A Different Kind of Blog

news and things sacred and irreverent put together by opinionated people.

A CHRISTIAN Conservative’s View

Hey… want to hear a great one liner?… ready?… Liberals for Christ… I know, I know… your sides are hurting …. mine too..

Sorry… I couldn’t resist… seriously, I know that religion is not something to joke about so no more jokes…  I know there are two sides to every story and with there being much written on this site for the argument that Jesus is a Liberal and in agreement with ALL liberal views… here is the other side of that argument…

There is actually a website called “Liberals like Christ”.  This website is dedicated to convincing readers that Jesus was a liberal and conservative Christians are not only ignorant, arrogant and hypocritical, but just plain evil in some instances. Rev. Ray Dubuque is on a mission to change the world’s ‘misguided’ view of Christ and the Bible and put the religious right in their place in the process. He has pages and pages of writings covering all aspects of Christianity and how it relates to the liberal view versus the conservative view.  Two very important topics… goverment and religion.. the only problem is that aren’t liberals the one’s who are screaming to keep those two subjects separate? I would think that the last thing a liberal would do is to ‘label’ Jesus with a political stance. Why would one need to do so? What is the motivation?  Well, when you learn of some of the liberal views then it starts to become more clear. The motivation is justification…and what better way to do it than to create the illusion that your accuser is really your role model!! No different than you! To mold Him into your ideal saviour and ally against the mean, evil fundamentalist (and phony) Christian.

In frantically working so hard to justify themselves and their views, they have completely forgotten that they have already been justified thru Jesus!  They are just fighting tooth and nail against the repentance portion of the process.  Repentance means to acknowledge your sin, be sorrowfull, and then turn away from these sins of your past.  And that is the part that liberals are struggling with… some are fighting it so hard that they have managed to convince themselves that Jesus was not only a liberal in his day but is a fullfledged liberal TODAY!!  Not only have they labeled Jesus but they have attached views to him that can be found no where in the Bible… and that’s their reasoning!!!  Since He didn’t say it.. it must be true!!  How much more reaching and twisting can one do??  Not much.

So I would like to make Rev. Ray Dubuque and his movement to redefine fundamental Christianity my first topic. I hope that TTW.. the leading Editor for this site is ok with this page… I know that she thinks very highly of Rev Ray but I strongly believe that the other side needs to be heard.

Rev. Ray…for starters, I am going to post my question to you again, here on this page…I am hoping that you can address it for a second time ‘for the record’ and then I will not ask it again….here is the question as presented in my post on the “does God hate fags?” page…

 kathy (kayms91) Says:
November 15, 2008 at Saturday, November 15, 2008
Rev Ray, first let me explain my question this way to address your’s and Dorian’s point about my mistake in assuming that it is against God. Let’s say you are wrong about homosexuality being ‘ok’ with God… who is being wronged? God is. Now let’s say that you take the stance that homosexuality IS wrong and it turns out that that is not the truth…that it IS okay with God… who have you wronged this time?… homosexuals (man)… who would you rather wrong? the answer seems obvious to me ESPECIALLY if you are truly a man of God. Why are you taking the chance to go against God? Instead of man? It makes no sense to me…

And in saying all of this I am not implying that by taking the chance to wrong homosexuals instead of God that we should not love them as God’s 2nd greatest commandment states or not even to deny them the same rights under the law… that is not my stance… my stance is doing God’s will. And with there being NO clear evidence that homosexuality is not against God’s will it seems clear what stance you should take… you can take that stance with ‘disclaimers’ and explain it just as I have… I choose to err on the side of God and not man…there should be nothing wrong with that… it’s a ‘no brainer’. If homosexuals are offended by that then they are saying that they should be considered more important than God.. period.

Now.. to weigh the evidence that it is or isn’t against God’s will… first of all the evidence that it IS against God’s will far out weighs the evidence that it isn’t. All thru out the New testament are CLEAR statements that homosexuality is against God’s will. I’m sure I don’t need to list the verses. You have obviously decided that these words are not God’s words.. I still need to refer to your writings for the reasons why… but I really don’t feel like I need to in order to make my argument…

From a basic point of view… and I’m going to quess that you agree (I know I could be wrong).. it clearly seems that the Holy Bible is the CLOSEST thing we have to God’s word…maybe you don’t agree with that but then my question would be… what else is there that is closer? Another observation would be that it’s not sensible to believe in God and also believe that He hasn’t made himself known to us…my conclusion is that He has and it’s thru the Holy Bible… now with the understanding that He has given us all free will, it is clear that the many people over the many many years have manipulated God’s word in using their free will. Could God have corrected or prevented these manipulations? obviously yes…but because of the many contradictions etc.. CLEARLY He didn’t. Then the obvious question would be why? And like I stated earlier… to me it seems obvious that He has left this up to us to decide… What God meant… What IS God’s will… yes, no where does Jesus clearly state that homosexuality is wrong but others in the New Testament do… yes, it could be man’s free will that made those ‘incorrect’ statements (from your point of view). But my point is that clearly choices have to be made because of all the contradictions… and to me it’s clear that this IS God’s intention… the Bible is exactly as He wants it… and it requires us to listen to our hearts in deciding what is God’s will… and again that is what God cares about and that is how we will be judged.. by what is in our hearts… if you choose to side with man instead of God… (take the chance to wrong God instead of man)… then that clearly reveals how well you are following the first and MOST IMPORTANT commandment… THIS COULDN’T BE ANY MORE CLEAR!

471 Responses to “A CHRISTIAN Conservative’s View”

  1. Dick said

    Using a flawed book as your basis only discredits your view of a perfect being and creator.

    Bible is an imperfect work, written by man. Using it as your core belief system only leads to flaws in that. Flaws in your moral system, flaws in your logic, flaws in society. And we see it at work today. All the mistaken beliefs are coming to bare rotten fruit.

  2. kathy (kayms91) said

    Dick, what is your basis for your views (whatever they may be?) Is your basis perfect? My contention is that there is no ‘perfect’ source for one’s beliefs… God is perfect and He is the only true perfection there is. Who is to say that the imperfections in the Bible were not intended? My belief is that these ‘imperfections’ are serving a purpose. A persons moral beliefs come from within, and the Bible, the way it is written, forces you to look within to decide what is right and what is wrong… and this is exactly what God wants… to know what is in your heart and for the individual to become aware of that also. If someone is “baring rotten fruit” it is coming from what is in their heart.

  3. Dick said

    Faith as a basis for belief breaks down by requiring loyalty in the face of contrary evidence.

    Just like all the othe Christians, here you are, letting God of the Hook.

    You give him credit for the good, but blame us for the wrong in the world.

    1. If the contradictions and imperfections in the bible were intended by God, then what you’re implying is that God likes to mess with our heads. He’s a merry prankster God that is constantly screwing with us to “test” our faith. Really? C’mon I need a better argument for God than that.

    2. At least you’ve said that a persons moral beliefs come from within. That is a start. Because without the Bible we’d still have Good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things. But it is only through religion that good people are justified in doing Evil things.

    Finally, there may be no “perfect” way to evaluate yours and my beliefs. But to simply say “God is perfect” and not have a means to PROOVE that, is simply a cop out, an easy way out. Science explains reality. Science’s theories can be tested, retested, disproven. The scientific method provides a consistant evaluation of beliefs.

    The bible provides barbaric morals juxtaposed against modern liberalism at best. Not to mention we can’t even tell for sure who wrote what, unless we take it on “faith”.

  4. kathy (kayms91) said

    I have to ask… what contrary evidence? There is NO scientific evidence that God doesn’t exist.. and really, logic only PROVES that God does exist. Because, bottom line… our existence ( existence of any kind) is not logical BUT we are here! A supreme being is the ONLY LOGICAL explanation! I defy you or anyone else to come up with a more sensible explanation!

    It seems like your view of the world is very simple… there should only be ‘good things’ existing and happening and when ever there is something ( event or whatever) that is not good then it is God’s fault for causing it or letting it happen. What if it’s not that simple? Have you ever thought that, as complicated as the world is, that maybe God’s purpose and plan might be just as complicated?

    Your view is very common… you want answers, you have questions and until they are answered (to your satisfaction) you will not believe. That is your choice, you are using the free will that God gave you but it’s obviously not the road He wants you to go down. He wants you to seek Him, to look for Him. But self proclaimed ‘unbelievers’ are deciding that when or if they decide to believe it will be on their terms. Sorry, but we are not in any position to ‘call the shots’.

    As to the idea that God is ‘messing’ with our heads if the imperfections were intended… maybe ‘intended’ was not the right word for me to use but he certainly knew that man, in using his free will, would create/cause imperfections in the Bible. Just like the tragedys that happen in this world are not an act of God but the result of man’s free will (or nature) which with the issue of global warming would then also be a result of man’s free will.

    And if people think that their religion is justifying their evil acts.. then they are following the wrong religion! And please don’t fault Christianity because of other’s misuse of their free will. That’s not fair.

    And again… if you rely on science to get your answers to our existence… then you must have an answer to how our existence came to be… I have yet to hear of anything that sounds logical or scientific to explain this. Logic says that you start at the beginning…and that is the (scientific) source of the answer to the question of if God exists or not, but atheists, as hard as they try to disprove God’s existence, cannot come up with an alternative answer and yet they continue to choose to ignore the obvious….

  5. Lawman2 said

    i think kay and i have debated this before…this will be fun to read. anyone have popcorn?

  6. hhandy said

    Hi to the author and all the comments, all of which were fascinating. Here are a couple of observations: First of all, to many who have studied languages, there are semantic difficulties in way English, or any other language has evolved. For example there are denotations and connotations.

    This means that God is a perfectly legitimate word, but English and every language will have slightly different interpretations. So in the very evolution of language there are problems of meanings that can never be precise.

    Second, after the crucifiction of Jesus, which I take to be historically accurate, things were not written down right away. So, by word of mouth over decades after,the facts of the crucifiction became problematic.

    Third, from a scientific point of view even Darwin’s evolution theory is somewhat shaky. The fossil record is imperfect, but being worked upon by scientists. Life starting from sunlight on seawater is problematic, just like language or “word of mouth.”

    As I see it, the resolution of these issues may be somewhat simple and easy. Love one another when we are able to do so, and treat everybody as a brother or sister. Follow the good precepts of our religions to the best of our ability. Above all, realize that the religious hatreds, largely from the misuse of language, have fomented many wars, which we all recognize as evil.

    Thanks for considering the comment, Herb

  7. obama the antichrist said

    Heard of the saying love the sinner hate the sin?

    And Dick you are saying the Bible is flawed however it is one of the most proven books ever written.

    Plus, I am currently, out of my free time, studying the numerology of the Bible (which is very interesting). The numbers match up so well. Most of the books were written by seperate ppl, so how can the person who wrote Romans have matching numbers in Revelations and Genesis. I am talking about the 7 redemptive gifts (in Romans) matching the traits of the days of Creation (in Genesis)and the traits of the curses at the End of the world (in Revelations). Also the days of creation can correspond with the curses at the end of the world! ITS WONDERFUL!!! AND THIS IS JUST 2 EXAMPLES!!!!!!!!!! (numbers 7 and 12 are God’s fav btw)

    Now, Dick, how can you explain that? SInce the bible is so flawed how is it so connected???? I mean the authors of Genesis, ROmans, and Revelations cannot have sat a table and discussed what to put in the bible! now try to prove me or Kay wrong…..and i say good luck to you cuz you will never be able to.

  8. Lawman2 said

    hey there herb!went to your blog VERY SMART!really hope others click here and visit you there!

    http://hhandy.wordpress.com/

    wonderful hardy read here http://hhandy.wordpress.com/technical-stock-strength-leading-to-high-gain/

    an extensive educational background in business, math, and English…i feel so naked!grammar being my worst subject!thank you for visiting our humble blog!

  9. Lawman2 said

    i find it harder to believe that ‘magic’ created life…

  10. tothewire said

    http://hhandy.wordpress.com/new-mathematical-procedures/#comments

  11. obama the antichrist said

    how do you think life came to be Lawman?????

