoxes of grace and
    works, faith and sight, and free choice and predestination.  When did
    God first begin dealing with you?
    
    "He hath chosen us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the
    world..." Ephesians 1:4

    Tom,
    
    When Jesus was on the cross he cried out to his Father in Heaven, "My
    God why hast thou forsaken me?"
    
    It is believed that in order Christ to be the Savior he took on the
    sins of the world.  He paid the price for us so that all those who
    place their faith in Him would have life eternal.
    
    Nancy

    >It is believed that in order Christ to be the Savior he took on the
    >sins of the world.  He paid the price for us so that all those who
    >place their faith in Him would have life eternal.
    
    I know the story, what's the point luv?
    
    ...Tom

re .370

>   The latest discoveries in quantum physics and astrophysics provide
>   remarkable evidence of God's ongoing involvement in the creation of
>   time, space, and matter.  The latest insights of Einstein's General
>   Theory of Relativity reveal that time itself is a created property as
>   1 of 4 dimensions of our universe.

i am sure if you expand a little on that (without these biblical quotes,
which are pointless really when looking at them from a godless perspective)
well if you expand a little on that remarkable evidence, then who's to 
continue to argue with you?



andreas.

      There are many recent evidences.  Off the top of my head:
    
    - Time isn't constant and affected by gravity.  It still surprises how
      many haven't heard this yet.
    
    - 10 dimensional universe.  12th century Hebrew scholars wrote about
      this just by studying Genesis 1.  Four dimensions are directly
      discernible (3 spatial plus time) and 6 are "curled" within 10^-33 cm
      and are too small to be verified by direct experimentation.
    
    - Dark matter discovered.  We only see 5% of our universe.  Red Dwarfs
      were a possible explanation and one of the Hubble's missions, but
      they've been eliminated by 2 independent research teams.  They're
      looking to Neutrinos, WIMPs and MACHOs now for answers.  Invisible matter
      confirms Hebrews 11:3.
    
    - Hubble alone has created several new controversies based on its
      observations.
    
    - Quantized red shifts.  
    
    Mike

>    - 10 dimensional universe.  12th century Hebrew scholars wrote about
>      this just by studying Genesis 1.  Four dimensions are directly
>      discernible (3 spatial plus time) and 6 are "curled" within 10^-33 cm
>      and are too small to be verified by direct experimentation.

This sounds fascinating. Can one understand the concept merely by having
an ability to comprehend things scientific or does it require that faith
thang?

re .375


thanks for posting that mike!


we may be speaking totally different languages here but i don't see how 
from any of this we can conclude on god's existance.

if with your note, essentially, you are saying that the universe is not 
what we thought it to be, then, what's new?

since kopernikus we already know that the universe does not end where our
eyes reach, metaphorically speaking. we know that our view of the universe 
is based on a theory and that new theories replace old theories and so on.

conceptually, we also know about dimensions, and we know which dimensions 
we live in. since we exist in some dimensional space we can at least 
hypothesize that there can be existance in 1-dimensional, in 2-dimensional, 
or in n-dimensional space. 

but, in practice, we can't get in touch with conceptualised beings in higher 
or lower dimensions and they can't get in touch with us.

at least noone has ever proved this to everyones satisfaction.


am i missing the point some where?


andreas.

    The more we discover, the more we realize that the complexity and 
    organization of the universe is a result of divine engineering.  To say
    it was an accident cheapens it even more than saying the VAX or AXP was
    an accident instead of engineering excellence.
    
    Mike

    .378
    
    The more we discover, the more we realize that human beings are pattern
    recognizers and will go to extreme lengths to see patterns around them
    even where there are no patterns to be seen.

well let's hope that the AXP is less prone to errors than human nature is. :-)



have a nice weekend!

andreas.

    Human nature has free agency, the AXP does what it's told to do. ;-)
    
    nice talking with ya, Andreas!
    
    Mike

    The more we discover the more we discover. Man is a conscious animal
    that has learned to conrol his environment as opposed to unconscious
    animals that have learned to adapt to theirs. This controlling ability
    of conscious beings could means that the universe is no accident but
    "devine engineering" is a bit much.
    
    ...Tom

    Man doesn't even have control over this planet never mind the rest of
    the universe.  If we can control our environment:
    
    - how do we change gravity on earth?
    - how about the weather?
    - how about disease and pestilence?
    - how about earthquakes and other non-weather related catastrophes?
    - why don't we live forever if we're so good?
    - how about crime, war, and other acts of violence?  
    - how do you know you'll get up in the morning?
    - how do you know this won't be the last VAX Notes reply you read?
    
    Man has control of very little.
    
    Mike

    <------- It's coming!!
    
    ...Tom

     >Man has control of very little.
    
    I also shouldn't have to point out how far man has progressed since he
    lived in caves. The advancements are coming so quickly that it is very
    difficult to keep up. Remember the speed of light is the limit!!
    
    ...Tom

 ZZ   I also shouldn't have to point out how far man has progressed since
 ZZ   he lived in caves. The advancements are coming so quickly that it is
 ZZ   very difficult to keep up. Remember the speed of light is the limit!!
    
    There is nothing that has occurred since the beginning of time that God
    has not allowed to happen for his own purposes.   And even if this
    weren;t the case, consider the vastness of the universe and then
    consider how far man has progressed.  Totally insignificant.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, if you compare it to the universe, it is not all that
signifigant. But wait.... how has the universe progressed Jack??? Can ya fill
us in with all the details???

    The universe is in a state of entropy Glen...and that's a major point.
    This puts a complete damper on the evolutionist point of view!
    
    -Jack

    The advancements of man on this earth is approaching asymptotic
    proportions. Consider:
    
    Knowledge accumulation proceeded slowly for thousands of years. Then,
    perhaps some 10000 years ago man developed language. From that point
    knowledge accumulation gradually accelerated as the base of knowledge
    increased through memory and oral communications, then through written
    communications. For man to produce great sailing ships, for example, he
    needed about 3000 years of accumulated knowledge and technology. then
    he need about 900 years of faster accumulated knowledge in order to
    produce a bicycle for improved individual transportation. He then
    needed another 200 years to produce an automobile. Then 60 years to
    produce a practical airplane which provided transportation that was
    inconceivable 100 years early. Then only 40 years were needed to
    develop spacecraft that could take men to the moon and explore outer
    planets. Now, today, new knowledge is accelerating so rapidly that our
    productive focus is storing, processing, integrating and transmitting
    information. Today computers are undergoing explosive increases in
    capacities, power and practicality. This knowledge should now continue
    increasing geometrically until storage and other devices approach the
    speed of light.
    
    This is due to the mind of man and the ability of consciousness. We can
    get on board or subjugate our lives to the antediluvian notions of the
    ancients. The choice is each individual's.
    
    ...Tom 
    
    

    Tom:
    
    It is very easy to build upon the work of other people...as is the case
    in today's society.
    
    The real genius were the forefathers of various technologies.  Get some
    smart engineers and cash...and you can improve anything 1000 fold.
    
    Evolution of intelligence has nothing to do with it!
    
    -Jack

    >The universe is in a state of entropy.
    
    Not yet it isn't. Using the known Doppler effect it is shown that our
    universe is still in the explosion, energy to matter cycle. Our
    universe is exploding outward at near the speed of light, moving away
    from its original "big bang" birth with ever increasing entropy. It is
    estimated by some that this explosion cycle (though not yet able to be
    calculated) will not reach total entropy for a few billion years.
    
    ...Tom

    >Evolution of intelligence has nothing to do with it
    
    But evolution of knowledge has everything to do with it.
    
    ...TOm

| <<< Note 390.388 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| The universe is in a state of entropy Glen...and that's a major point.

	What makes you think it is Jack?

    Glen:
    
    If you shoot a bullet from a gun, the highest speed of the bullet is
    when it is discharged from the gun.  It immediately loses speed and
    continues to do so because of gravity.  he energy of the projectile is
    in entropy.
    
    Even if the big bang were true, consider that the explosion and its
    effects are weaker than they were yesterday...otherwise, the big bang
    would continue in process for all eternity.  Tom, be it a few billion
    years or 1 year, it matters not.  It is still a fact that there is a
    resistant force slowing down the progression.  Therefore, entropy is
    indeed happening right now.  It is a law of thermodynamics.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, is gravity a good thing to use to describe enthropy? I mean, what
if someone shot a gun on the moon? Or some place where there is no gravity? How
does that equal enthropy for the universe? 


Glen

    Glen:
    
    Do you agree with what Tom said?  He said that the big bang is still in
    process and will not begin entropy for a few billion years.  But it
    doesn't matter.  It is still getting that much closer to
    finality...this is a progression to a state of decay in itself.
    
    If I shoot a bullet in a non gravitational environment, the bullet will
    continue forever at the same speed or it's initial energy will decay. 
    This is entropy.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 390.396 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>



| If I shoot a bullet in a non gravitational environment, the bullet will
| continue forever at the same speed or it's initial energy will decay.
| This is entropy.