  12. Lawman2 said

    the theory of “Punctuated Equilibria,” an updated version of darwin’s theory universally misunderstood and misrepresented by creationists, holds that natural selection does not proceed at a slow, uniform rate. rather, evolution involves long periods of little or no measurable change (stasis) “punctuated” by brief periods of intense changes – guided, of course, by natural selection.

    it is nothing less than scandalous that creationist beliefs have survived into the twentieth century but it has even past it…must also express my embarrassment at the fact that there are many people who, despite the fact that they are relatively well schooled in evolutionary science dscredit it on ‘magic’ some god who is a jelous god, yet has nothing to do with his creation magically created us all. WHAT THE HELL? if your god is reall where the hell is he?if he can create the world in 7 short days,why doesn’t he step in and fix it now?after all he is a loving god who thinks of his believers as his very own children…any father who would neglect his children to this degree shouldn’t have off spring.yet he doesn’t make mistakes?right

  13. Lawman2 said

    i believe in what i can see,touch,feel,smell…not in santa,or your god

  14. kathy (kayms91) said

    OTA… I don’t think Dick will be back… I’ve been waiting for a response from him for over a week now… I think he got stumped when I asked him to elaborate on the ‘contrary evidence’ that he claims disproves God’s existance. Atheists rely so heavily on ‘science and logic’ but they fail to see that while we don’t have ‘proof’ (to their satisfaction) that God exists, we also don’t have proof that he doesn’t exist. How can any logically thinking person dismiss God without PROOF that He DOESN’T exist?? I don’t believe scientists work that way… they only dismiss a theory once it’s been disproven.. right? I read in the Bible that people who claim they don’t believe in God are hostile towards God… they know God exists but they have chosen to be His enemy. They are angry at God.

  15. Lawman2 said

    still yet you try to shove your belief that everyone deep down believes in god?my eyes are rolling kay…

    i am not angry at your god,i am even angry that people still believe in it all,no more than i am at a child who believes in santa

  16. Lawman2 said

    you asked “contrary evidence?” why not take a few min and actually read the page i have.after all some of my own paper is quoted there.OR do you really want to know?because if you are just looking for another going no where debate i can do that as well but once again i’ll add as much bull shit in it as i do facts…hehehe

  17. Lawman2 said

    my wife is calling me to bed…i’ll be ready to read your comment in the morning kay!

    sleep well all,good night from the caveman

  18. kathy (kayms91) said

    I did read your page awhile back… could you just give a condensed, in your own words, version here to refresh my memory? What you posted before was someone else’s writings and really really long. And there was nothing in there that proved that God doesn’t exist anyway.
    Again.. how can you justify dismissing the existance of God when there is no proof that he doesn’t exist?? You think it’s scandalous that sensible educated people believe in creationism? Once again… you (or anyone else) CAN’T come up with a better explanation as to how existance of the universe came to be! It’s ‘scandalous’ to stubornly continue to try to come up with some ridiculous theory of how the universe got started when logic tells us that it ISN’T POSSIBLE. Really, scandalous isn’t quite the right word…

    And yes, I do truly believe that everyone knows deep down inside that God does exist…. have you ever heard the saying…” there’s no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole”.

    Just again,… please post here (for everyone) your theoretic ‘proof’ that God doesn’t exist… in your own words, condensed version… the long version is not necessary and will put everyone to sleep lol (really)… just put a link to your long version…

  19. Rj said

    I don’t think people leaving you hanging, Kathy, because you’ve stumped them. I think they get tired of saying the same thing and it becomes obvious that they are wasting their time because you see what you want to see.

  20. kathy (kayms91) said

    Rj… can you be specific about what has been repeated between me and Dick? Your response (for Dick and Lawman)is a frequently used excuse. Clearly Dick is stumped ( and Lawman also ), he implied that there is ‘contrary evidence’ and I simply asked him to elaborate. I’m just asking for specifics… I’ve been thru this so many times before with various issues ( and I’ve always gotten the typical response that you gave )… just give me a DIRECT SPECIFIC answer.. that’s all I’m asking. What is the contrary evidence that God does not exist???? If you feel that you’ve (or others) have answered this before… just humor me one more time and state it for the record here, now (without the copy and pasting of entire volumes of other’s writings, Lawman) … and if I ask again in the future just direct me to your response here… right?? I think I’m making it pretty simple…
    It’s a cop out to not give specifics and then say I only see what I want to see. By not wanting to debate the issue, it’s you (and others) who only see what you want to see. Wasn’t it you, Rj, who said that debating only makes you stronger? We only grow when we debate ideas and views. I always seem to outlast everyone when it comes to these issues.

    Again… if you can’t argue the issue any longer then maybe it’s time to reconsider your view on the issue. That’s what debating is for!!! That’s exactly how we grow intellectually. And if you think that I don’t consider another’s views when I debate with them then you are guilty of ignorance… you are only seeing what you want to see.

    It seems that another person has been added to the team to come to the aid of those on the losing end of a debate with me ;o).

  21. Lawman2 said

    really? i think people work,and play in the real world and have lives that need attending to!
    i stopped in to check the site in between and here YOU go with your own inflated ego that you accuse me of? lol

  22. Lawman2 said

    once again i will say this I DON’T WISH TO DISPROVE your god anymore than i would santa BUT I would like you to PROVE with science THAT this JEALOUS god DOES exist!
    i can prove with science the probability of evolution… and have. Can you use science to prove that he does exist? I can answer that for you…NO you can NOT. So 0 percent probability compared to a small probability, doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out which i choose.

    by the way kay quite a bit of my work WAS QUOTED on that page,so you do have it IN MY OWN WORDS now don’t you? If you go to the site listed you would have known that though.
    not to mention HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE STATED FOR YOU OVER AND OVER my side, why should i take the time to do that again WHEN you are to lazy to read it in it’s complete form.

  23. Lawman2 said

    you said “Again… if you can’t argue the issue any longer then maybe it’s time to reconsider your view on the issue. That’s what debating is for!!! That’s exactly how we grow intellectually. And if you think that I don’t consider another’s views when I debate with them then you are guilty of ignorance… you are only seeing what you want to see.”

    kay you only repeat your own side one way OVER AND OVER again IGNORING points made to discredit your side. THAT is not a debate that is what you call reverse ignorance and what i would call CHOICE OF IGNORANCE over FACTS.

  24. kathy (kayms91) said

    If my ego seems ‘inflated’… I’ll be honest… it’s a tactic to get a response!! Still waiting for your response Lawman… no lame, weak excuses about ‘some people have lives’ give me a break… you’ve been on here practically 24/7 for weeks on end now… Come on… just give it a shot… please tell me what evidence there is that God doesn’t exist… and if you cannot then so what!! I was right (in this instance) no big deal. By acknowledging that there is no evidence that God does not exist… that is you growing in knowledge… that’s not a bad thing!!

  25. Lawman2 said

    but hey i have to admit i do enjoy reading your “debates” as you could perfect your skill just be learning how to restate your side with new arguments.you dig in not unlike me,because WE BOTH LIKE TO WIN. we are not above hitting low,below the belt to win.tothewire pussy footin around trying not to offend here on the computer isn’t how anyone actually wins a case NOT EVEN HER.so all in all my hats off to you.just don’t expect me to do all the work on a debate while you ignore points and never restate…makes for a boring debate and others including myself get bored not defeated.

  26. kathy (kayms91) said

    Again, can you just give a brief example of ‘your work’ here??
    And my point is not that there is proof… I’m pointing out that with out defining evidence that God does not exist how can you justify dismissing Him?? That’s not a very scientific approach at all!! And the proof is ALL AROUND YOU that God exists!!! And you know why? Because you can’t come up with a logical theory of any other way that the universe was created!!!

    AGAIN… please, just humor me and give a condensed answer to this, here…

  27. kathy (kayms91) said

    And there you go again with the ‘ignoring points’ excuse… so you must know that I’m going to ask you to be specific and tell me what points ( or even one) that I’ve ignored… see, this is what you guys do… you avoid the issue by trying to turn the focus on how I debate…

    where in this entire answer of yours is a simple answer to the question I have asked? What is the contrary evidence?? Wouldn’t it just be easier to answer the question??? At the very least you could put the link to your answer – even thought that is not what I’m asking for…

    ” once again i will say this I DON’T WISH TO DISPROVE your god anymore than i would santa BUT I would like you to PROVE with science THAT this JEALOUS god DOES exist!
    i can prove with science the probability of evolution… and have. Can you use science to prove that he does exist? I can answer that for you…NO you can NOT. So 0 percent probability compared to a small probability, doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out which i choose.

    by the way kay quite a bit of my work WAS QUOTED on that page,so you do have it IN MY OWN WORDS now don’t you? If you go to the site listed you would have known that though.
    not to mention HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE STATED FOR YOU OVER AND OVER my side, why should i take the time to do that again WHEN you are to lazy to read it in it’s complete form.”

  28. Lawman2 said

    lol by the way kay on what basis do you think you stumped anyone?have you any idea how many times, while working on my PSM applied chemistry & biochemistry,i argued my side to people of science?play dumb then come back strong i always say.blindside them with facts they didn’t know you have.speak in laymen terms and write at a 9th grade level to appeal to the masses once you have their attention then bombard them with well stated and written responses.BUT first capture your audience.the first part is never hard for me as grammar has never been one of my strengths, not to mention i get lazy…hehehe

  29. Lawman2 said

    contrary evidence to something THAT HAS NO evidence…??lol

  30. Lawman2 said

    you have NO scientific evidence for me to disprove…kind of like what..oh yes MAKE BELIEVE

  31. Lawman2 said

    contray evidence would simply be ANY evidence proving evolution AT ALL.

  32. Lawman2 said

    simply because YOU HAVE 0% probability and i have a small % probability

  33. kathy (kayms91) said

    And again… I’m not asking for your side to this issue (I know your side)… I’m asking for a specific answer to a specific question… which is either the ‘contrary evidence’ or how you can justify dismissing God without proof that he doesn’t exist?? These are specific scientific questions!

  34. Lawman2 said

    so that leads us back TO MY ORIGINAL statement doesn’t it? CAN YOU PROVE WITH SCIENCE THE EXISTANCE OF GOD?

  35. Lawman2 said

    kay do you read other comments OR just your own?

  36. Lawman2 said

    Lawman2 Says:
    January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
    contray evidence would simply be ANY evidence proving evolution AT ALL.

    Lawman2 Says:
    January 3, 2009 at Saturday, January 3, 2009
    simply because YOU HAVE 0% probability and i have a small % probability

  37. kathy (kayms91) said

    I’m lost… have you ‘bombarded’ me yet with your great knowledge on this? If not then I can’t wait!!

  38. Lawman2 said

    missing points aren’t you there kay? gee i wonder why EVERYONE says the same things about your so called debates…

  39. Lawman2 said

    you’re lost?on which points kay? Do YOU or Don’t you have scientific evidence of your gods existance IF not then ANY proof of evolutionary points are a discredit to your side.

  40. Lawman2 said

    i have to take my wife out for the day to see her parents and then out to eat.will be back later so you have plenty of time for your claim to fame…lol

  41. kathy (kayms91) said

    Are you kidding?.. how many times have I had to say that I’m ont talking about the ‘process’ of existance (evolution)… I’m talking about the BIRTH of existance…. see, it’s me that has to keep repeating myself…

  42. kathy (kayms91) said

    And how do you get the ‘0’ probability?? That’s what I’ve been asking!!! Could you be more specific as to how you arrive at ‘0’ probability?? That we exist excludes ‘0’ probability!!

  43. Lawman2 said

    lol kay thanks for clearing that up for me and dick…so you have no proof?

  44. kathy (kayms91) said

    ok.. you guys have a good time… hopefully by the time you get back your teamates will be here to help…hehehe ;o)

  45. Lawman2 said

    i quote you kay “think he got stumped when I asked him to elaborate on the ‘contrary evidence’ that he claims disproves God’s existance.”

  46. Lawman2 said

    lol kay have you ever eaten indian food?with all the cury?tothewire loves it, think i will take her there, and try and pretend i love it too! hehehe

  47. Lawman2 said

    trish is getting impatient with me said you and i like to debate too much…hehehe

  48. kathy (kayms91) said

    Lawman… I am claiming that God exists… but I am not claiming that I have tangable proof of His existance… you on the other hand (and Dick) are saying that you do have tangable proof that God does not exist… and again, I’m just asking what that ‘proof’ is!! And if you don’t have it… how can you justify outright dismissing His existance?? From a SCIENTIFIC point of view!!

  49. Lawman2 said

    and i am saying that i have answered that already twice.

  50. Lawman2 said

    ok ok i really do have to take my wife out as she said she will leave without me and i promised her a day out…later then kay?

  51. kathy (kayms91) said

    Yes… there is a restaurant here that has the best peanut curry ( a Thai restaurant )!!

  52. kathy (kayms91) said

    you have not!! Where did you answer that question?? Why couldn’t you just follow your last response with the answer??
    See, you’re not fooling anyone!!

  53. kathy (kayms91) said

    ok Lawman… I can’t wait to read your response after you’ve had time to think about it… I have high expectations!!! really!

  54. kathy (kayms91) said

    Really Lawman… that wasn’t sarcasm… I know you are highly intelligent, that’s why I get so disappointed when you and others quit / stop a debate. If you took the chance to answer without fear of ‘losing’ the debate… if you went inside your mind and asked yourself these questions… then I might be in trouble despite the strong belief that my view is the correct one.

  55. kathy (kayms91) said

    There you go Lawman… I’d say you and all the other Atheists out there have got your work cut out for you!!!

  56. obama the antichrist said

    kay, is the there you go lawman, refering to my post???? I am having trouble sorting through alot of this but i think i managed

  57. obama the antichrist said

    can i redo my post i found alot of grammatical errors…..whoops

  58. kathy (kayms91) said

    Hi OTA… yes, I was referring to your excellent post… if you go ahead and repost it ( with the corrections you wanted to make )… I can delete the original for you…

  59. obama the antichrist said

    ive missed alot

    “i believe in what i can see,touch,feel,smell…not in santa,or your god:” emotion is not part of the five senses yet its there…explain that lawman…

    I want to know lawman, why you think God is jealous, he really isnt…

    Also, i have not seen any elaboration on your views so i am with kay this time…

    There was a man by the name of lee strobel, i think, that tried so hard to disprove God’s existance yet found more evidence supporting it…

    lawman science doesnt prove alot of things! that is why there are alot of theories…ie the theory of evolution…and what if evolution is God’s design have you thought of that…by evolution i mean how things change…

    Lawman you have no proof what-so-ever, how can something like the human brain come into existance and how can a baby be formed in a woman’s womb without the help of a higher being…also, i think science is God’s gift to humans so we can partially understand how things work…

    Lawman you have not answered her question at all, you would make a good politician!

    Here is some proof, the bible, written by various amount of ppl from different races and all that jazz those ppl could not have sat down at a table and discussed what to put into this glorious book. Thorughout the BIble,God is the same! Throughout the Bible Godly miracles happen! Plus the Bible, aka God’s word, is one of the most proven historical books…there is your proof SHABAM!!!!!!!

  60. obama the antichrist said

    Thanks for the help KAY!!!!!!!!

  61. obama the antichrist said

    btw ppl i am not saying all this cuz i know what Gos thinks cuz that is an impossible. I am not a preacher or a pastor (samething…kinda) but i do love God and any chance i get to learn more then i jump on the chance, ask my Grandma who is a pastor. Christmas we talked from like 8pm to 2am and i just bombarded her with questions and i learned so much! I wish you all could have felt the joy and (i dont know how to describe it but ill try) the feeling of being filled with knowledge that surpasses anything a human can come up with!

  62. kathy (kayms91) said

    your welcome OTA :o)

  63. Rj said

    kay do you read other comments OR just your own?

    Now THAT was hilarious.

    Kathy, I do not wish to prove or disprove the existence of God, so this isn’t the best debate for me. And debating it won’t enlighten me in any sense because I’m starting to believe that “religious” folk are a delusional.

    I read a great book by Bart Ehrman (sp??), I can’t remember the title, but it summed up everything I wanted to know. You should really read it, or at least try.

    The “jealous God” thing is something I have heard CHRISTIANS recite since the dawn of my time.

    If there is a God, he isn’t involved with worldly affairs and doesn’t appear to give a damn about most things outside of creating things.

    And so, if he exists, then fine, but explain what is so great about it (God) when hell exists on Earth for millions of people.

  64. obama the antichrist said

    GOd is jealous he wants you to be with him but he isnt the crazy psyco ex girlfriend/boyfriend who wants to attack the man/woman they love when that man/woman gets into a new relationship

    Now God has been in our lives we are just too stubborn to see it, we have created this mess on our own and God will save his ppl he will take the believers into heaven and destroy the ones that resist him (its in revelations) because he has given those that resist plenty of time to repent. God cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden because they went against his command. God has never left us you here of unexplainable and explainable miracles that happen, thats God. Why hasnt the whole world been destroyed yet? God has the power and there is alot of ppl who defy who he is!

    God is not forcing you to love him he wants you to with all of his being (the jealous part) but he has warned us of his power and has graced us with his love (proven in the bible)

    RJ it is your stubbornness that keeps you from seeing the good that is going on in this world because there are ppl who have done amazing things by the grace of God. (I am not saying ignore the bad, either)

  65. Rj said

    RJ it is your stubbornness that keeps you from seeing the good that is going on in this world because there are ppl who have done amazing things by the grace of God.

    There is a lot of good going on because there are good people. That isn’t so hard to imagine. But if my “stubbornness” is what is making me blind, then there are a lot of hungry, poor, destitute innocent children that are in my ranks.

    People do good things by the grace of Buddha, Allah, Obatala, and others…

  66. kathy (kayms91) said

    Do you know why that was so funny Rj?? Because it’s actually Lawman who isn’t reading MY comments… why else would it be so hard to get a simple answer that I have asked for over and over again??!! Well… it’s either that or he doesn’t have an answer!

    Like I said earlier to Dick.. It seems like your view of the world is very simple… there should only be ‘good things’ existing and happening and when ever there is something ( event or whatever) that is not good then it is God’s fault for causing it or letting it happen. What if it’s not that simple? Have you ever thought that, as complicated as the world is, that maybe God’s purpose and plan might be just as complicated?

    I looked up Bart Ehrman and found that he claims that he used to be a believer but lost faith because the answers he found in the Bible to explain all of the suffering in the world were not satisfactory to him.

    After reading this excerpt his situation became more clear to me:
    “Early in my high school days I started attending a Youth for Christ club and had a “born-again” experience — which, looking back, seems a bit strange: I had been involved in church, believing in Christ, praying to God, confessing my sins, and so on for years. What exactly did I need to convert from? I think I was converting from hell—I didn’t want to experience eternal torment with the poor souls who had not been “saved”; I much preferred the option of heaven.”

    He describes his extensive Christian education, attending two colleges and recieving his PH.D. in New Testament Studies… he even learned Greek so he could study the New Testament in it’s original language. His credentials are very impressive but as he says.. he begins to lose his faith over a period of time but not easily…. he was “kicking and screaming” the whole way he says.

    The problem is that not once in his long detailed description of his many years as a Christian “serving Christ”
    did he mention what Christ had done for him. He even specifically states that he didn’t understand the need to be converted… evidently he thought he was perfect. In order to be saved you must acknowledge your need to be saved. He didn’t / doesn’t seem to understand what Jesus did for him therefore he never really accepted Jesus into his heart… and that is why he “lost faith”.. he never had it to begin with. It’s not the schooling and the studying that makes a person a Christian.
    And apparently what has happened in his case it seems is that during this ‘falling away’ he also realized that he can make much more money by going against God. And I’m sure he’s made plenty. There are a lot of people out there who agree with him because it’s exactly what they want to hear.. people tend to believe what they want to believe(sound familiar?). There’s a pretty healthy market for any philosophy that goes against the Bible unfortunately.

    Rj.. did you know about this saying of Jesus’… ” the meek shall inherit the earth”? And this: James 2:5 Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him?…

    It’s the poor and oppressed that will be rewarded in the afterlife. I wrote another article that pertains to this subject… it’s much shorter than the other one… http://tothewire.wordpress.com/our-accountability-in-the-21st-century/

    Finally, I want to post this from Billy Graham’s web site…

    Q: Why does God allow suffering in the world?

    A: There are no easy answers to the question of the purpose of suffering and evil. The tendency is to blame God for these conditions, but He did not create them. They came as a result of man’s disobedience to God, beginning back in the Garden of Eden; see Genesis 3:16-19.

    Often suffering and adversity are brought about by disregard of God’s will or by the direct efforts of Satan or by natural disasters in a physical world which is also affected by man’s sin and the resulting judgment. God, however, has offered the most effective solution possible by giving His Son to die for all.

    Jesus Christ paid the ultimate price when He suffered and died on the cross, having taken upon Himself the sin of the world and all of its horrible consequences. When Jesus returns in power and glory, there will be a new world completely free from sin with its sorrow and suffering (Revelation, chapters 21 and 22).

    We can be sure that God in His divine purpose desires to bring about in us the greatest good and to allow suffering to be a means of discipline to cultivate love, patience, grace, and faith in our lives. God never asks us to understand; we need only trust Him in the same way that we expect our earthly children to trust our love.

    Peace comes when we realize we are able to see only a few threads in the great tapestry of life and of God’s plan. Then we can affirm with great joy and assurance that “in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28).

    The way we react to suffering will determine whether life’s most tragic experiences bring bitterness and despair or become sources of blessing. The greatest joy will come when, in the midst of adversity, we look up into God’s face and say, “I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation” (Habakkuk 3:18).

    It is then that His promise will be most meaningful, “When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze” (Isaiah 43:2).

    http://www.billygraham.org/LFA_Article.asp?ArticleID=131

  67. kathy (kayms91) said

    Also, you said… People do good things by the grace of Buddha, Allah, Obatala, and others…

    These ‘gods’ do not exist… do you believe otherwise? Do you believe they all exist? Your statement implies that you do… that you believe in all of these with the exception of the one true God…. why? Why is it that if you don’t have all the answers you refuse to believe? Who are we to set the terms with God? Who are we to insist that He do things our way? We are His creation… He can do what ever He wants with us… we are blessed that He is a good God!

    If Bert Ehrman had true faith, he would trust that God will eventually right all wrongs and injustices because He is a good God and He loves us… then Bert never would have come to the conclusion that he did.

  68. kathy (kayms91) said

    And Lawman… evolution or any variation of it is NOT proof that God does not exist!! God created the science / evolution process etc. etc. I keep having to remind you that evolution is not an issue with me… I do believe that things evolve in some form or another… again, I’m asking about the BIRTH of existance not the PROCESS of existance!!

  69. Lawman2 said

    well well i have stories to post but thought i would take a few minutes to SAY AGAIN this. KAY YOUR QUESTION HAS EVOLVED AND CHANGED OVER AND OVER AGAIN>

    ie THIS IS YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION that i started to debate…

    i quote YOU

    “I have to ask… what contrary evidence? There is NO scientific evidence that God doesn’t exist..”

  70. Rj said

    I said read the book, not pieces of it.

    And yes, I did say, people believe what they want to. However, I hope you’re talking to Lawman or someone else with the rest of the things you’re saying, because, again, I’m the the one to debate–nor can you suck me into this.

    Bottom line: I don’t give a shit and you can label me as you like.

    Christianity has helped many, Christianity has robbed, tortured, silenced, and oppressed many– from “worshipping” their ancestors and “real” people who have fought battles for them that have allowed them to exist at this place in their lives. You can keep excusing your God and blaming the people and free will. Or you could at least half blame your God AND the people, too. Giving “free will” was sure an easy way out…

    you can give whatever power you want to your God, I ain’t mad atcha. I’m just not interested in your pity or viewpoints from a Eurocentric, my way or no way standard.

  71. Lawman2 said

    stay on subject AND yet i certainly have answered that completely just by your inability to show me ANY proof of your gods excistance.

    you asked i quote:”Really Lawman… that wasn’t sarcasm… I know you are highly intelligent, that’s why I get so disappointed when you and others quit / stop a debate. If you took the chance to answer without fear of ‘losing’ the debate…”
    are you daft kay?people just get wore down by having to repeat themselves.don’t misunderstand me here,hell i would love to have you on my team…hehehe but don’t confuse ‘winning a debate’ with people getting tired of trying to keep you on point.the debate is actually won the people reading the debate NOT by one of the debaters declaring THEMSELVES the winner…lolthat would be very handy in my line of work…hehehe

    i quote you again…
    “And how do you get the ‘0′ probability?? That’s what I’ve been asking!!! Could you be more specific as to how you arrive at ‘0′ probability?? That we exist excludes ‘0′ probability!!”
    don’t expect me to argue your side for you.
    PROVE ME WRONG.because until you can (which you can’t)i have already answered your question fully.you may not like the answer,but that is due to the fact it is very concise.