	Jack, you give an or.... are you refering entropy to the or ONLY, or to
both? 


Glen

>    I also shouldn't have to point out how far man has progressed since he
>    lived in caves. The advancements are coming so quickly that it is very
>    difficult to keep up. 
    
    Depends if you're talking millions of years or thousands of years.  If
    the former, we should be ashamed we're not further along than we are. 
    If the latter, then the advancements are rapid.
    
    >Remember the speed of light is the limit!!
    
    Some have argued that c is decaying.
    
    Mike

>    Not yet it isn't. Using the known Doppler effect it is shown that our
>    universe is still in the explosion, energy to matter cycle. Our
>    universe is exploding outward at near the speed of light, moving away
>    from its original "big bang" birth with ever increasing entropy. It is
    
    The recent discovery of quantized red shifts provide contrary evidence
    to expansion.
    
    Mike

    Beat me to it!!!!

    Glen:
    
    The bullet will not continue...it was meant as a rhetorical point.
    
    The 4th law of thermodynamics makes the point that everything in the
    universe is in entropy.  (I believe it is the 4th law).  Feel free to
    correct me if I'm wrong.
    
    -Jack

    >The 4th law of thermodynamics makes the point that everything in the
    >universe is in entropy. 
    
    Not "in entropy", moving towards entropy. If the universe was in 
    entropy there would be no star available to explode, no cliff is
    available from which a pebble can fall and no wind would blow. All
    would be dead and still. The stars would be cold, dark, motionless and
    scattered. No sound or light would exist.
    
    Entropy is the second of the three universal, axiomatic laws of
    thermodynamics. Entropy measures irretrievable energy spent on
    scattering the universe.
    
    ...Tom 

>    Some have argued that c is decaying.

No doubt. I took a one week course in it several years ago and sensed it
was pretty rotten then.

    
    Particularly with C-- for the objectionably oriented...
    
    bb

| <<< Note 390.398 by OUTSRC::HEISER "the dumbing down of America" >>>

| Depends if you're talking millions of years or thousands of years.  If
| the former, we should be ashamed we're not further along than we are.


	Bull.... who are you to determine just how far along we're supposed to
be? According to your beliefs, doesn't God allow things to happen, when He
wants them to happen? If this is the case, and we use your analogy above, we
would have to be ashamed of God.


Glen

| <<< Note 390.404 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

| >    Some have argued that c is decaying.

| No doubt. I took a one week course in it several years ago and sensed it
| was pretty rotten then.

	Jack, that's why they came out with C++ cuz C was decaying...

    Glen, your reply defies common sense.  If it took us millions of years
    to get to this point, I feel sorry for us.
    
    Mike

    >If it took us millions of years to get to this point, I feel sorry for us.
    
    I feel sorry for us too. I also am angry at the reason. One of the
    reasons is the religious dogma that has suppressed the advancements of
    man.
    
    ...Tom 

>    I feel sorry for us too. I also am angry at the reason. One of the
>    reasons is the religious dogma that has suppressed the advancements of
>    man.

Ah, yes, that would account for the advancement of the Soviet Union.

    RE: NOTIME::SACKS 
    
    >>    I feel sorry for us too. I also am angry at the reason. One of the
                                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^
    >>    reasons is the religious dogma that has suppressed the advancements of
          ^^^^^^^
    >>    man.
    
    >Ah, yes, that would account for the advancement of the Soviet Union.
    
    Next time try reading for comprehension. By the way, religion had much
    to do with the the reason for the Russian Revolution in the first place.
    
    ...Tom

    
    The only way one could read .409 for comprehension would be to
    start with a lobotomy...
    
      bb

    I'm sorry bb, I forgot to define the words, for your benefit.
    
    ...Tom

    You could argue that Communism is a religion.

| <<< Note 390.408 by OUTSRC::HEISER "the dumbing down of America" >>>

| Glen, your reply defies common sense.  

	Not really Mike. I've been hearing that God has allowed this to happen,
that to happen, that He hasn't revieled this or that to us yet, and now you
turn around and give us what you wrote before, and now say my response defies
common sense? Come on Mike. you can do better than that. Either everything is
allowed to happen/not happen from God, or it isn't. If it is, then common sense
doesn't play into this, cuz we ain't dealing on human terms, but His.

| If it took us millions of years to get to this point, I feel sorry for us.

	Mike, I won't know where you're coming from if you believe we are
responsible for having the things happen that have. 


Glen

    The more we find out about the universe the more we must realize how
    insignificant we are. But, because God pays so much attention to us,
    like helping us find an open gas station in the middle of nowhere,
    we must be more important than how the evidence stacks up.
    
    Just how important are we?

    I didn't misunderstand it Glen...I didn't agree or disagree with it
    either.  As far as I'm concerned, I don't have a position on it because
    you're right, I don't fully understand it just like a an evolutionist
    doesn't fully understand the origin of the earth.  It's all
    speculation...some on strong evidence and some on weak.
    
    Just because I don't fully understand it doesn't mean I can't play
    devils advocate for the sake of dialog.
    
    -Jack

    >Just how important are we?
    
    Conscious life is without exception the number one most important
    commodity in the universe. Nothing can come close in importance, 
    significance, magnitude or prominence. The wasting of conscious life is 
    the highest form of superfluous devastation.
    
    ...Tom  

       <<< Note 390.419 by DASHER::RALSTON "Anagram: Lost hat on Mars" >>>

>    Conscious life is without exception the number one most important
>    commodity in the universe. Nothing can come close in importance, 
>    significance, magnitude or prominence. The wasting of conscious life is 
>    the highest form of superfluous devastation.

What logical, reasonable basis do you have for such a statement, Tom?    

    Tom, I don't think you have the universal knowledge to know if
    consciousness is the most important commodity in the universe. You will
    eventually come to see that the most important commodity in the universe
    is shoes.

    Hope this helps.

          <<< Note 390.421 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Indeedy Do Da Day" >>>

>    eventually come to see that the most important commodity in the universe
>    is shoes.
        ^^^^^^
That what my grandmother said! Is there a geriatric personality you're
hiding from us? 

Shoes? As in "shoes for industry"?

    Iris, though she has a beard, is a very sweet little old lady.

    re: .420 and .421
    
    Let me ask a question in reply. To you personally, what is the most
    important thing in existence? 
    
    
    Now I will answer for me. It is my own individual life, and I am like
    you, a conscious being. Usually when this is admitted by someone the 
    shouts of SELFISHNESS are heard throughout the land. However, logic would 
    dictate, based on present knowledge of the human brain that 
    self-preservation always comes first. We don't function any other way.
    
    ...Tom

    I'll agree with Tom in regards to human nature, but only within the
    context of being outside of love.  Love tends to change our priorities.
    
    
    -steve

    
    Lookie. lookie - Purina is founding a sect !!!  OK, chow, what's
    the rest of your tenets ?  Do you have sacred symbols ?  How about
    a double helix or something ?
    
      bb

Let's hope he doesn't sacrifice bears.

    
    re: .427
    
    Maybe he can get pointers from meg... or the Masons...
    

       <<< Note 390.425 by DASHER::RALSTON "Anagram: Lost hat on Mars" >>>

Sorry, Tom. Beg to differ. You are *not* the most important thing in the 
universe. I am.  Aw, now we have a problem, don't we? :'>

    re: survival

    I believe this is the underlying building block of all religions. Now
    that we can survive beyond the food we can gather for a day, we have to
    find a way to survive beyond death, which is our final frontier.

    RE: .426
    
    I agree Steve, love means that you have someone who is so important to
    yourself that you place him or her on the same plain.
    
    RE: .427
    
    As usual you have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion.
    
    RE: .428
    
    Absolutely no sacrifice of any kind is required.
    
    RE: .430
    
    Agree, I'm the most important to me and your the most important
    to you, as it should be except perhaps when including a love partner.
    
    RE: .431
    
    If you want to give up the life you know for a speculative life after
    death, feel free. Personally that isn't for me.
    
    ...Tom

>    I agree Steve, love means that you have someone who is so important to
>    yourself that you place him or her on the same plain.

There's no love in the mountains?

    That opens the discussion to a whole range of topics.

Andes bound to get in this discussion soon.  It'll be on Rocky ground.
Glenn, Ural right.

    Andes? Himalaya anyways.

    Hope this Alps.

    Thanks for the Appalachian though Gerald.

	Have we reached the peak of punniness, yet ?

I'm afraid it's all downhill from here.  Will we Everest?  Sorry for the
Ararat hole.

    It's kind of a Cascade effect, wouldn't you agree?

| <<< Note 390.418 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Just because I don't fully understand it doesn't mean I can't play
| devils advocate for the sake of dialog.

	You're good at that Jack. Are you sure you're not secretly working for
him?

    Your set personal says everything about you chum!
    