  72. Lawman2 said

    ota hey man!see you have joined in…
    your a man of science tell me do you have scientific proof of your gods existance?

    another thing you said your god isn’t a jealous god?so is he a liar? god himself said he was a jealous god while demanding his people not to have any other gods before him…

  73. Lawman2 said

    hey there rj by your response…you have already been sucked in hehehe

    good to see everyone getting involved here!love to see the wheels spinning and peoples beautiful minds a workin’

  74. Rj said

    so is he a liar? god himself said he was a jealous god while demanding his people not to have any other gods before him…

    OMG, great morning laugh.

    Yeah, i’m getting sucked in to a certain capacity. I like to read and some things, I cannot let slide by. HOwever, Christianity is whatever its members think it is…thats why there are so many different sects. That’s why they subscribe to slightly different notions at different times.

    I do not wish to debate Kathy or OTA because they will always think that they have won. And I don’t think that is fair to THEM..because I don’t give a damn.

  75. Lawman2 said

    i see ota had already corrected the jealous god thing…

    so this jealous god just created and ran? lol where is the logic there? hehehe

    you claim he is your ‘father’ right? a very neglectful father! lol

    tothewire is upset with me,but hey someone needed to stir the coals here…lol

  76. Lawman2 said

    lol rj! yes,you are correct they do like to claim a debate won by their own accord don’t they?lol
    not to worry,i just like to give em hell from time to time…makes for an interesting read for others…lol

  77. Lawman2 said

    ok now i need to make some post on the site as we have been very busy here.i try very hard to schedule some a head, but didn’t do that yesterday.i have to meet tothewire for mass in an about a hour and a half…man has to keep his promises you know.damn it! no really it isn’t too bad just follow the little play by play book they have.

  78. obama the antichrist said

    “There is a lot of good going on because there are good people. That isn’t so hard to imagine. But if my “stubbornness” is what is making me blind, then there are a lot of hungry, poor, destitute innocent children that are in my ranks.” I know those ppl helped serve these ppl and they thank GOD for everything they have, now why is that???????????

    You also cant label an entire religion based off of extremist (like the crusaders) i dont label all islamics as terrorists cuz not all of them are bad just like not all christians are good!

    Lawman dont discredit the bible cuz you cant it is one of the MOST PROVEN historical books that is proof right there! If you cant even realize that it has great significance to my point then why should i refer to your pages!

    and Lawman i did say that he wasnt jealous but what i meant is that he isnt the one who will kill because you worship the other gods

    NOw i am not saying i have won anyhting cuz there is nothing to win Kay has said she has won! but i havent if i have i really didnt mean it….like i said there is nothing to gain i dont win a special spot in heaven cuz i have said what i believe

    He is not a neglectful father! I have felt like God has left me but when i have looked at what i have done then i realize i walked away! but he is always there with arms wide open ready to embrace me! God will return and i am sooooo excited for that he will send the devil to hell, cuz the devil is freely strolling the earth. And dont ask me why God has let the devil be free cuz i dont have that answer and the only way that i will get that answer is if i ask God himself!

    Now my most important point is…I have no scientific proof and noone does! ppl you believe in the big bang theory are just guessing. honestly this has been my greatest struggle because i dont know myself but to me all other theories seem too ridiculous. Now when i read a story in the bible or study the numbers (ooo how i love those) or hear of a person that was going to die and suddenly is cured i BELIEVE with all of my heart that God is real and he is coming to rescue his followers from the clutches of satan!

    Now if there are any errors then i am truly sorry….

  79. obama the antichrist said

    i always post then noone responds till later then i have to read aaaaaaaaalllooooottttttt!!!!!!!!!!!

  80. kathy (kayms91) said

    Lawman, you said:
    well well i have stories to post but thought i would take a few minutes to SAY AGAIN this. KAY YOUR QUESTION HAS EVOLVED AND CHANGED OVER AND OVER AGAIN>

    ie THIS IS YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION that i started to debate…

    i quote YOU

    “I have to ask… what contrary evidence? There is NO scientific evidence that God doesn’t exist..”

    End…

    Am I overwhelming you with too many questions? Because you won’t specifically address any of these I guess I have to keep coming up with new ones… lol..

    Questions I would like direct, specific, in your own words, answers to from Lawman… and any other atheists who think they can answer…

    1. What is the “contrary evidence” that God does not exist?

    2. If you cannot produce “contrary evidence”… why do you choose to completely dismiss the existance of God with there being NO PROOF that he DOESN’T exist?? Again, that is not a very logical, scientific aproach.

    3. In layman’s terms… what exactly is your theory of how the universe began? And how does it make more sense than a supreme being? Please, no copy and pasting of entire volumes… just a condensed answer in your own words as to your understanding of this.

    I haven’t claimed that I have proof that God does exist… but you have implied that there is proof that He doesn’t exist… so that is why I am asking…. what proof???

    If you ask me again to prove that God does exist then you are just sidestepping the question that you cannot answer…

  81. kathy (kayms91) said

    Rj.. you said:

    I said read the book, not pieces of it.

    And yes, I did say, people believe what they want to. However, I hope you’re talking to Lawman or someone else with the rest of the things you’re saying, because, again, I’m the the one to debate–nor can you suck me into this.

    Bottom line: I don’t give a shit and you can label me as you like.

    End…

    1st… STOP labeling me a labeler!!! As silly as that sounds, it seems to be very common among liberals ( I have found lately)… it’s the perfect definition of hypocrisy!!

    2nd.. ahhh.. you want me to read a whole book when you couldn’t even read my article?? LOL!!

    I read enough to see where this guy is coming from… are you (like him) trying to turn me and others into atheists?? WHY? What good would come of that?? There is no benefit to being an atheist but there are great benefits to being a Christian!!

    you said:
    Christianity has helped many, Christianity has robbed, tortured, silenced, and oppressed many– from “worshipping” their ancestors and “real” people who have fought battles for them that have allowed them to exist at this place in their lives. You can keep excusing your God and blaming the people and free will. Or you could at least half blame your God AND the people, too. Giving “free will” was sure an easy way out…

    End…

    It seems that blaming God is “an easy way out”.

    It is not the fault of God that some people who claim to be Christians abuse their free will! That’s not that complicated!! And these people DO NOT define Christianity!!
    JESUS DOES!

    You (and others) demand that the world be a perfect place and since it isn’t you are not going to acknowledge or worship the One who created you. You are setting the terms… ok…and yes, I’m going to say it again.. you are utilizing the free will that God gave you but understand that your choices and beliefs won’t change a thing in the end.. the Truth is the truth! God does not want you to take this path, He loves you and all non believers as much as He loves everyone else… the sacrifice that He made on the cross was for everyone.. He loves us all equally.

    You said:
    you can give whatever power you want to your God, I ain’t mad atcha. I’m just not interested in your pity or viewpoints from a Eurocentric, my way or no way standard

    End…

    What?? Eurocentric?? You keep bringing race into it… this issue is larger than the issue of race… can’t you see that?

    This life is like a blip on a radar screen… your eternal life is what you should be concerned about more than anything else… God will right the wrongs that have occured in this life. He will take care of it!

    The question is… what are we doing personally, ourselves to ease the suffering of others?

    Did you read my article?

    http://tothewire.wordpress.com/our-accountability-in-the-21st-century/

  82. kathy (kayms91) said

    Here… I’ll make it real easy for you… copy and paste this and just fill in the blanks….

    1. I, Lawman, am stating that the following is the proof that God does not exist… ________________________________________________________

    _________________________________________________________

    _________________________________________________________

    2. I, Lawman, am choosing not to believe that God exists, despite the lack of proof, because

    __________________________________________________________

    __________________________________________________________

    ___________________________________________________________

    3. I, Lawman, am stating this as my theory of how the universe was born…

    _________________________________________________________

    _________________________________________________________

    _________________________________________________________

  83. kathy (kayms91) said

    4. I, Lawman, am stating that there is ‘0’ probablity that God exists… the following is how I’ve come to that conclusion…

    ______________________________________________________

    ______________________________________________________

    _______________________________________________________

  84. Rj said

    LMAO Kathy…you actually created a form for Lawman!!!!

  85. obama the antichrist said

    LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  86. kathy (kayms91) said

    Dorian said…
    ooh, looks like lawman and kay started out the new year with everyone’s favorite no-win debate. you two take no prisoners.i can see both points of view here as one is scientific and and the other spiritual/religious. i think it all boils down to choice and committing to a belief. i choose to believe in God because there are things in life that cannot be deducted or inducted by scientific formula or analysis. i suspect God is in the equation with nature and natural laws which is an omnipresent powerful force. science has its own dogma: “no truth outside of science”. simply because the existence of God cannot be proved does not justify the declaration that God does not exist. albeit, either side does not carry burden of proof and any argument for or against is likely all about hubris and a “my dogma is better than yours” kind of thing. so the topic of God or no God now and ever shall be a debate without end. amen. i do love to read a passionate debate so carry on carry on!

    kathy (kayms91) Says:
    January 6, 2009 at Tuesday, January 6, 2009
    Actually Dorian… I’ve been arguing this issue on Lawman’s ‘turf’… science. Science begins with a theory that is either proven or disproven. My point is that the existance of God, while not proven, is also NOT DISPROVEN. So from a scientific point of view, God’s existance should not be discounted until / unless it is disproven… right?? If someone discounts God completely, basing their belief on science.. then they are not being honest and there are other factors affecting their choice to not believe.

    And an even better point is the laughable idea that there is a scientific explanation for how the universe ( all of existance ) came to be. Science, which is based on logic, TELLS us that we can’t be here, IT’S NOT LOGICAL!! Science PROVES GOD’S EXISTANCE!! There is no other sensible explanation!!

    I’m arguing on Lawman’s ‘turf’ and that he or anyone else cannot come up with answers / responses to these points also proves that this debate IS winnable but certainly not by atheists!

  87. kathy (kayms91) said

    Hubris: Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance.

    I just looked up the word – I overlooked that point yesterday because of my ignorance of the word.
    I have to say Dorian, that you are wrong in my case… winning “the argument” is not my objective on this issue, not being wrong is not my motivation. AND being right does not mean that the person is guilty of “hubris”. That is another thing that I have observed in debating with the liberals of today. If a person is right / winning then they seem to be automatically accused of this offense… what? It seems that being right is offensive… liberalism has gotten completely out of hand… it’s become absolutely ridiculous.

    To me, this issue(God’s existance), is THE issue… NOT being right or wrong/ winning or losing a debate. This may be the case of the atheists here (and others) but not me.

    Again, this goes back to the concept of debating… you and others continue to see it as a battle of egos, of winning and losing when that is not what true debating is about: Debating; 1. To consider something; deliberate. TO CONSIDER SOMETHING…
    Consider: 1. To think carefully about. TO THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT

    None of these definitions ( which are the first in the definitions) (no.1) refer to winning or losing.

    My objective is to encourage non believers to CONSIDER my points, with the ultimate goal being that they come to see what I see: the probability and likelyhood that God does exist!
    When I debate an issue, I could easily find myself changing my position out of the reasoning that I come to after hearing others points.. and that is what debating is about!!

    Example… the issue of homosexuality. My view has genuinely changed since debating this recently. While I am not of the belief that it is not generally a sin (because that is what the Bible states), what I’ve learned / believe now is that it is an individual issue that is between that person and God. It is not my place or anyone else’s to judge another person’s heart, that is what God does and that is what He cares about. The catalyst for this new view is learning of the story in the Bible of David and Jonathan.

    I am so glad that I am able to learn and grow when debating with others about important issues. I am proud of my ability to have an open mind to CONSIDER other’s views and reason thru them.

  88. kathy (kayms91) said

    ok.. I give.. where’s Lawman and TTW?? I hope everything is ok.

    Since no one is responding, I am left to reread these posts.. and apparently I AM daft! Which I also had to look up… : mad, crazy?? uh, maybe… foolish; stupid?? again, apparently so, sometimes…frolicksome.. what? I guess I had just programed myself to ignore some of your (Lawman)comments because you weren’t giving me any straight answers and then low and behold you snuck it in! You finally answered the question and I completely missed it! More than once! just like you said!

    Ok… so your answer to the question… What contrary evidence is there that God does not exist? is evolution.

    I would really like to hear WHY you believe that evolution proves God does not exist or why it is considered by you to be “contrary evidence”? It would seem that evolution could also be used to argue that God does exist… because as intricate and complicated and delicately balanced as nature is ( which is a requirement for evolution) it clearly argues FOR a supreme being, God, to create the “blue print”.

    And your claim that because I cannot prove God’s existance that is also “contrary evidence” is not a logical valid claim because you cannot prove how existance came to be so is that “contrary evidence” of our existance?

    And ‘0’ probability is definitely not a logical scientific claim because again, our existance exludes ‘0’ probability. Basing 0 probability on lack of proof is not a scientific assessment at all.

    And another thing (among several) came to my attention…
    Both you and Rj made similar comments that I’ve found interesting…

    Lawman: once again i will say this I DON’T WISH TO DISPROVE your god anymore than i would santa

    Rj: Kathy, I do not wish to prove or disprove the existence of God, so this isn’t the best debate for me
    and: Bottom line: I don’t give a shit and you can label me as you like.

    These are statements of denial… denials that you both care which are apparently not true… or you wouldn’t be here talking about this issue… why are you denying that you care?

    Is it because you are also in denial about the reality that God does exist?

    You guys remind me of little children with their arms folded, pouting and saying ” I don’t care ” when they really do.

    You’re only hurting yourselves when being so closed minded.

  89. lawman2 said

    hey gang,tothewire’s mom passed on.will try to check back in friday.

    kay – dorian you two still up to uploading new post on here and answering comments for a few days?

  90. lawman2 said

    i don’t know for sure why this site has been so important to i think all of us,but i am glad to kinda know you all.someday maybe i’ll fly my pretty wife around to meet each of you in person,sound fun?

  91. lawman2 said

    hey there kay wouldn’t it be a bit fun in person to have a real debate…we could have popcorn for tothewire, maybe she would enjoy it then!

  92. kathy (kayms91) said

    Hey Lawman… I’m so sorry to hear about Trish’s mom. I will keep all of you in my prayers. I’d be glad to help out with the site.. I’ll try to add at least a couple of new stories a day… That would be great if you guys could make it out here one day… this is a great town (Sarasota) and I would be glad to show you two around. And I’m sure it wouldn’t take long before we got into a debate!
    But don’t worry about anything here on the site… and please let Trish know that I’m thinking about her and praying for her…

  93. Lawman2 said

    thank you kay!you did a great job here.

  94. dorian9 said

    everybody, i just got back and got on the blog today today sorry i was not much help – i gmailed trish –
    lots of tlc from you would be good for your pretty wife at this time, losing a mother is a very hard thing for daughters especially.
    yeah this site is very important for me too, it’s like a nice comfy room of our own where we can say whatever and argue and bicker but still keep coming back. it’s nice that you can fly, superman, come visit vegas or san francisco one of these days.
    anybody hear from e_e?

  95. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Interesting non-logic. How would a Bible translation represent the Bible itself? How can you confuse the Word of God for the “Bible.” Its lack of perfection is representative of nothing.

    Regarding judging, I suspect there is a reason none here are filled by God with a Holy commision to judge.

    Regarding the nature of God, it cannot be known. We are not capable as we do not have enough conciousness to include all that is God.

    Regarding the existance of God, the Bible, in all the translations I have read, say it is given by the work of God.

    Take all the same atoms there are in the smallest living creature that can reproduce on its own and generate all the possible permutations that could produce a complex molecule that can accomplish that same reproduction.

    It would, after all, using every bit of matter in the Universe every second for 15 billion years still be possible not to have one result that is considered to be life. Good luck on that.

  96. dorian9 said

    confused is the word, mr, john! but take note, it’s not just a ‘bible translation’, it’s THE translation, the very word of God himself. according to the TRUE christians of america.

  97. kay~ms said

    So, let me understand… we have a God but He has not revealed Himself to us (since the Bible is not legitimate)or I guess he has revealed himself in one of the other “religions” that does have a “perfect” reference. Or, He is just not capable of influencing the outcome of the Book that reveals Himself to us. OR, since we do not understand His reasons or feel that they are unjust, we shall reject a very real, supported, documented truth that HAS been put before us.

    Got it.

    John, you make a good scientific point but do you have a theory as to how those first atoms came into existence? It’s only logical to start at the beginning, right?

  98. dorian9 said

    john??

  99. kay~ms said

    uh.. Dorian..? you too… why do you believe that the translation that we have is not correct or, I guess, not good enough to follow?

  100. John Lloyd Scharf said

    I love the use of “true” Christians. It is a true abuse and avoidance of legitimate argument.

    Normally, if someone self identifies as a “True Christian,” without naming the translation, we get to assume they mean the KJV or as my original church called it, the Authorized Version. Most do not know it is an abreviated version tha has deleted the Apocrapha originally included.

    The King James Version renames Jacobus or Jacob as “James.” Imagine that. I wonder why King James authorized that? There is only one mention of Easter in the KJV. That is in the Acts of the Apostles. In the original language it is the word Passover. As Easter has pagan roots, I reject it from any point of view. Pagans, on the other hand, have a great deal of schadenfreud over its use by Christians.

    Then there is the term “Christian” itself. It is used twice in the KJV about believers or the faithful. In both cases, it is a derogatory term used by pagans. The term the apostles used was “pistos” rather than “Christian.” I believe they would have considered it vain to identify themselves as such, if not profane. Anyone who believes the KJV is the “Word of God” has a flawed god.
    If anything, the Word of God is the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

    Kay, you are making inferences I did not make. Kay, the Word of God is written on the hearts of Believers. To claim a book is the “True Word of God” is to engage in idolitry. There is no substitution for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If you think I am incorrect on this issue, refer to your own reference.

    The Scripture is foolishness to those without the Holy Spirit. If you think the KJV is the Word of God, then you lack the conviction of the Holy Spirit. If you think you can fully know the nature of God, neither Scripture nor the Conviction of the Holy Spirit supports that.

    In regard to the origian of matter, I think of the “Big Bang” as a point at which God created a “White Hole” and the universe came from that. I do not want to get involved in first chapter arguments about the origin of Man or the Species.

    I can safely say that scientific evidence can only ultimately lead to the conclusion that there wasan outside or intelligent cause. No matter how many junkyards you have, a Cray computer would not “evolve” from that junkyard in the time that this universe has existed.

  101. dorian9 said

    kay, you can follow any book you want. it’s the same book that a lot of my family follows. i’m just not following any books. i just follow the ‘golden rule’. you know, what luke said..’nuff said.

  102. kay~ms said

    Dorian.. I just wanted to know why you have chosen to reject the Book that Billions of people over time believed (believe) to be the word of God. And why you believe that God didn’t have any influence over the translation that we have today.

  103. kay~ms said

    John, the Bible gives us Jesus’ words and the words of His Apostles and other followers. Many of these men died a martyr’s death for their faith. I think that should be enough reason to believe that their words are the words that God wants us to hear and follow. If you truly believe in God then you have to wonder why He would give us an incorrect version to follow. My previous point being that to think that he couldn’t have influence over what we have is ridiculous. I just believe that all it takes is common sense to asses what God wants from us. And I don’t think He wants us to reject the word that so many have suffered and died for. To use the excuse that the Bible was incorrectly translated, to me, is a major cop out.

    Yes, God did write His words on our hearts but He also used Prophets to communicate with us. The Prophets recorded His words and we have them today in the Holy Book.

    Your arguments as to King James and his agendas as influencing the translation that we have… you are talking about names… you (and many others) are using the discrepency in names to reject an entire book that again, many have suffered and died for?? If you look hard enough for excuses… you’ll find them. It’s all about what is in our hearts… if we truly want to please God and are truly putting Him first then you wouldn’t be using trivial excuses to not do His will. This is just the way I see it.

    You said: “To claim a book is the “True Word of God” is to engage in idolitry. There is no substitution for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If you think I am incorrect on this issue, refer to your own reference.”

    First I have to point out that you are using as your reference (in this argument) a book that you have previously dismissed!

    Where do you get the information that God has written His words on our hearts? The Bible!!

    All of the people who reject the Bible convieniently use it to back up their points! You all want to pick and choose what to believe and what to reject. Yet your official stances it seems is to outright reject the entire Bible and to even call it idolatry?! What??

    Bottom line… why do you believe that God had no influence over the version that we have today? What do you use as a guide when the Holy Spirit speaks to you? Are you sure it’s the Holy Spirit? God gave us a guide to help us determine what is of Him and what is not…and it’s the Bible.

    I do not think that I fully know the nature of God… I believe that the things that He does want us to know ARE in the Bible. It’s all we need to know and if some want to use excuses to reject it then they can use their free will to do so. And I believe that that is the decision that reveals their true motives… to please themselves instead of God.

  104. dorian9 said

    kay you just channeled sister cecilia there. am i in trouble again?

    i don’t reject the bible, i have one like yours along with other writings sacred and revered. the torah, koran, upanishads, etc…God inspired many to write beautiful words for us to enjoy. so the kjv bible gifted to me by my grandmother is among other inspired books in my library. it’s in good company. there’s also shakespeare, whitman, keats, browning, wilde, etc., etc…

    christian revivalists see the bible as an object that represents their reverence for God’s holiness, comparable to the roman catholics’statues of Jesus. i say comparable in a sense that those objects themselves are not holy. they are just symbols. man-made symbols created by inspired man. many christians please themselves by believing that everything written in the bible are the words of God. in turn, christians must also accept what other sacred or profane words others choose to believe in. after all words are just words. it’s our actions that matter most, innit?

    hm. the christian conservative view page is getting some new action here. let’s revive the christian liberal view page as well. here’s tothewire’ christian liberal voice:

    http://tothewire.wordpress.com/liberal-vs-conservative/

  105. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Which “Bible” do you take as the inspired by God? There is no such thing as “THE” Bible.

  106. dorian9 said

    if one believes in God then anything can be inspired by God – in this instance, kay is talking about the christian bible, the kjv. she supports the fundamentalist christian belief that the said bible contains the words straight from the mouth of God. check out the article i just posted
    re. the oldest surviving bible, the codex sindaiticus :

    http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/the-oldest-known-bible-shows-alterations-to-todays-bible/

  107. kay~ms said

    The KJV that we have today is good enough for me. It contains, as do the oldest texts that we have, the information that we need to be saved. What more do we need?

  108. dorian9 said

    world peace?

  109. kay~ms said

    If the world put their trust in Jesus we would even have world peace. All we need to know and live by is in the Bible… all of the versions. The concern with name discrepancies and order of books and if Jesus was angry or compassionate (He was probably both in that instance) is not the issue… the important point is being missed.

  110. John Lloyd Scharf said

    “Dorian.. I just wanted to know why you have chosen to reject the Book that Billions of people over time believed (believe) to be the word of God. And why you believe that God didn’t have any influence over the translation that we have today.”

    This is a fallacy of argument, even if it were true. This is called a Bandwagon Argument or an Ad Populum Argument. I would not accept menu suggestions from what a billion flies eat or use as a nursury for their young, either. Your comment suggests that “Billions of People” read or accept the same translation. The “translators” of the KJV are cursed.

    In Acts 12:4, they substitute the word “Easter” for the word “Passover.” In Revelation 22:18, it claims”For I testify unto every man that heareth the book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him all the plagues that are written in tthis book:…” Of course, if you insist that these Church of England/Anglican/Episcopal translators were inspired by God, then you have to accept the Apocrapha that was in the original 1611 edition.

    In some cases people pick a certain translation of the Bible and declare it to be “The Word of God.” This is called “Sola Scriptura.”

    Of course, then you have to explain why your version is inspired and all others are not. Then there are the traditions of the Universal Church built on argument and history. Of course, then, you are putting these up as prophets and apostles who neither have a record of true prophesy nor were a witness to the life of Christ.

    Another way is to read all the translations and search them diligently to compare them with prayer for understanding through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I think this puts the responsibility on the individual where it belongs. You can discuss with others how that guides you, but you cannot declare it to be THE doctrine to judge others by. All churchs have doctrines that are the doctrines of men rather than the Word of God.

    Of course, there are some “translations,” that I throw out whole or in part, like the New World Translation and the KJV. I like the New King James Version because it corrects some of the errors I have found. I would feel convicted if I trusted ANY version completely.

  111. princessxxx said

    oh kay, you said “If the world put their trust in Jesus we would even have world peace. All we need to know and live by is in the Bible…”

    well, we all know that that is a load of bullshit.