    -Jack

>	Not really Mike. I've been hearing that God has allowed this to happen,
>that to happen, that He hasn't revieled this or that to us yet, and now you
>turn around and give us what you wrote before, and now say my response defies
>common sense? Come on Mike. you can do better than that. Either everything is
>allowed to happen/not happen from God, or it isn't. If it is, then common sense
>doesn't play into this, cuz we ain't dealing on human terms, but His.
    
    The view above doesn't take man's free agency into consideration.  The
    proper perspective to me is the balance of God's sovereignty and man's
    free agency.  I still stand by what I've said.  However, Daniel 12:4
    should also be considered:
    
12:4  But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the
 time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
    
    Mike

    I'm still waiting to hear from Tom what man has control of in this
    universe.  From my previous list you should be able to narrow it down
    real fast.

    Man has control of his sexual urges.

    Depends on who you ask.

    Oh no, man has full control over his sexual urges in this universe.

    I've heard some claim "I can't help it!"

    Ah, well see, this is where my argument falls to the ground. I was
    hoping you weren't going to make that particular point, but I can see
    you're more than a match for me.

    8^)

    >I'm still waiting to hear from Tom what man has control of 
    
    The essence of conscious life is control. The ability to control one's
    present and future. Conscious life is the only entity in the universe
    that can control nature and future events.
    
    Man has learned to outcompete any god. From something as simple as a
    shoe to efficient "skyscrapers that control their own environment.
    Creation could not create automobiles, airplanes, spacecraft,
    environmentally controlled homes and buildings, machinery, clocks,
    watches, energy plants that light up entire cities, satellites,
    telephones of every kind etc, etc, etc. Only conscious man could create
    and control these things. Think of the advancements in medicine. Think 
    of the computer and all its possibilities. These things
    were created and are controlled by conscious, thinking man. Nature
    created the wind and the water. Man harnessed the wind and the water.
    Nature created the moon. Man traveled there and back, leaving his mark.
    The future hold wonders of what man will accomplish. All diseases will
    one day be nonexistant. Weather manipulation will expand the food
    supply. Man will advance in the future to total control of environment 
    including continued expansion of life expectancy. One day man may even 
    create his own universe.
    
    ...Tom

       <<< Note 390.449 by DASHER::RALSTON "Anagram: Lost hat on Mars" >>>
                            -< What man controls. >-

WOW!

Nature really outdid herself, eh? Literally. And to think that it was all an 
accident, too! Amazing what you can do if you have enough time!

'course, an Apollo rocket - lunar landing module included - ain't half as
complicated as an amoebae... 

    If nature cannot even create stainless steel (and we know all the base 
    metals are there, as well as heat, etc.), how can it create a human?
    
    As far as I can tell, I've not seen any spontaneous stainless steel
    creations pop up anywhere. 
    
    
    -steve

    >As far as I can tell, I've not seen any spontaneous stainless steel
    >creations pop up anywhere.
    
    That's one of my points Steve. Only conscious thinking man can create
    these things.
    
    ...Tom

    spontaneous creations popping up..........

    >spontaneous creations popping up..........
    
    Yep, we better watch where we step... :)
    
    ...Tom

    FWIW----Thumper Index is dropping. It stands at 3.6, unless we include
    Topic 433-The Middle East, then the index is 3.9
    
    ...Tom

    re: .452
    
    Right you are, Tom!
    
    Now follow that logic through, and you will see my point.  If it takes
    conscious thinking to create stainless steel (a fairly simple
    creation), then wouldn't it take conscious thinking to 
    create man (infinitely more complex than stainless steel)?
    
    -steve

    .456
    
    Not necessarily.

    re: .456
    
    This may be a little far fetched but I think that an arguement can be
    made for a conscious thinking man/women, billions of years more advanced 
    than we are now, to have created the universe. ("let there be light")
    However, after that it seems obvious that the remainder of life as we
    know it has evolved. Conscious man eventally evolves to the point where
    he can create a universe. Then it starts all over again on into
    infinity.
    
    Just a theory
    
    ...Tom

    re: .458
    
    If you can believe that a man/woman evolved enough to create a
    universe, why not take the next step and believe God created it?
    
    Either case- man/God, the creation model holds.  The universe was
    designed by some master designer.  Intellegent creations point towards 
    an intellegent designer.
    
    Just as you look at your computer and know that it was designed and
    built with conscious intent and intelligence.  You don't look at it and
    think it evolved without intellegent input- that it is merely the
    result of chance events, random mixings of elements and billions of
    years.  
    
    Why then would we look at life- which is infinitely more complex than
    any computer- and point towards these chance events, random mixings of
    elements (and later mutations), and lots of time as being the cause? 
    Why do we look at a computer and see intellegence, but look at life and
    see it as a chance occurance?
    
    It just doesn't seem logical to me. 
    
    -steve           

    Why is the next step necessary, Steve?  Occam's razor says take the
    most economical choice, and while it may be easier and more comforting
    to believe in a deity, the natural explanation, i.e., mix a few
    chemicals and stir for sagans of years, is far more economical in that
    it does not require an omnipotent, omniscient being of any sort.

    Because computers are not a life form.

    Just because intelligence created my Ford... Uh, um... Just because
    there are lots of cars roaming the planet doesn't mean that they are a
    natural occurrence.

> The ability to control one's present and future. 
    
    Tom, my will's control was to be yet another Arizonan to win Powerball 
    last night.  What did I do wrong?
    
>    Man has learned to outcompete any god. From something as simple as a
>    shoe to efficient "skyscrapers that control their own environment.
    
    Shoes fall apart and so do skyscrapers.  If we had control we would
    build them to last.
    
>    Creation could not create automobiles, airplanes, spacecraft,
    
    ...and we do such a great job of creating and controlling them that
    thousands die in them every year.  Were the Challenger astronauts in
    control?
    
>    environmentally controlled homes and buildings, machinery, clocks,
>    watches, energy plants that light up entire cities, satellites,
    
    Ever hear of Chernobyl?
    
>    telephones of every kind etc, etc, etc. Only conscious man could create
    
    I hear cellular phones tend to cause tumors.  Is this true or just
    urban myth?
    
>    and control these things. Think of the advancements in medicine. Think 
    
    Yeah I'm sure glad they found cures for HIV, Ebola, Cancer, Leukemia,
    and Heart disease.
    
>    of the computer and all its possibilities. These things
    
    Even hear of a Pentium?
    
>    were created and are controlled by conscious, thinking man. Nature
>    created the wind and the water. Man harnessed the wind and the water.
    
    You can't be serious.  Besides, I haven't seen us harness a tornado,
    hurricane, flash floods, or tidal wave yet.
    
>    All diseases will one day be nonexistant. 
    
    True, God's Word says it will happen in heaven.
    
    Based on the above, I hope I'm not around when we think we're going to
    create our own universe.  We'll probably kill all of mankind in the
    process.
    
    Mike

RE: Note 390.459, Steve
    
    >If you can believe that a man/woman evolved enough to create a
    >universe, why not take the next step and believe God created it?
    
    Because a creator theory can make some sense, and still comply with
    evolution. But, god and life after death makes no logical sense based
    on the objective knowledge that we have. A creator conforms to the laws
    of physics. A god only works in man's emotional, as opposed to his
    reasoned, response. 
    
            
    >It just doesn't seem logical to me. 
    
    Yes life is complex. But can be reasoned using known science combined
    with time. The life after death concept is illogical and unreasonable.

    ...Tom

    Dick, it's not a matter of comfort, it is a matter of odds.  I think
    the entire universe is too well designed to have occured without an
    intellegence- same with the human body.  I simply have no faith in
    ramdom chance creating incredibly complex, well designed life-
    regardless of how many billions of years it may have had.
    
    ymmv
    
    -steve

    
    Isn't the "argument from design" subject to infinite regress?
    
    As in, who designed the designer?

    
    Yes, I believe Herman Wouk espoused this theory in one of his earlier
    books.

    
    re: .460
    
    Dick,
    
     What is the rationale for believing the "most economical choice" over
    "diety"???
    
     Why one over the other and vice versa??
    

    re: .462
    
    IMO you think in a box and refuse to make the effort to see where we were, 
    in relation to all the things that I mentioned, compare to where we are 
    now and to extrapolate into the future.
    
    
    Progress of man:
    ---------------
    									x |
    									  |
    									x |
    								          |
    								          |
    								       x  |
    								          |
    								      x   |
    								          |
    								    x	  |
    									  |
    								x	  |
    							   x		  |
    					 	  x 			  |
     x x x x x x x x x x	x					  |
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    									  |
    			TIME --------->

    .464
    
    But Steve, how does the "divine design" argument accommodate all the
    various harmful species, both plant and animal?  Consider especially
    bacteria and viruses and rickettsia that use humans, and only humans,
    for their hosts.
    
    Do you really believe that a loving God went out of his way to create
    thousands of species whose sole function is to reproduce themselves at
    the expense of his most prized creation, the human species?  This might
    fly if you buy the "original sin" whopper,  but it certainly falls flat
    in the face of the fact that similar submicroscopic critters have been
    around, devastating nonhuman hosts, since LONG before humans appeared. 
    The system of life on this planet was not stable or well designed at
    the start.
    
    It is possible that a deity created the Universe, but once created, the
    system has just gone on working; like Topsy, it "just growed" to where
    it is now.

    RE: .464, Steve
    
    >it's not a matter of comfort, it is a matter of odds
    
     What are the odds that man developed through random chance Steve? Before 
    you answer remember that if there are any odds at all of it happening,
    it absolutely will happen an infinite number of times in infinite time.
    
    ...Tom 

    .467
    
    The most economical choice is the cheapest one.  To have a god AND the
    Universe is more expenseve, logically, than to have the Universe
    without the god, because quantity two requires more resources than
    quantity one.  Material or immaterial, a god requires some resources of
    some type.  Hence, the "godless" argument is more economical.

>    IMO you think in a box and refuse to make the effort to see where we were, 
>    in relation to all the things that I mentioned, compare to where we are 
>    now and to extrapolate into the future.
    
    Tom, progress <> control

>     What are the odds that man developed through random chance Steve? Before 
>    you answer remember that if there are any odds at all of it happening,
>    it absolutely will happen an infinite number of times in infinite time.
    
    time is not infinite, it's finite and alterable.  the odds of this
    random chance of forming man requires billions of years that exceeds the 
    finite time available.

    >Tom, progress <> control
    
    Obviously progress leads to control
    
    >time is not infinite, it's finite and alterable
    
    Since time is finite, by your definition, you ought to be able to
    define its length.
    
    ...Tom

I think he did, Tom.

>requires billions of years that exceeds the finite time available.

There you have it. Time is less than billions of years, per Mike Heiser.
I'm sure he'll be producing the references for us.

    .473
    
    > requires billions of years that exceeds the
    > finite time available.
    
    Crap.  Write a number on a piece of paper.  Start a random number
    generator cranking, and it is just as likely that the number you wrote
    will appear after ONE iteration as it is that it will appear a billion
    years from now.  That's what random means.

>    Since time is finite, by your definition, you ought to be able to
>    define its length.
    
    seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, scores, 
    centuries, millenia...

<----- Deep. Very Deep.

    .477
    
    > seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades, scores,
    > centuries, millenia...
    
    Except for scores, which means twenties of whatever is being discussed,
    those are all words we use to measure the passage of time.  They place
    no limit on the extent of time as a continuum.

    That's ok, Mike's answer is sufficient. We all know that the earth is only 
    about 7000 years old anyway. Adam was formed from the dust, had surgery to 
    remove a rib and then there was Eve. :-) Yea right!
    
    ...Tom

    > If nature cannot even create stainless steel (and we know all the base
    > metals are there, as well as heat, etc.), how can it create a human?
       
    Evolution.
    
    Next?
    
    DougO

    re: .469
    
    Well, I DO buy into that "original sin" thing, so there.  8^P

    re: .481
    
    You don't think you can get away with that one, do you?
    
    Evolution is an unprovable model (and yes, special creation is also
    unprovable).
    
    
    -steve

    It depends which paradigm you choose in which to place the evidence
    left behind. One requires mental gymnastics, the other doesn't.

    Wow, Mr. Richardson, you sure have changed.
    
    re: length of time
    
    Pre-Hubble, the NASA folks said the universe was 17B years old. 
    Post-Hubble they're saying it might be half that.  Either way, it looks
    pretty finite to me.
    
    Mike

    re: .484
    
    On the evolution model, you start with a premise and try to feed the
    peices into that premise.  You alter the premise slightly when you find
    evidence that won't fit.
    
    What if man did not evolve from lesser organisms?  Your whole premise
    is then flawed.
    
    
    
    -steve  

    .485
    
    > Either way, it looks
    > pretty finite to me.
    
    It apparently started a finite time ago.  No word in yet on how long it
    can, or will, continue.  But that's not relevant anyway, and your
    clever little "low probability means it won't happen soon enough" is
    hogwash.  Given any nonzero probability that a new species will arise
    before the end of the Universe, it is just as likely that said species
    will arise tomorrow as it is that it will arise a billion years hence. 
    I repeat, that is what random means - or, to put it in a single word,
    unpredictable.  You can't accurately predict that a given event will -
    or will not - occur at a given time.

    And if I'm bit by a radioactive spider I could turn into Spider-Man.
    
    I think you are playing semantical games, Dick.  It does make for good
    debate, though.  8^)
    
    
    -steve

    .488
    
    > And if I'm bit by a radioactive spider I could turn into Spider-Man.
    
    You could not violate the laws of physics - by which I specifically
    mean the way things really work, not the mathematical constructs we
    formulate to explain their workings.
    
    > I think you are playing semantical games, Dick.
    
    This time, Steve, I am not playing a semantic game.  It was the
    Creationists who introduced randomness into the discussion, and I am
    simply pointing out what any decent mathematician will tell you is the
    true meaning of randomness, i.e., COMPLETE unpredictability.
    
    This whole debate really belongs in the evolution topic, but here is
    where it's going on, so here is where I'll respond.  :-)

    So if there's a 1 in 600 Million chance that OJ is innocent then we 
    have to accept the fact that he must be innocent since the event can be
    repeated.  Balderdash!
    
    The odds of spontaneous life generation only requires 80 Billion years
    to occur.  We've only been here 17 Billion - worst case.  Time is now 
    the evolutionist's enemy.

    .490
    
    > So if there's a 1 in 600 Million chance that OJ is innocent then we
    > have to accept the fact that he must be innocent...
    
    You continue to throw the wrong words at it.  The correct wording is
    this:
    
    > So if there's a 1 in 600 Million chance that OJ is innocent then we
    > have to accept the fact that he COULD be innocent...
    
    And if there is a 1 in 600 million chance that Homo sapiens evolved
    from a lower species, then you have to accept the possibility that Homo
    sapiens actually COULD hav evolved from a lower species.  You insist on
    saying that because the chance is so remote, the event could not have
    happened.  You simply do not understand probability.

>    sapiens actually COULD hav evolved from a lower species.  You insist on
>    saying that because the chance is so remote, the event could not have
>    happened.  
    
    Exactly.  There comes a point where all the could's, should's, and
    would's in this world don't mean squat.
    
    >You simply do not understand probability.
    
    I do, even aced Finite Math to prove it.  I also understand
    impossibility.  We're talking about odds that are a waste of time. 
    There might be a 1 in 100 trillion chance that you might wake up as the
    opposite gender in the morning but we both know it won't happen.
    
    Mike

    unless you are a hermaphrodite!
    then the odds would be better.	8^)

    Jamie Lee Curtis doesn't count.

    > You don't think you can get away with that one, do you?
    >
    > Evolution is an unprovable model (and yes, special creation is also
    > unprovable).
    
    "get away with"?  Have you a BETTER answer?
    
    Next?
    
    DougO

Well! If you're going to go and use LOGIC, John . . . 

:^)

RE: 390.485 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!"

> Pre-Hubble, the NASA folks said the universe was 17B years old.

Bull.  There has been a debate over the exact age of the universe for
years.  They have been talking about the same range for the past thirty
years:

 ~8,000,000,000 years to ~20,000,000,000 years

and Hubble has not changed the debate much,  at least yet.  While I
understand that you don't agree,  the least you could do is be honest about
what others are saying.


Phil

    
    re: .499
    
    Phil,
    
     Your diatribe is getting old and stale... get off it...
    
     Professing what one learned from a certain source to the exclusion of
    perhaps, more accurate sources, is usually a case of ignorance and not
    dis-honesty...
    
      Your energy would be better spent to dispell said ignorance rather
    than your constant bleating/attacking other's character...
    
    Andy
    

    re: .497
    
    Actually, the existence of God is not doubted by this person.  Perhaps
    this is why I have such a difficult time believing that life is just a
    random event with no purpose.  
    
    Besides, even if life sprang from non-life (which violates known
    biological law that life only comes from life), it does not explain
    consciousness, conscience, nor the natural belief that there is a
    higher being (every society has its own mode of worship).
    
    I think it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in God.
    ymmv
    
    
    -steve

Dick and I have gotten into a brief debate before about whether faith of 
some kind is a component of science. He toed the orthodox line that it has 
no place. I said it does. This discussion raises one example for me.

Evolution, in some (or more likely many) forms most certainly is the
mechanism for the development of the diversity of life we now witness. And
it happened over a very long period of time, be it a billion or 20 billion
years. It is an unimaginable period of time to us, regardless. It doesn't
have to be "provable" in terms of being reproducible to be scientifically
valid. The geologic record may be circumstantial, but it is abundant, and
abundantly clear. Evolution is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Accepting
evolution is not a matter of faith. It is the only reasonable conclusion. 

However, there remains, still, one very large article of faith: that the 
probability throughout the chain and thus for the chain in toto is *never* 
zero. And here, the deists and the pure materialists are on an equal 
footing. Although, as a member of jury, given the evidence, I am compelled
to acquit the godless universe of the crime of our existence. :')

Tom

>				 nor the natural belief that there is a
>    higher being (every society has its own mode of worship).