  112. I think I am going to pull my Ace in the Hole on that if everyone was christian there would be world piece thing. In many different translations including greek orthodox, mentions the one world religion and the one world order that BK keeps talking about. It is labeled as…wait for it…wait for it….false christianity. But it does not expound into what that actually means. The New World Order and the One World Religion would infact claim to have christian beliefs but twist the original written word of the Torah, and Talmaud(sic?) as well as the writings of the Apostiles.(sic?) There is evidence that this indeed true. Despite the KJV (written in honor of King James, and it has many easter eggs designed to please KING JAMES. Not God but King James.) already having done this in both “old” and “new” testament. That in itself is evidence that conservative and liberal christianity may be this “false christianity”. Or not. Maybe religion was created by man to explain the unexplainable, the laws of an ethnic group, and to tell the histories of the people. Different Mythologies actually support this. The Greek Mythologies told stories of how Greece (which by the Ancient Greek reckoning was the center of the world.) and man came to be etc. But how can we actually prove if our beliefs are true or not? If I was to believe God was the only one true god that created everything, then why would I believe in another god or demigod that influences all the bad? It really is contridictory, and it takes a story out of context and adds more than it should. But how can you prove that my faith is wrong? How can you prove that my belief that every religion has at least one piece of universal truth, and if I put all of those together I get one whole universal truth; which is in essence my belief. How can you disprove that? You cannot just like I can show you patterns I noticed in different religions that a multiple amount of religions actually agree on two or more concepts. But that does not show that I am right and you are wrong. It cannot because it is a belief. I can and have argued this with not just kay but multiple people. Many of my arguments on this site. But one main problem with christianity in particular is the belief that prophets after a certain time are false. Nostradomus(sic) was labeled by the church as a false prophet but many of his prophecies came true. If I was to declare myself a prophet of God, which I am not, conservative christians in particular would say that I am a prophet of Satan. But if an unnammed preacher declared himself a prophet of God why are conservative christians not saying the same? And if you feel confused after this comment, then you get my point.

  113. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Scripture says everyone will praise the Lord at a certain point. The Revelation of John puts that after those who do not are killed by all the plagues, I believe. Zechariah puts that at the Feast of Ingathering. John claims there will be a battle, which in the Hebrew is Ar Meggedon. Ar means city. Meggedon means gathering place. Jerusalem is the place of the Feast of Ingathering or Sukot or the Feast of Tabernacles or Tents. Meggedos was a place of ingathering for trade. Jerusalem is a place of Ingathering of the Grapes of God. His Harvest.

    All others will be killed in a great war – the last. Many think all the signs are here for Ar Meggedon. I believe some are missing and the rest have been with us always.

    Of course, I am not a prophet. To be a prophet, you have to be correct 100% of the time. People would say my stock picks show otherwise. I do predict likelyhoods. I am not counting on the Pax Christos or 1000 year reign anytime soon. Those who claim to know God’s Plan are claiming to be a prophet. The long term punishment for false prophets is death and hellfire. Being a prophet seems not to be profitable, even if you are correct.

  114. Enkill_Eridos said

    I am not claiming to know God’s Plan. I just know what is true to me which may not be true to you. I believe God wants us to learn and see that every religion has parts of a unifying truth. And yes different scriptures in the Torah and Talmud actually tell of a day when everyone knows the Word of God. Which I may add the wording even though what I said is paraphrased; in Hebrew actually infers with the word know that everyone will also believe completely in that Word of God. That would be after the coming of the Messiah. This theological fact, and is something that many Hebrew use to discredit Christianity and Jesus. Which actually makes sense because not everyone knows and believes in the word of god.

  115. John Lloyd Scharf said

    I do not see that Scripture or the Word of God for Christians is consistant with what you believe, “know,” and term as a theological “fact.”

  116. dorian said

    let’s just say everything is theoretical and hypothetical, shall we…
    math; numbers close to “fact” and even that can be refuted.
    as long as we are allowed our freedom to choose what we believe then everyone should be happy. unless someone tries to invalidate what one believes in. now that invites a session in the fight club.

  117. Again it is up to interpretation as far as faith goes. No my beliefs are definitely not christian. I believe that everyone has the right to their beliefs and should not be persecuted for them for that is the truth to them; nor, do I mean to state that the christian belief is completely wrong. But I am comparing written scripture in the torah to written scripture in the bible. Now that I am home I can accurately quote the scriptures.

    Jeremiah 31:31-34

    “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Isreal, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which my covenant they broke…But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Isreal; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall no more teach everyman his neighbor, saying, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me…for I will forgive their iniquity and I wil remember their sin no more.”

    This was the scripture I was talking about and in that context as explained to me by a rabbi friend, the whole world does not recognize god. It is apparent in Palestine and other countries in the middle east. Not only do those countries do not recognize the same God as the Christians, but the same goes with every other country.

    I am not trying to say Christianity is wrong for everyone but there are scriptural holes in some core beliefs. This is what I see I just think that I should share MY findings and the other side of the argument. Which there are some books written by Hebrew scholars that show this. Please do not take that I am using a view from the other side of the coin as my own. And I should note I misrepresented the passage above and said know the Word of God. The actual passage says “And they shall no more teach everyman his neighbor, saying, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me… ”

    I am just a man with my own set of beliefs. As I said I am not pushing my beliefs upon anyone because it conflicts with my own ethics. If you want to know more about MY beliefs, which is not Judaism at all, but I myself have studied different scriptures and writings and have asked questions at my local temple. Mainly I enjoy the argument, but hold no hatred for Christians or Christianity. If you believe it to be true that is fine, but as this is a free country at the moment I will be voicing my opinions or findings. A real big reason why I do not debate for Christianity is for other scriptural and theological inconsistencies that tell me that the Christian god is not the same as the Hebrew god. This is all MY opinions and not anyone else on the blog, nor should it be viewed as anything but my opinions.

  118. John Lloyd Scharf said

    There are no “holes” in Christianity and no inconsistancies when all Scripture is taken as a whole rather than claiming there is an old law and new, old testiment and new.

    There are holes in the doctrines and translations of man, but not in the Scripture. There is one truth and one God, though it is not for man to completely know that truth and that God.

    At some point, as the Scripture you indicate professes, teaching will not be necessary. That does not mean we will all know everything, but we will either be perfected and/or know all there is needed to know. Why would I need to discern evil when it no longer exists?

    A later Jewish writer wrote: Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

  119. kay~ms said

    John, I think your points are valid but I’m going to respond with this… when we die and stand before God, the only thing that is going to matter is if we believe in Jesus as our Saviour. I don’t think God is going to care which translation we accepted. The more this topic is discussed (the validity of the KJV ) the more I’m convinced that it’s a non issue. The issue being what I just stated earlier.

    Again, we will be judged by what is in our hearts. If we believe that Jesus died for us, to save us, and we trust in Him to save us, then we are going to be ok. Everything else will fall into place if we just follow the first two commandments. And it will be our love for Him in response to His love for us and what He has done for us, that will enable us to do His will.

    EE & P, that statement about world peace if everyone trusted in Jesus I do believe is true.

    I didn’t think about that statement in terms of the one world religion prophecy. But from that aspect, Christianity isn’t technically a religion so that would exclude that idea. Dorian is right in that respect… religion does present problems from a world view especially. So if everyone believed and trusted in Jesus then that would eliminate the religion problem and then we would have peace. So see, I just proved my theory / statement correct…;o)

    Dorian… your (hypocritical) liberal views drive me crazy… your comment .. “as long as we are allowed our freedom to choose what we believe then everyone should be happy. unless someone tries to invalidate what one believes in. now that invites a session in the fight club.”

    “unless someone tries to invalidate what one believes in”? So that pertains to most of us here including you… You have “invalidated” Jesus’ deity, the Bible… And by saying that all religions are “valid”… you ARE invalidating Christianity.

    You are continuously making statements that imply that debating and disagreeing are wrong. That’s that liberal poison again.

    Mormonism is a cult… but the liberal view is to not say anything derogatory about this “religion”. I wonder how many more people would have been tricked and trapped in this cult if people didn’t speak up. Or in the MANY other cults like Scientology. There are many people involved in these “religions” who wish someone would have warned them… and now they are stuck… receiving all kinds of threats if they leave. That’s a cult. But don’t say it out loud say the liberals.. “because we must respect all religions.” There must be some middle ground here but as with abortion, liberals don’t want to budge an inch no matter what the consequences.

  120. Send in the lions.

  121. dorian said

    your cup runneth over with resentment, sister. keep the bile in, we’ve seen it before and it’s not a pleasant sight, thank you. i haven’t had coffee yet and i have to read some bellicose christian bellwether yelling ‘poison!!’ to the world. mercy me.

    seriously, please explain how validating other religions invalidates yours. if you are secure in your beliefs then nothing can invalidate them.

    comment 119 is an excellent demonstration of the self-righteousness and secularism that perpetuates these bad stereotypes of christians. come to think of it, i’ve never heard mormons or jews or hindus, et al., or for that matter, other christians, be this resentful towards others.
    a shiny trophy for kay. go sit next to tom in oprah choprah’s sofa.

    maybe somebody else will go to the fight club with you. not me. i like my pretty face. and i can watch my dog chase his tail right here if that’s what i’m in the mood for. may i remind you, your body is your temple. if you’re irregular with the bowel movements, try boiled okra.

    meow for now.

  122. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Kay, Christianity is a cult, from a certain perspective, mostly denotative. PTL was a cult. 700 Club could be seen as a cult. Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, and James Jones are/were cults based on personality. If you like generalizations, though, if their first name is James and they wear white shoes/belt, don’t trust them. If they are white-washed on the outside, likely there is rotting corpse inside.

    Dorian, I suspect you do not know many Mormons, Jews, Hindus, et al.

    From my perspective, though, I have no issues with Mormons, though I do discount their doctrines- particularly those outside the Book of Mormon.

    The Book of Mormon, I believe, was written by Dr. Spaulding. They called him “Old ‘It came to pass.” The language is KJV and so are the doctrines. Joseph Smith worked where he submitted his novel with the same plot and even names of characters.

    In terms of character, I have to go with practicing members. I would rather have them for a neighbor than most and I have liked them as politicians, generally.

    When it comes to doctrines, they are all doctrines of men. You name an organized church that declares its doctrine and I will show you where part of it is not Scriptural.

    Once they asked me to be a trustee at a church I attended. I told the pastor I was not a member. He just assumed I was because I tithed and advocated it for the church. If I had a denomination, it would be the First Church of the Inner Spring and would be seventh day pentecostal.

    I believe baptism is purely symbolic just as Baptists believe the Euchrist is symbolic when they drink juice instead of wine. Baptism and Communion are not symbolic, but spiritual. Far too often, they have become rites of passage when coming of age.

    I believe Sunday “sabboth” was a way for Christian Jews to meet that was twisted into the “Sabboth” by the 4th Century Church.

    I believe speaking in tongues is A gift rather than THE gift. It CAN be A sign of the quickening of the Holy Spirit, but it is not THE sign.

    I believe excommunication is an organizational distancing and not a spiritual condition.

    I believe the Anointed Savior was God come in the flesh, not a schitzophrenic god with three persons/personalities.

    I believe the Second Death in Hell is everlasting in consequence rather than in duration.

    So, in the end, I discount the Universal Church (AKA Catholic), LDS (AKA Mormon), Baptists, Pentecostals, Adventists, Taoists, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and dozens of others I am not going to list.

  123. kay~ms said

    uh… MY “cup runneth over with resentment”? “keep the bile in”? Please… if my cup is “runnething” over, yours is floating down a river of runneth overeth ;o)

    “Send in the lions”?? Wow… ouch.. those liberal critisisms really hurt I guess…

    I was just stating my disagreements in detail (the art of debating) your response(s) were just full of nothing but insults.

    But you did say this: seriously, please explain how validating other religions invalidates yours. if you are secure in your beliefs then nothing can invalidate them.

    So, in proper debating format, I will respond…

    Dorian.. there is / can only be ONE truth. When you validate other beliefs, you are actually invalidating all beliefs. That’s another one of those liberal falacies…”all beliefs are true”.

    And if as you say, we are secure in our beliefs and therefore nothing can invalidate them, then why can’t we debate our different beliefs? Why is it so terrible to do so?

    I was just watching the Byu channel last night for a few minutes… and the Mormon men were sitting in a group discussing / studying Joseph Smith’s writings. One of the men at the end made a comment / question: “See, how could Joseph make all of this up?” In his mind he is still trying to prove to himself the validity of Smith. He is debating within himself. Why wouldn’t he want to debate outside of himself? If he truly wants to know the truth? If we are secure in our beliefs then we should want to debate them with others.

  124. kay~ms said

    John, Christianity isn’t a cult, but there are men who do abuse Christianity to create their own ‘little’ cults.. Mormonism and the JW’s are perfect examples.

    But I do have to agree with this statement: In terms of character, I have to go with practicing members. I would rather have them for a neighbor than most and I have liked them as politicians, generally.

    Except for the part about the politicians… Romney scares me!