But the fact that every society also has non-believers would also tend to
indicate that it is not a natural, but a learned/influenced belief. Children
don't automatically perceive that there is a higher being through intuition,
instinct or reflex action of some sort. They learn it from others in their
society.

| <<< Note 390.441 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Your set personal says everything about you chum!

	What do ya mean???? <said in a very deep deep voice>

    	Mike, you've stated that I have changed, you are very right. The
    experiences I have gone through in the last 3 years have caused me to
    examine what I always assumed to be true as well as what I've always
    had doubts about. That being said, I can no longer accept the literal
    interpretation of the Genesis account. In order to believe it, so many
    extrabiblical theories have to be considered. 
    	On the flip side, I don't swallow the pure theory of evolution
    entirely but I do agree more with its timetable than I do with the
    Genesis timetable. If the Genesis one is true, then God is playing a
    joke on us all and has put evidence in front of us to cause us to doubt
    Him. 
    	I used to believe I had the universe all figured out based on my
    beliefs. How proud I was. Now I believe that there are things that I
    will never know, and perhaps it doesn't really matter. I'm still
    learning about life.

    Glenn

    
    
    But Glenn, isn't it a little presumptuous of us to think that we should
    understand God if we believe that he/she is a superior being?  
    
    
    Mike

   .497  very good note.  how refreshing.

    re: .503
    
    There is plenty of reasonable doubt on the theory of evolution. 
    Fossils do not back up human evolution- there is as of yet no missing
    link of any kind.  The layering of many fossils shows a catostrophic
    placement, rather than neat layers of identifiable geological times.  
    
    As I said previously, if the premise is false, all else falls apart.  I
    think scientists use a bit of circular reasoning- they use the theory
    as a model for evidence placement, then use this placement to back up
    the theory.  All research in this area seems to be filtered through
    this theory in one way or another, in spite of inconsistent findings.
    
    If you care to look into the matter, you will find reasonable doubt.
    It comes down to what you want to believe.  
    
    
    -steve

    
    re, .506 - If I may interject a rathole here, I don't believe the
      old Jewish creation "myth" (I use the word in the complex Campbell
      sense) in Genesis 1:1 is a required rendition for Christians.  I
      cannot speak for Jews on this point.
    
       The key chapter is rather John 1 : "In the beginning was the Word,
      and the Word was with God, and thw Word was God.  The same was in
      the beginning with God.  All things were made by him; and without
      him was not any thing made that was made.  In him was life; and the
      life was the light of men.  And the light shineth in the darkness;
      and the darkness comprehended it not.  There was a man sent from
      God, whose name was John..."
    
       In other words, the only fundamental creation "myth" a Christian
      need accept, is that Universe has a purpose.  The fact that the
      order of events in Genesis is clearly wrong (although, close to
      right), bothers some of us not at all.  In fact, some Christians
      omit the Old Testament entirely.
    
       bb

RE: 390.501 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Be vewy caweful of yapping zebwas"

Honest ignorance is easy to deal with.  Point them to a better source.
They go read it,  think about it,  and come back understanding.  

Honest ignorance is not only willing but eager to get more facts.  


Phil

    
    <------
    
    Then you're apologizing for your character attacks??
    

    Another theory:
    
    1.	A conscious being creates a realm of existence (a universe for
    	example).
    2.	Animal life evolves.
    3.	The mind is developed (a mind that controls animal actions, but is
    	not conscious).
    4.	Consciousness evolves (the ability to reason instead of just
    	react).
    5.	Mysticism is invented to replace the control of the previous
    	unconscious mind.
    6.	Mystics learn to control the conscious beings.
    7.	Capitalism and free thought concepts developed by conscious man.
    8.	Conscious man recognizes the unneeded control of the mystics and
    	rejects mysticism.
    9.	Man becomes prosperous and powerful, recognizing that conscious
    	life is of the highest importance.
    10.	Mysicism becomes uncompetitive and is eliminated.
    11.	Biological immortality is achieved.
    12.	Control of the universe is learned.
    13.	A conscious being creates a realm of existence.
    14. The cycle is forever expanding and repeated.
    
    Just a thought.
    
    ...Tom

    .509
    
    > Fossils do not back up human evolution- there is as of yet no missing
    > link of any kind.
    
    This is so absurd that I really ought to dismiss it out of hand, but it
    is so often used that it bears refutation.
    
    Consider the evolution of airplanes.  Would you say, based on the
    existence of an F-117 Stealth fighter and an F6F Hellcat fighter, that
    the technology of the F-117 is an evolution of the technology of the
    F6F?  Or would you say, because you haven't seen a straight-winged jet
    (P-80 Shooting Star, F-89 Scorpion, F-94C Starfire) or a swept-winged
    propeller plane (Very Viggen), that they were completely different
    technologies?
    
    Of course, airplane technology is driven by conscious intelligence, but
    the lack of a visible link between two stages of that evolution clearly
    is no proof that there actually does not exist such a link.  The same
    logic can be aplied to the evolution of animal species.  Hence, your
    premise is false.
    
    > The layering of many fossils shows a catostrophic
    > placement, rather than neat layers of identifiable geological times.
    
    If there were no such thing as plate tectonics, and if there were no
    geothermal activity, then sedimentary action would be the only
    mechanism for the deposition of fossil layers.  But plate tectonics is
    real, and so is geothermal activity, and both are demonstrably capable
    of rearranging sedimentary layers catastrophically.  Again, your
    premise is false.

    re: .514
    
    No, my premise is not false, it is simply not provable.  Same with the
    thoery of human evolution.  Now, I'll admit that it MAY be false.  But
    then, would you be willing to admit that the premise of human evolution
    MAY be false?
    
    Of course, I speak of evolution of man outside the 'interference' of
    God.  8^)   God could very well have evolved man in large steps, thus no
    intermediate fossil records of transitional forms.
    
    If the premise of human evolution is true, then where is the
    transitional fossil evidence?  If we have a history of fossil records
    from dinosaur to modern man, why not transitional forms?  According to
    scientific dogma, evolution of man came about due to mutations that
    happened over a very long period of time.  There would have to be
    intermediate forms unless man just appeared out of the blue one day in
    his present state (which would back up the Genesis account).
    
    Why not believe the Genesis account?  It is more accurate currently
    than what scientists have come up with, taking into account that the 7
    "days" of creation could very well have been a much longer time span
    than days (so as not to contradict modern dating techniques that may or
    may not be accurate).
    
    
    -steve 

    .516
    
    > would you be willing to admit that the premise of human evolution
    > MAY be false?
    
    Of course I would.  But I am not willing to admit that God lies, which
    is the demonstrable conclusion if the Genesis story is God's literal
    word.  Which is why I accept easily that it is an allegory, not the
    literal word that some would have it.
    
    > If the premise of human evolution is true, then where is the
    > transitional fossil evidence?
    
    Oh, come on, Steve, don't let's go down that silly rathole again.  Phil
    Hays and I have cited numerous fossils that are accepted as transitional
    by the scientific community.  It is only the Creationists who keep
    redefining "transitional" to disallow creatures such as Mononykus and
    Hesperornis, which show clear evidence that birds are descended from
    species more closely resembling our conception of dinosaurs.
    
    As for the need for intermediate forms, the answer is so obvious that
    to repeat it here is to belabor the point - but I'll do it anyway. 
    When you have dug up EVERY hominid fossil EVERYWHERE on the planet,
    including all the millions of them that havee been destroyed by
    geological or meteorological action, and STILL can find no species that
    satisfies yo as a "missing link," then you can come back and we'll talk
    some more.  Even of the fossils existing today, there are thousands of
    times more in the ground than have been, or ever will be, dug up.

According to my memory Cain was sent out into the world after his crime.   God
told everyone to leave him alone.  Where did they come from?  How did we
multiply into a world wide population from two people?  Was incest ok in those
Garden of Eden Days?   Did Cain and Abel have any sisters?  What if Eve had a
headache?

How about Noah's family.  Were his grandchildren kissing cousins so to speak? 
If not how did our population once again explode from one family unit?  

Have any of you considered that the passage of time in The Bible may not be on
the same scale as present day?  Is it possible then that evolution would fit
real nicely in with the biblical story?

Just a few questions that come to mind as I read all these ramblings.

Mikey

>Bull.  There has been a debate over the exact age of the universe for
>years.  They have been talking about the same range for the past thirty
>years:
>
> ~8,000,000,000 years to ~20,000,000,000 years
>
>and Hubble has not changed the debate much,  at least yet.  While I
>understand that you don't agree,  the least you could do is be honest about
>what others are saying.
    
Phil, I was being honest.  My astronomy professor is on staff at NASA and
    taught all of us that the universe is 17B years old.
    
    Mike

>valid. The geologic record may be circumstantial, but it is abundant, and
>abundantly clear. Evolution is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Accepting
>evolution is not a matter of faith. It is the only reasonable conclusion. 
    
    Tom, ever hear of the island called Surtsey in the north Atlantic?
    
    Mike

>                          -< Not a crucial document. >-
>      right), bothers some of us not at all.  In fact, some Christians
>      omit the Old Testament entirely.

>    some more.  Even of the fossils existing today, there are thousands of
>    times more in the ground than have been, or ever will be, dug up.
    
    Where can I find something that's been recently fossilized?  something 
    within the past 1000 years.

    > Where can I find something that's been recently fossilized?
    
    The brain of any creationist would do.
    

RE: 390.519 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!"

> My astronomy professor is on staff at NASA and taught all of us that the 
> universe is 17B years old.

What's this guy's name again?  And where did you take this class?  Oh,  and
what textbook?  Don't forget the ISBN number.

Oh,  and exactly 17 billion years old?  Ho ho.  The "astronomy professor" 
did a not teach you well unless he included an error estimate in any 
number.  Or,  perhaps you forgot it.  

 
Phil

RE: 390.522 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!"

>>    some more.  Even of the fossils existing today, there are thousands of
>>    times more in the ground than have been, or ever will be, dug up.

>    Where can I find something that's been recently fossilized?  something
>    within the past 1000 years.

I found a leaf "fossil" under some cement I broke up this weekend.  Want
it?

You can buy recent fossils in your local hardware store:  ask for peat
moss.  Of course,  this is likely to be a little older than the 1000 years 
you asked for.  Age range of perhaps 15,000 years to yesterday,  depending
on how deep in the bog they were digging at the time.


Phil

RE: 390.520 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!"

I didn't hear of an eruption of Surtsey (a volcanic island off Iceland) that 
killed anyone...


Phil

>What's this guy's name again?  And where did you take this class?  Oh,  and
>what textbook?  Don't forget the ISBN number.
    
    Dr. Rogier A. Windhorst
    Arizona State University
    "Universe" by William J. Kaufmann, III, Freeman Publishers, 3rd
              edition, ISBN 0-7167-2094-9
    
    I had Dr. Windhorst for both semesters, however the labs were run by
    another professor.
    
    ASU's astronomy and geology departments were heavily involved in the
    first Mars probe as well as the next scheduled one.
    
    Mike

>I didn't hear of an eruption of Surtsey (a volcanic island off Iceland) that 
>killed anyone...
    
    You completely missed the point within the context that this was
    brought up.

               <<< Note 390.528 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>
                                  -< Surtsey >-

>>I didn't hear of an eruption of Surtsey (a volcanic island off Iceland) that 
>>killed anyone...
    
>    You completely missed the point within the context that this was
>    brought up.

No he didn't: 
           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 390.520          How Christians Should Act in the Box            520 of 528
OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!"                           7 lines  26-MAY-1995 16:10
                   -< the island that killed evolutionists >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

BTW, tell me about Surtsey, and how it "killed" evolutionists...

    	.529
    
    	Looks like literary license to me.
    
    	I don't see the problem here...

    Surtsey is evidence that geological formations thought to be millions
    of years old are actually not that old.  That is how it killed
    evolutionists.
    
    Mike

And, I suppose Mammoth Cave or Carlsbad Caverns were formed over the course
of a few years, too. Grand Canyon as well, no doubt.

	 .532  yep.  twenty guys with shovels, diggin' like hell.
	       this is a little-known fact.

    
    
    RE: MiLady, I heard it was 23 guys.

    
    On the contrary.  Geological events such as Surtsey and Heimey have
    provided much new support for evolutionary theory.  The presence of
    unicellular organisms around fumeroles and other harsh environments
    gives support to theories of how life evolved from basic amino acids
    found in the "primeval soup" that existed on earth millions of years ago.
    
    Not only that, but such new land has provided support for theories
    of how life reached remote barren islands and survived there evolving
    into sub-species over the millenia.
    
    Darwin didn't have any sound explanation for how plants and
    animals reached the Galapagos.  Studies of island-making volcanic
    events showed that colonization is very rapid and soon reaches critical
    mass.
    
    Read the recent studies on sub-oceanic volcanic vents for more data on
    this topic.
    
    
    (Why do christans have such a hard time with evolution?  After all,
    they discovered it.)
    
    Colin
    
    
    

   .534  well, see, that could be, Mikey.  my source was heavily
         involved in the first Mars probe.

    Besides Surtsey, Mt. St. Helens is another geological thorn in the side
    of evolutionists.

>    Besides Surtsey, Mt. St. Helens is another geological thorn in the side
>    of evolutionists.

How so? Are you now going to claim that every freakin' observed volcanic
activity since the beginning of recorded history presents a problem for
evolutionionists? I've never heard such a patently absurd claim before
in my life.

    .537
    
    > Mt. St. Helens
    
    No, it is not.  But then neither is Surtsey, as Colin tried to point
    out to you.  The real thorn in the side of evolutionists is not the
    rock in the ground but rather the rock in the heads that some people
    insist on burying in the ground.
    
    There is none so blind as he who will not see, and you are so busy
    spouting misinformed trash that you cannot recognize the truth.  You
    prefer to limit your God by requiring that he have created the world
    according to the oral myth tradition of a primitive tribe of nomads.

	>>I've never heard such a patently absurd claim before in my life.

	skipping Jack Martin's notes today, are you?  ;>

                     <<< Note 390.535 by SMURF::WALTERS >>>
                -< evolution is alive & well and living on ... >-

>    (Why do christans have such a hard time with evolution?  After all,
>    they discovered it.)
    
I can't speak for them christans, but I can tell ya we Christians got no 
problem with evolution - not most of us, anywho.    
    
Actually, I'm not a darwinian evolutionist, though. I'm all for Lamarkian 
theory. Which is why I predict that certain fundamentalist sects - of every 
variety of religion, by the way - will eventually develop into a new 
species with a reversed ontological development, in which they are born 
with their eyes wide open, but by the time they reach maturity, they're 
eyes are closed like baby mice.

You read it here first...   

	I heard the canyon had 3 shifts, each with 6 workers digging da hole!

    
    re 541.
    
    What a neat theory.  You mean that long before all the fossils have
    been dug up, creationists may have devolved back into simians?
    
    Bummer.  there'll be no-one to argue with.
    
    But to expand on the point - Darwin was a devout christian who was
    very reluctant to publish his work because he knew it would offend
    Victorian religious mores.   He gave his frind a couple of hundred
    pounds to *pay* for it to be published after his death, thinking that
    no publisher would touch it.
    
    But another chap (also a devout believer) by the name of Alfred
    Wallace, actually beat Darwin to the theory, and sent his paper to
    Darwin for review.  During their discussions, they both admitted to the
    fact that they had been inspired to reach the theory after reading
    Reverend Thomas Malthus' "Essay on Population".
    
    Of course, they had no underlying physiological mechanism to
    explain natural selection.  Along comes Father Gregor Mendel,
    a monk and former farm hand with limited education, to propose the
    theory of genetics.  
    
    I reckon there was a bit if divine inspiration going on here.
    
    Colin
    

    .544
    
    > public testimony to the
    > fact that stalactites and stalagmites don't take 10's of 1,000's of
    > years or more to form.
    
    Ex uno omnes.  Why am I not surprised at this broad-brush approach?

    .545
    
    > evolutionary belief that the races have been
    > evolving separately for 10's of 1,000's of years
    
    I know of no such evolutionary belief.  I do know of statements by
    proponents of evolution, and by archaeologists, to the effect that
    humans have been breeding with each other pretty much indiscriminately
    for at least that long, which is why we find border areas between
    "white" and "black" zones in which there are people of intermediate
    color, with intermediate degrees of other genetic characteristics.

        <<< Note 390.532 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
    
>And, I suppose Mammoth Cave or Carlsbad Caverns were formed over the course
>of a few years, too. Grand Canyon as well, no doubt.
    
    	Of course, nobody has suggested that at all.  To be fair to
    	Mike, your attempts at putting words in his mouth is bad
    	form.
    
.538>                 -< Not much of a Geology student, are you? >-
.538>
.538>How so? Are you now going to claim that every freakin' observed volcanic
.538>activity since the beginning of recorded history presents a problem for
.538>evolutionionists? I've never heard such a patently absurd claim before
.538>in my life.

    	Same as above.  No such claim was made except by you.

Perhaps I'm misreading, then, Joe. It would appear to me that what
Mike is proposing is that we should attribute all of the natural
observations we have as evidence to the inane ramblings of some
fringe group of young-Earth Scientific Creationists rather than
to the logical scientific causes that men have reasoned and
hypothesized over centuries. I see no more reason to "buy" any of
what Mike is attempting to "sell" than I would have to purchase
a questionable nostrum from any other street vendor.

    
    The usual guff.
    
    When Genetic evidence supports the shorter timescale theories it's
    fine, when it shows that we have 95% of our DNA in common with
    chimpanzees it's wrong. 
    

RE: 390.527 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!"

>What's this guy's name again?  And where did you take this class?  Oh,  and
>what textbook?  Don't forget the ISBN number.