  125. dorian said

    john and kay, i am all of the cults mentioned above. i have christian (all sects), jewish ( not hassidic), mormon (not flds), hindu, buddhist, et al. in my family and circle of friends in nyc/san francisco/london. except i’m not a druid. i refuse to wear those scratchy hooded robes. and yes, john, everybody is resentful but not all of them resent online. that’s why i love that kay is baaack! i generally don’t like politicians as neighbors and generally like doing business with mormons. and i don’t resent , kay, i just get annoyed sometimes, especially when i haven’t had good rem sleep lately. still, i’d rather eat than resent. on that note, i’ll have some double chocolate cake with lots of choc. icing and a tall glass of milk now. life is good, indeed!

  126. dorian said

    john – i went to a pentecostal – or was it baptist?? – church last sunday because i wanted to play drums in their band and there were a lot of gifted people speaking in tongues. there was an exorcism of sorts too. two months ago there was the drumming circle in the red rocks, with everybody communing with the pauite indian spirits. let me tell ya, las vegas has its share of religion/spirituality groups. yes and because you tithe when you’re there, it’s assumed you’re brethren. next week i may play guitar at a greek orthodox church event. oh the places i go just to play music! if you like pythagoras check this out: http://enkilleridos.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/music-and-healing-%E2%80%93-the-pythagorean-theory/

  127. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Kay, Christianity is at best a Jewish Cult. Cult definitions coined from 1920 onward refer to a cohesive social group and their devotional beliefs or practices, which the surrounding population considers to be outside of mainstream cultures. Christians are becoming a cult more and more.

    Dorian, you are bigoted in your perception of who is resentful – online or not. You are claiming that all Christians online are resentful. I do not consider them even particularly different from the Atheists, Pagans, or Muslims. In fact, given the numbers of Atheists and Pagans in the world, they appear to be extremely resentful.

    Oh, and I used to be part of a drum cirle. I guess it got to be too much like church and stopped attending.

  128. dorian said

    i didn’t claim all christians online are resentful. i was referring to the one who doesn’t like mormons here, the author of such posts as this: http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/glen-becks-deception/#comments

    the drum circle experience was limited to two sessions. dogma and politics rears their ugly heads in any group type thing, and you’re right, it all ends up being church or cult after a while. that’s why i prefer to go the renegade route even in my avocation.

  129. dorian said

    john you’re calling christianity a cult – heads up, man, you haven’t met kay’s mighty bat… gotta stock up on popcorn just in case. hehe.

  130. John Lloyd Scharf said

    “yes, john, everybody is resentful but not all of them resent online.” That implies that Christians are more resentful than others, if not that all of them resent online. Your statement is bigoted, regardless of how you play it to yourself.

    It is the same as Dick claiming, “Just like all the othe Christians, here you are, letting God of the Hook.” Bad spelling and argument aside, it is bigotted and stereotyping.

    Most who do not like Mormons just do not want the Missionaries at their door. Ditto Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mormons, as neighbors, though, seem less likely to block my driveway, throw late-night parties, or annoy my dog.

    At the door, though, I just tell them I am “hard ground” and they get the point. I find “No,” is easier for me to say than for them to “Can we…..” I have a whole batch of “No” that I have not even used yet.

    Even my “I’m not interested” is piling up. I do use a great deal of “Listen to this,” just before I hang up on telemarketers. I wonder if it makes a “Click” sound on their end. I guess it a bit harder to guess at than whether the light goes out when you close the refer door. “No” is easy to store and has a long shelf life.

  131. Anonymous said

    well then i must apologize to everyone for the bigoted remark. it was a mistake. my grandmother wouldn’t have approved either. the mistake comes from lots of experience with christian resentment in this blog as well as real life,
    eclipsing et al. resentment experience.

    we get regular visits from the mormon boys and jehovas. once i opened the door and received the brochures. so they’ve sent their friends. they stopped knocking after i told them i was trying to perfect my levitation and teleportation abilities.

  132. dorian said

    131 mine. forgot to log in.
    the dogs need walking and i must obey.
    later…

  133. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Anonymous, I used to invite the Missionaries in and talk to them for hours. In the end, I guess I felt convicted and stopped. They were better off talking to someone else or riding their bicycles. I suspect they attracted more to Christianity than to the LDS. Very few Mormans believe the LDS doctrine that is very different from mainstream Christianity. The enjoy the fellowship more than the fundementalist doctrine. In practice, they are close to being Methodist or Episcopalian. In these regards, they are like shirttail Baptists and fallen away Catholics.

    In practice, believers should work out their own salvation “with fear and trembling,” while suspending their judgment of others and keeping their dogma on a leashla.

  134. kay~ms said

    Dorian… how can you say I don’t like Mormons? Did you read #124? See?… I’m going to have to agree with John’s comment about you being bigoted in this instance. I don’t dislike Mormons… I do believe that Mormonism is a cult.. based on lies. There IS a difference. I’m sorry to keep harping on it but you keep perpetuating the bad liberal “stereotypes” with precision it seems. You say that you are not a liberal but I if you’re not liberal then I don’t know who is.

    And I have to say that this comment that you made about my comment #119 really confuses me:

    “comment 119 is an excellent demonstration of the self-righteousness and secularism that perpetuates these bad stereotypes of christians. come to think of it, i’ve never heard mormons or jews or hindus, et al., or for that matter, other christians, be this resentful towards others.
    a shiny trophy for kay. go sit next to tom in oprah choprah’s sofa.”

    I’ve read my comment over and over and I can’t figure out how you come to the conclusion that I’m being self-righteous. Is it that same old liberal belief again? that if someone believes that their faith is the correct one that they are being self-righteous? That would make just about everyone “self-righteous”.

    And you are right… I do have resentment (dislike) and it is for the liberal doctrine that says that I am wrong for believing what I choose… for not embracing the erroneous liberal views that say that I MUST believe that every religion is “valid” (not possible) and all of the other illogical views. Liberals have some sort of “hollywood” blacklist that everyone goes on who doesn’t adhere to these ridiculous and unrealistic views. Again, disagreeing isn’t a bad thing. How you handle those disagreements is where the problems come in. It’s like liberals think that humanity isn’t capable of disagreeing in a peaceful way.

    I have never been so keenly aware of the agressive liberal agenda until fairly recently in my life. And it’s bad. With Obama leading the way in the effort to silence free speech ( it soon will be against the law to call abortion murder ) .. with people afraid to question someone’s motives / agenda for fear that they will be accused of hatred, bigotry and intolerance ( and promptly put on that liberal “hollywood” blacklist http://tothewire.wordpress.com/a-troubling-new-social-ill-reverse-ignorance/ … to my brother and his wife, after going to the same church for 17 years and finally learning that the Methodist denomination APROVES of a woman’s right to “choose” and now having to find another church… it’s sad for lack of a better word. The liberals are winning. It’s one thing to fight for your beliefs but to make such an agressive effort to FORCE others to take on your beliefs is no better than nazi-ism. Liberals claim to want freedom of beliefs for everyone…boy.. how hypocritical do they look now?

  135. John Lloyd Scharf said

    kay~ms, if being in a cult is defined as being based on lies, then name a denomination of Christianity that is not a cult?

  136. Now flood the arena and send in the crocodiles: and bring me a small boy, Christian or not, I am not fussy, and some lark tongues in aspic

  137. John Lloyd Scharf said

    I can withstand the worst of poetry, but it is not appropriate to allude to pederasty in this place.

  138. kay~ms said

    “Now flood the arena and send in the crocodiles: and bring me a small boy, Christian or not, I am not fussy, and some lark tongues in aspic”

    typical liberal

  139. kay~ms said

    That’s the problem… denominations… they are the result of man’s ego and not what Jesus wanted / wants.

    When men branched out into different denominations…they were missing one of the main points of Christianity I think.

    The definition of a cult from a Christian point of view is primarily when the “religion” denies Christ’s deity.

  140. The O.E.D. defines a cult as: ‘a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object.’
    in case you were wondering.

  141. kay~ms said

    That’s why I included “from a Christian point of view” in my definition.

    It is clearly heading in the direction, as John pointed out, of Christianity being considered a cult. And that, I believe, is part of the liberal agenda. Well, Dorian’s agenda anyway.

    No, really, everything is falling in line just as the Bible predicted. And it’s the liberal agenda that is making it happen.

  142. dorian said

    what’s my ‘liberal agenda’? i’m curious. first of all i never said i was liberal. why is that word so vilified really, it’s a good, positive word. yes, i’m liberal-minded in some aspects but not across the board. because i’m pro-choice, into the ‘liberal’ compartment i go. now i’m ascribed an agenda. i wasn’t even part of this conversation. don’t drag me into this , miss kay, just answer john’s question.

    an allusion to pederasty ‘typical liberal’?? is that a term of endearment or do i hear petulance in the tone?
    so what name should a pederastic evangelical preacher be called?
    somehow i haven’t heard anybody say ‘typical conservative’. can we have a definition for that term?

    ‘No, really, everything is falling in line just as the Bible predicted. And it’s the liberal agenda that is making it happen.’ which bible and which prediction? is it your
    http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/does-obama-fulfill-muslim-prophecy-2/ again, kay??

    where’s princess? i need a good laugh. this arena is needing some levity and good humor. oh yeah, i forgot what page we were on…

  143. I am trying to levitate, Dorian: I thought it was working, given the reaction…..

    love Caligula

    p.s. ‘everything is falling in line just as the Bible predicted. And it’s the liberal agenda that is making it happen.’ that makes me an instrument of god, right? Beat me daddy, eight to the bar.

  144. Walter Muller said

    I have read some of the debates on this site, some sensible others not so sensible, but all very passionate. I am not a Christian, neither an atheist, actually the way I see things related to religion might be looked at as weird or any name you can think of.
    However, consider this; You are all trying to prove God exist or don’t exist, there are an incredible amount of literature on earth regarding this matter, and quite frankly their are a Creator of all we see and use everyday, that Creator or Creators must be shaking their heads in total disbelief at our efforts to come over as knowing best or better than the next guy, although we know absolutely nothing about the true state of affairs regarding our heritage or who created our home. we can only fight each with what we know.
    Here is something which will keep you busy for some time to come; Jesus said that we the people have been worshipping the Devil since the “beginning”, Satan came into the picture in the book of Job, quie some time after the “beginning”. Jesus also said to the church of the time that they have killed the prophets he have sent before, and they will after he had left. In the time befe he came you will find in the book of Zachariah that God gave the order to kill the prophet, Jesus also said that their father(the peoples father) their God was a thief, a liar, and a murderer, now think about his very carefully, he said worship since the “beginning”, he also said the religion (the pharisees and the teachers of the law) killed the prophets then we find that the leader of that religion gave the order to kill the prophet sent by Jesus, Was Jesus referring to Satan or to someone else when he mentioned Devil, he also called him the evil one, Satan only had certain “rights” so to speak he were given authority to mislead the people by way of putting ideas into our heads. God or the Devil according to Jesus was the one telling us he is God, lying to us since the beginning or to what beginning was Jesus referring to? secondly, Jesus also said “ALL WHO CAME BEFORE ME WAS MURDERERS, LIARS, AND THIEVES” Who are these “ALL” He was talking about, people? Or those who told us they were God, Beings similar to Jesus, the wolves who scared the living daylights out of thehired men who then for survival started telling the people these Gods were the true thing or else they would be killed. Who killed the People if they did not listen, remember Jesus gave us a choice whom to worship, he warned however that we cannot worship two, for “WE” will then hat the one and love the other–(free will), what did God promise? he would kill you if you believe in some thing else, and he did, plenty times. Go think about it. Who is Satan, who is the Devil/Evil one, Jesus also said you/the people do not know my father, if they had he would not have been here, he told us that but he also said our eyes and ears are closed, maybe he was right!

  145. Walter Muller said

    YOU MIGHT FIND THESE INTERESTING (Jesus the Keeper of the truth) and (Unchaste Deception)

  146. dorian said

    thanks for visiting and sharing interesting perspective, walter!
    believers, non-believers, the crazy, the indifferent – all welcome here.
    the darth vader god the father has reared his wrathful head elsewhere in this blog, channeled by lawman, methinks.
    he’s also featured in tales from places like the hellfire club, golden dawn, etc. ..a cranky old man not easily amused.

  147. princessxxx said

    send in the clowns.

    betty, pederasty? whaaattt? how inappropriate.
    just kidding, i thought it was hilarious. funniest line in the whole thread.

    dorian, with your liberal poisons. hahahahahahahah.

    well, anyway, speaking of inappropriate, i’m working on an expose’ about “trig palin is the anti-christ”
    i will keep you guys posted.