>    Dr. Rogier A. Windhorst
>    Arizona State University
>    "Universe" by William J. Kaufmann, III, Freeman Publishers, 3rd
>              edition, ISBN 0-7167-2094-9

And exactly what age of the universe was claimed?  Don't use your words, 
quote from this textbook.  Be very careful not to quote out of context.


Phil

    
    re, .554 - This looks out-of-bounds.  He gave you the source he claims.
              If you challenge it, look it up.
    
               You did this to me in a long-ago argument on another matter,
              claiming something had been known "for a long time", and I
              subsequently found out it certainly hadn't.
    
               For your info, Phil, when I went to school, they taught us
              that the universe was likely of infinite age, but that the
              steady state theories were recently being challenged because
              the resulting expanding universe would differ from the one
              we see.
    
               Among those who triumphed (big bang theorists), it is very
              important to determine Hubble's constant.  This number has
              been in hot dispute since Hubble thought it up.
    
      bb

RE: 390.531 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!"

Surtsey's and St Helen's eruptions showed that volcanic formations thought
years ago to be formed in separate eruptions years apart could be formed in 
a single eruption.  

This does not "kill evolutionists".

Volcanic physical geology is not used to date the age of the Earth.

The age of the Earth has nothing to do with evolution as a current process.


Phil

	Does anyone know Dr. Who? I believe he sometimes goes by the name Jon
Smith. Reason I ask is he is a Timelord, and could take us all back in time to
see what really happened. We would all fit into an old London Police Box. Not
to worry about overcrowding.... it's bigger on the inside than it is on the
outside. 


Glen

RE: 90.550 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

> here's interesting speculation about the c constant

What about the other measurements of the speed of light?  The measurements
that don't fit this theory?  I know you know about them.  

Can't you tell the whole truth?


Phil

    
    re, .556 - Well, I find the arguments presented here for a young earth
            extremely unconvincing, from a geological point of view.  On
            a scientific basis, Genesis makes no sense (plants on the third
            day, the sun on the fourth ?  etc).  There are very strong
            reasons to believe the universe was created at a MUCH greater
            age than the earth anyway.  The sun is a Population II star,
            and the earth is not a particularly noteworthy body from the
            viewpoint of astronomy.
    
               That said, I'd like to see a little less sarcasm and instead
            a straightforward explanation of the derivation of an age for
            the earth, and for the universe from Phil.  Heiser puts in
            material, and those who don't believe it put in nothing but
            scorn and imputations of dishonesty.  So as regards the way
            the debate is going, the "old earth" guys look like they are
            losing to me.
    
        bb

re: .560

Thanks for clearing that up.

Now could you please provide the definitive list of which "stories"
are "metaphor" and which are "literal truth"?

Thanks in advance,
\john

RE: 390.555 by GAAS::BRAUCHER

> He gave you the source he claims.  If you challenge it, look it up.

I plan on it.  However,  I'd like to get as much of his claims into notes, 
and also give him as many chances as I can to retract his statements.


> You did this to me in a long-ago argument on another matter,  claiming 
> something had been known "for a long time", and I subsequently found out 
> it certainly hadn't.

Care to give a pointer or a subject?  If my understanding of something is
incorrect I'd like to know it.


> For your info, Phil, when I went to school, they taught us that the 
> universe was likely of infinite age, but that the steady state theories 
> were recently being challenged because the resulting expanding universe 
> would differ from the one we see.

This was still an active dispute when I went to school as well,  although
the big bang had more or less won by then.


> Among those who triumphed (big bang theorists), it is very important to 
> determine Hubble's constant.  This number has been in hot dispute since 
> Hubble thought it up.

Yep.  That's my understanding of this issue,  which is why I called him on
it.


Phil

| <<< Note 390.560 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>

| Genesis is metaphor.


	Does Phil Collins know that???

    .548
    
    > Noah's Flood
    
    I quote from Genesis:
    
        18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the
        earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the
        waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high
        hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen
        cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were
        covered.
        
        				- (Genesis 7:18-20, KJV).
    
    15 cubits.  22.5 feet.  And the mountains were covered.  Ri-i-ght.  Is
    this the standard of sensibility to which you hold the rest of your
    "Creation Science"?

Dick, it means the waters were 15 cubits higher than the mountains.

    
    Gee, Phil - I seem to recall it was in the old 'Box, and the
    question was something like, "When was the mechanism by which
    the extraordinary atmosphere of Venus was formed first explained ?"
    I think you claimed it was known "before I was born", which alas,
    turned out to be a complement.  In fact, the extreme climate of
    Venus' atmosphere was not really known till the Russian Soyuz in the
    early '70's, although numerous hypotheses existed before then.  The
    spectrograph of planets can be misleading because the tops of their
    atmospheres may not have the predominant composition.  To really know
    what's going on in an atmosphere, it is necessary in today's
    technology to directly enter it.
    
      bb

RE: 390.559 by GAAS::BRAUCHER

> That said, I'd like to see a little less sarcasm and instead a 
> straightforward explanation of the derivation of an age for the earth, 
> and for the universe from Phil.  

It's hard not to respond to made up facts claimed to be from sources that
they are not,  math that doesn't work,  and arguments based on logical 
fallacies with anything other than sarcasm,  scorn and imputations of 
dishonesty.

Making up facts is dishonest.

Attributation of facts to sources that don't have them,  deserves scorn.

Math that has errors THAT HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT,  and logical
flaws THAT HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT,  but just keep getting posted 
again and again and again as correct,  will draw sarcasm.


Phil

    It came down from its orbit and then filled the Great Pacific Crater.

    
    It was a by product from the crystallization of the spheres holding the
    Earth at the centre of the universe.
    

    > Abraham migrated from Sumer.
    
    True.  He still drives up to NH from Florida every sumer.

    In a Lincoln perhaps?  

    .565
    
    Gerald, I think it was Phil Hays who did the math last time, but here
    it is again.
    
    Given:  The height of Mount Everest is 29,021 feet above mean sea level
    
    Given:  The diameter of the Earth is 7,950 miles.  (The polar diameter
    is actually 7,926, the equatorial diameter is something over 8,000, and
    the planet is pear shaped, but this figure will serve for the present
    approximation.)
    
    Given:  The waters covered all the mountains plus 15 cubits, giving
    29,043.5 feet as the depth of the water above mean sea level.
    
    Then:   The volume of water required is approximately 1,093,704,511
    cubic miles.  This is the volume of a sphere approximately 1,270 miles
    in diameter, and its  mass would be roughly 1/500 the mass of the
    entire planet.  Where did the water come from, and where did it go?

    
    The one I like is the sun standing still in the sky AND THEN STARTING
    UP AGAIN.  Well, if you can suspend the natural laws Newton discovered,
    the story makes no practical sense.
    
    By the way, since we're rat-holing again, what is the purpose of the
    phrase "literally true" ?  I have never understood this.  Please give
    an example of something "unliterally" true.  Books are not usually
    like cookbooks, each recipe standing alone as true.  Rather, "truth"
    is in context.  So what can this phrase mean ?
    
      bb

    .574
    
    "Unlitally true" means "not true if read exactly as the actual words
    normally mean."  For example, Jesus said his followers were the salt of
    the earth.  But he did not mean that they were pillars or flats of
    NaCl.  The statement was not literally true, but it was figuratively
    true in that his followers would bring new flavor (another figure) to
    the lives of the people around them.

RE: 390.566 by GAAS::BRAUCHER

> "When was the mechanism by which the extraordinary atmosphere of Venus 
> was formed first explained ?"

I think your question was:

Where did the hydrogen on Venus go?


I think my answer was:

Thermal escape from atmospheres has been known since before you were born.
D/H ratio shows a lot of hydrogen has escaped from Venus.

Which of course ignores the fact that Venus's atmosphere was pretty well
unknown until the Russian probes of around the early '70's (Pioneer,  right?  
Soyuz(sp) is manned Earth orbit missions) .

I agree I didn't exactly answer your question,  and I seem remember you taking
me to task over it.  Is this it?


Phil

| <<< Note 390.573 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "Reformatted to fit your screen" >>>

| In a Lincoln perhaps?

	I don't think Abe likes to be riden. He ain't no horse ya know! He's
rotted!

    No Glen, it would be Abraham's Lincoln.   

        <<< Note 390.552 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>Perhaps I'm misreading, then, Joe. It would appear to me that what
>Mike is proposing is that we should attribute all of the natural
>observations we have as evidence to the inane ramblings of some
>fringe group of young-Earth Scientific Creationists rather than
>to the logical scientific causes that men have reasoned and
>hypothesized over centuries. 
    
    	We are all entitled to interpret things differently.
    
    	Mike has never said that ALL observations are invalid.
    
    	I see Mike's entries as showing that there are exceptions, so
    	the "rules" we would like to think explain or define evolution
    	and other related phenomena are not as concrete as some would
    	try to sell.

    
      You're right - defintely not Soyuz.  And I don't remember the
     argument except that it was not about what was true, but when the
     truth was known, and I had to go look it up.
    
      Anyways, in the past, whenever I have given you an actual source
     (and usually I quote, using ""), you've accorded me at least the
     courtesy of agreeing, "Yes, that source says that", and I accord
     you the same.  I do not find it incredible that some Astronomy text
     might guess the Universe age at 17 billion years.  Why should I
     (or you) doubt the book says that ?  If he said 17 years, I'd go
     look it up, since we'd be off 9 orders of magnitude, roughly.
    
      And as I have pointed out in here many, many times over, the great
     age of the universe, and the lower but still great age of the earth,
     was known long before Darwin, and if Evolution were discredited
     tomorrow, it would have no effect on earth-age estimates except those
     based on fossils.  Most aren't, and work even better on the other
     planetary bodies than here, where living entities intervene and people
     with agendas fudge the data.
    
      The primary reasons for these great periods of time are astronomical.
     We know how fast light goes, and can compute the distances of nearby
     stars by parallax, so we know how long light took to get here.  What
     sort of universe would it be if we could see things so far away, the
     light would have to leave them before the universe began ?  It would
     be a very nonsensical place.  No, astronomy tells us the universe has
     to be very old.  No other explanation is possible.
    
      bb

    	re .554
    
    	This is getting tiring, Phil.  Not only are you ratholing 
    	this topic with your vendetta, but you are even bringing in
    	ratholes from other topics.  (.558)
    
    	Weren't you the one who used to do this to Boris too?
    
    	So big deal.  You disagree with Mike.  What is so important
    	that you have to run around like a schoolgirl yelling "LIAR"
    	all the time?

re: .571 
Nice dodge.  Any list of what's metaphor, and what's literal?

re: .574 (bb)

Literal Truth: You know, as opposed to "metaphor" as used in .560.

    "Eve was made from Adam's rib"

    Metaphor: Eve is somehow derived from Adam; an offspring, etc

    Literal: Eve was, exactly and precisely, made from Adam's rib.



    "The flood covered the mountains w/15 cubits of water"

    Metaphor: It was a really, really bad flood.

    Literal: There were 1.7Mmiles� of water covering the surface of the earth.

With all the quoting of the bible; all the arguing about meaning and
interpretation, don't YOU think it's important to know what's just imagery
and what's cold hard irrefutable fact?

\john

RE: 390.568 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot"

> Gerald, I think it was Phil Hays who did the math last time, but here
> it is again.

I don't remember doing this calculation,  and my usual reply to a flood
geologist is to point out things that don't fit with flood geology. 
Examples:

1) Multiple layers of salt.  Salt is deposited in dry lakes.  If all this 
   rock was deposited by a flood,  why are there any salt layers in it?

2) Footprint trackways in many buried layers.  Explain how this could
   happen.  

3) Fish.  Fresh water fish are killed by salt water.  Salt water fish are
   killed by fresh water.  If the flood was salt water,  then why are there
   fresh water fish?  If the flood was fresh water,  then why are there salt
   water fish?


Phil

    	.568
    
    	Maybe that math is right if the water had to encircle the earth
    	in a perfect sphere.
    
    	Why couldn't the flood have been more like a giant slow-moving
    	tidal wave that circumnavigated the earth, and that took 40 days 
    	to complete its rise and ebb.

    .583
    
    3) Fish.  Fresh water fish are killed by salt water.  Salt water fish are
       killed by fresh water.  If the flood was salt water,  then why are there
       fresh water fish?  If the flood was fresh water,  then why are there salt
       water fish?
    
    Easy.  Noah had a couple of aquariums on the ark.

    | Literal: Eve was, exactly and precisely, made from Adam's rib.

    For me, this is a bone of contention. 

    I am a cagey fellow after all.

    re: the existence of fresh/salt water fish.....
    
    Well the answer is obvious really why species of both survived.  You
    see, Noah's Ark had a really really large live well built in which was
    separated by a partition with salt water on one side and fresh on the
    other.  He put male and female minnows of each type of fish in their
    respective sides.  The only things not to survive were the mermaids and
    mermen.  

    .584
    
    > Why couldn't the flood have been more like a giant slow-moving
    > tidal wave...?
    
    Do you suppose it might have something to do with this statement:
    
        24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty
        days. (Genesis 7:24, KJV).
    
    Your tidal wave would have had to circulate for 150 days after the rain
    stopped.  I doubt you can supply even one reference to a physics model
    that will permit such a long decay time for a damped wave of water
    that deep moving over a spherical surface as irregular as this planet's.

    .587
    
    > The only things not to survive were...
    
    No, no, no, the only thing that didn't survive was the unicorns, cos
    they were playin' silly games.

It seems to me that people who take the account of the Flood literally believe
that it was beyond nature -- i.e. miraculous.  So there's no point in making
the kind of arguments that have been made in recent replies.

    .590
    
    > beyond nature -- i.e. miraculous.
    
    There is clear archaeological, geological, and paleontological evidence
    indicating that the Noachian Deluge never happened as it is described
    in the Bible.  The Bible is the word of God.  So God lies.  Great.

	sounds like one-a them thar "mysteries".

>    There is clear archaeological, geological, and paleontological evidence
>    indicating that the Noachian Deluge never happened as it is described
>    in the Bible.

Many people think OJ didn't kill Nicole and Ron despite the overwhelming
circumstantial evidence.  Literalists don't accept your archaeological,
geological, and paleontological evidence.

    .593
    
    > Literalists don't accept your archaeological,
    > geological, and paleontological evidence.
    
    Precisely.  God did it, and he made it so we'd draw the wrong
    conclusions.  Boy, I guess he sure fooled us!  Great sensayuma, that
    God guy.

    
      Oh, stop it, blunder.  This isn't the problem you make of it.
    
      I'm unimpressed with the explanations of "literal truth", but
     then maybe that's just me.  But I have no trouble believing that
     the old testament is the true cultural record of the Jewish people,
     just as Herodotus/Aristotle/Plato is the true cultural record of
     the ancient Greeks.  It is a commonplace for twentieth century
     people to mock Aristotle ("Ice sinks in water".)  But you cannot
     understand the Greeks unless you understand that for Aristotle, the
     act of trying a piece would have been logically meaningless.  The
     scientific experimental method wasn't known to the ancients.
    
      And the distinction you are making between "objective hard facts"
     and "stories to illustrate a point" likewise would have seemed very
     strange to them.
    
      Your trouble here is exactly your trouble in other topics, where you
     project a modern "universal morality" of your own devising, on remote
     epochs, the inhabitants of which wouldn't know what you were talking
     about.  For me, the fables of Aesop "ring true".  And the Noah story
     bothers me no more than Paul Revere's ride.
    
      bb

	>>Great sensayuma, that God guy.

	yeah, he's a laugh a millennium.

    .595
    
    Get a life.  This is the box, fer petesake.

RE: 390.585 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>

> Easy.  Noah had a couple of aquariums on the ark.

Oh?  Salt water or fresh?  Or both?


Phil

    ><<< Note 390.552 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
>observations we have as evidence to the inane ramblings of some
>fringe group of young-Earth Scientific Creationists rather than
>to the logical scientific causes that men have reasoned and
>hypothesized over centuries. I see no more reason to "buy" any of
    
    First of all, Scientific Creationism is not a fringe group.  Up until
    Darwin and his contemporaries, every scientist was a creationist. 
    Secondly, there is false/inadequate logic used in evolution.  The
    scientific method is tossed aside in favor of personal bias and
    anti-religious beliefs.  Finally, Darwin and his contemporaries are
    from the last century.  Evolution is not centuries old.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 390.578 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "Reformatted to fit your screen" >>>

| No Glen, it would be Abraham's Lincoln.

	Ohhhh... the real meaning behind the song, "Hot Rod Lincoln" is out!

 <<< Note 390.554 by BOXORN::HAYS "I think we are toast. Remember the jam?" >>>

    btw - William J. Kaufmann, III, author of "Universe," works in the 
    Department of Physics at San Diego St. University.
    
>And exactly what age of the universe was claimed?  Don't use your words, 
>quote from this textbook.  Be very careful not to quote out of context.

Phil, see pages 556, 564-565.  Now get a life.
    
    Mike

>What about the other measurements of the speed of light?  The measurements
>that don't fit this theory?  I know you know about them.  

    Gee, Phil, maybe that's why I titled the reply "interesting speculation
    about the c constant."
    
>Can't you tell the whole truth?
    
    Gee, Phil, can't you read?

| <<< Note 390.592 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


| sounds like one-a them thar "mysteries".


	Ok... so we get Angela Lansbury to look into it... no no... then one of
her relatives or friends would be accused of murder...... ahhhhhh.... maybe
they were the cause of everyone else dieing......

    .599
    
    > Evolution is not centuries old.
    
    You are correct.  It is not centuries old, it is billions of years old. 
    The theories proposed as a result of intelligent attempts to explain it
    as anything other than magic are less than two centuries old - but that
    does not ipso facto disprove the fact of evolution, it merely means the
    theories aren't necessarily proven.