  148. John Lloyd Scharf said

    “You are all trying to prove God exist or don’t exist, …” Very broad assumption.

    You also make some vague reference to Scripture without citing the particular one so the context of its use or alternative translations can be discussed. The “ALL WHO CAME BEFORE ME WAS MURDERERS, LIARS, AND THIEVES” could be from John 10:8. Your meaning you twist it to has nothing to do with the context of the parable it is found within, if that is your quote. See this:
    1″I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” 6Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.
    7Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.[a] He will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

    The reference is to all those bad shepards. It means more to those who have herd sheep or at least some kind of animals.

    Then you allude to another reference, likely the sixth chapter of Matthew, regarding two masters. Your contention that the “other” is free will is to abuse that Scripture. It plainly says “God and mammon.” In this case, the word means fatness and is an allusion to worshipping the god of fatness. As used, it means you can chose God as your first priority or wealth.

    Of course, you give something of your doctrine away by putting “free will” in quotes. You may be of that “once-saved-always-saved” crowd who justifies that by claiming those who turn their back on God were never saved. I like to point and giggle at those with their predestination doctrines.

    Those who believe God would play with all souls just to make a boot camp for the few have a small and petty god. While I do not think you can earn salvation, you can certainly opt out of it.

    For God to be just, there must be an even playing field. Of course, if you believe that God has only his preordained Select, then you have to dismiss a great many books of the Scriptures.

    Just to start with, God says of a certain group, “I will bless them that bless you and curse them that curse you.” That would fly in the face of them that cursed and curse the Jews. There would be no redemption from that curse.

    For those who claim to be so open-minded, there is a great deal of concrete thinking going on. Black and white are comforting, but even having shades of grey cannot substitute for color vision.

  149. Walter Muller said

    John, I see you know where what is in the Bible, and with your answer you also assume what the other believe or do not believe, let me explain myself. I am not a believer in the scriptures of any religion 100% nor do I take what any man tells me at face value, I investigate, and if I cannot find concrete proof and the subject is worthy of thought, I apply logic to it, untill it makes sense, if it does not make sense, or I cannot in my mind make sense of it, I reject it, maybe ten years down the line, the subject I have rejected could come by me again, then I will look at it again, and if it could then make sense I will look at it again, and maybe accept it. The way I see the bible at this specific point in time, is not with great admiration, the one thing however which to me is of value is what Jesus preached, and it is also my opinion that not all stated in the bible to be his words is actually his words, the bible is a compilation of stories and actual events and people of the distant past which was compiled by people like you and me, usually some time after the fact, and for that reason, in my opinion not concrete proof of anything stated in it, what you or I or the pope for that matter make of it is only our opinion, no more and no less. What any man believe is his or her right, all we can do is respect it and try to talk peacefully about it, only then will we be able to really understand each other, and hopefully one day have mutual understanding, which is something this world is in serious need of.

  150. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Perhaps.

  151. Walter Muller said

    Jonh, don’t be so cinical, tomorrow we might have a great joke together, here is something which you can investigate if you like,
    http://www.authorhouse.com/bookstore/itemDetail.aspx?bookid=59758 (Jesus The Keeper of the Truth) and http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/unchaste-deception/2486291 (Unchaste Deception) It is books written by me regarding my opinion on the Bible, in those books I mention from time to time that what the reader see there is my opinion and not a new world truth, they must do their own investigations and find their own truths, maybe mine can help them do that.

    Many might think its hogwash, many might think its good stuff, but if I do not share it the world would never have the opportunity to see what I was all about, or why I cry, or laugh by sharing my view makes the load I carry much lighter, and someone out there might actually have a good laugh, or find a door where there never was a wall.

    All the best
    Walter.

  152. dorian said

    ‘or find a door where there never was a wall.’
    nice, walter! will check out your books.

  153. kay~ms said

    Great points /perspective Walter. I have had some of the same perspectives myself. In applying my logic, my perspective at this time is that I believe that the Bible is not perfect for a variety of reasons… mistakes, man’s will, biases etc. But I do believe that all that we need to know, the most important things, are in the Bible. Some will use the excuse that since the Bible is not perfect that they are justified in rejecting it (and Jesus) all together. They are failing the “test”. It’s all about what is in our hearts. And that is what God will judge us on. There is overwhelming evidence of God’s existence and some will choose to reject Him based on “technicalities”… because they do not want to believe.
    All we need to know is God’s love and what He has done for us… all we need to do is follow the 1st 2 commandments, which I don’t think are in dispute (the commandments). It really is that simple. If it weren’t that simple, think of all the people who wouldn’t make it to heaven just because of their inability to “figure” out all of the things being discussed here. I dont’ think God would let people perish for eternity because of a lack of “higher” intelligence. Ironically, the most intelligent people here on earth are the ones who are able to put their trust in God. And that doesn’t require a college education or any schooling at all for that matter.

  154. princessxxx said

    kay, hahaha, joke of the week.

    “In applying my logic”

    hahahaha, still can’t stop laughing.

  155. kay~ms said

    Yeah? well.. let’s hear your logic… I bet you won’t even attempt to give a serious answer…

  156. princessxxx said

    oh great kay, you think of everything.

    now we have something to bet on. that should make dorian happy.
    (what with his gambling problem and all)

    well, here is my logic. and you can’t top that.

  157. princessxxx said

  158. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Obviously, “Princess” is irrelevant.

    Walter, “concrete thinking” is a term in logic as a phallacy and/or a term from psychology. Neither use of the term is positive.

    Kay, an education requires work and persistance. You get out of it as much as you put into it. Few college students/graduates have the command of communication or logic you would expect. I would say less than 5% ever take any class in thinking/logic.

    Indoctrination seems to be the standard operational procedure. Regardless of how intelligent you are, GIGO. Garbage In means Garbage Out. What you learn is you get a better grade by regurgitating the instructor’s beliefs than by opposing them. I say that as a college grad who was more often on the Honor Roll than not.

    On the other hand, if you are on a mission or are a pastor, you need to know how to communicate and lead. Of course, being led by the Spirit counts too. I will never know why the “God Squad” types wanted me to read the stuff of Josh McDowell. One gave me a rather spendy text when I was a Sophomore.

    They say familiarity breeds contempt. Perhaps that is why my physics teacher was converted. There are many strawman arguments indulged in by both Believers and non-believers. How I regard that is that neither know the nature of science and are far too intimidated by it. Science is experiment and repetition to establish levels of probability. Despite all the claims, evolution is neither proven nor disproven by science. The arguments depend on a preponderance of evidence rather than science.

    In the end, though, you could take the simplest structure of life as a model. If you took all the atoms of that lifeform and rearranged them in all the possible combinations, you could exhaust all the possibilites using all matter in the known universe and still not have one that survives to reproduce.

    In fact, you could do that every second that the known universe is supposed to have existed without producing life. Life is highly improbable. It seems very unlikely to have happened by accident. Some force outside this universe seems to be responsible. So, you can claim God or some other author of an intelligent design did not create it, but it is unlikely.

    Most of us would consider a bucket of water suddenly boiling with no heat to be a supernatural or a miracle. Physicists will tell you it could happen if all the molecules jumped in one direction as a matter of probability. You might need a universe of buckets and water to do it, but it is a possibility. Doing it on command would, for most of us, be a miracle. This may be why Einstein had his own limitations. He claimed God did not play dice with the universe. It was used in this same context.

  159. princessxxx said

    john lloyd scharf – irrelavence is molecules jumping in a direction that you obviously haven’t learned yet despite your community college education.

  160. John Lloyd Scharf said

    First, Princess, you are no judge of what is relevant. Second, I am a graduate of the University of Oregon, but keep on guessing.

  161. princessxxx said

    do you have a degree in relevancy?
    then what makes you judge of what is relevant?

  162. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Perhaps.

    I teach what is relevant and I teach patience.

  163. princessxxx said

    you teach patience?
    probably never should have told me that.

  164. John Lloyd Scharf said

    You think? Perhaps. Why?

  165. princessxxx said

  166. John Lloyd Scharf said

    And?

  167. This is all getting far too gnomic. John, you might like to lighten up on the bearded sage motif.
    Einstein’s limitation was more likely that, despite relativity, he was still attached enough to a Newtonian view to seek universal rules, and not to be able to accept the chaos of the quantum sphere; and that he still believed in God.
    Life is indeed highly improbable, so of course it is ‘very unlikely to have happened by accident’. That does not mean that it is any MORE likely to have been created by …that intelligent thing… Paul Davies is very good on all this.
    I’m sure you’d agree, John, that even if there is an intelligent designer there is absolutely no reason to think it is anything to do with the texts and beliefs some of us inherited from a small collection of semi-nomadic tribes in a small corner of the planet.

    And honestly; ‘I teach what is relevant and I teach patience.’ Who talks like that?

  168. John Lloyd Scharf said

    We will disagree on the need for an intelligent force involved in the creation of life.

    We shall also disagree on your absolute about the texts. I do not believe in absolutes like that. That nomadic tribe left Ur of the Chaldees near where some believe civilization started.

    In regard to “Who talks like that?” I do.

  169. princessxxx said

    brava betty

  170. John Lloyd Scharf said

    ?And?

  171. princessxxx said

    oh john lloyd scharf…please be patient.

  172. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Why?

  173. princessxxx said

    whoever said “teachers make the worst students”?

  174. John Lloyd Scharf said

    What do you assume is the answer to your question?

  175. princessxxx said

    it really isn’t about the answer to my question.
    it’s about the relevance of caring about indulging your ‘problem’ in the first place.

    i take it your not a libra.

  176. John Lloyd Scharf said

    What is it “really” about then?
    What do you assume is a “problem” I have?
    Why does it make a difference if I am a “libra” or not?
    How do you feel about this “problem” you imagine I have?
    Do you often think others want you to care about them?

  177. princessxxx said

    well john, others can want me to care about them or not.
    it ain’t ever gonna happen,

    anyway, all of your questions above.
    all irrelevant, as i don’t care about you.

    so teach me all about patience and shut your pie hole.

  178. kay~ms said

    “In the end, though, you could take the simplest structure of life as a model. If you took all the atoms of that lifeform and rearranged them in all the possible combinations, you could exhaust all the possibilites using all matter in the known universe and still not have one that survives to reproduce.”

    Take that atheists… It’s so funny to see you all squirm.

    Betty said “Life is indeed highly improbable, so of course it is ‘very unlikely to have happened by accident’. That does not mean that it is any MORE likely to have been created by …that intelligent thing… Paul Davies is very good on all this.”

    Uh, yes it does mean that it is more likely that God exists… what other explanation could there be?? Stop squirming Betty and open up your mind a little bit.

    And Paul Davies is no better than anyone else… just another typical ‘atheist’ in denial. If you’ve read one atheists writings, you’ve read them all… they are nothing but desperate people encumbered by their huge egos.

  179. kay~ms said

    oops.. it looks like I’ve interrupted something… sorry.

    But I did forget to say also… take that Lawman.

  180. princessxxx said

    seriously kay, do you really think that betty is squirming?
    what does that mean anyway, squirming?

    and do you really think that john lloyd scharf is capable of teaching relevance and patience?

    i don’t, but i don’t care what anyone thinks at the moment, huge egos or not.

  181. kay~ms said

    squirming in your seat… feeling uncomfortable…. because you’re being confronted with a truth that you have denied and don’t want to acknowledge.

    Yes, by now I’ve gotten pretty good at telling when the liberals / atheists are “squirming”.

  182. kay~ms said

    And her cupeth is also flowing down a river of runeth overeth of resentment … it’s so obvious when she uses such a derogatory name for her creator.

  183. princessxxx said

    oh kay, your naivete is so charming.
    that’s not squirming, it’s pilates.
    kegel exercise, tightening our gluteous maximus
    keep those asses looking young and firm
    all us cougars do it…..it’s all the rage.

  184. princessxxx said

    And her cupeth is also flowing down a river of runeth overeth of resentment … it’s so obvious when she uses such a derogatory name for her creator.

    kay, what are you refering to? who used a derogatory name for her creator? dorian?, betty?, Jo-Llo?

  185. See, JLS said:
    ‘Some force outside this universe seems to be responsible. So, you can claim God or some other author of an intelligent design did not create it, but it is unlikely.’
    So I said ‘that intelligent thing’ to cover those two definitions.

    JLS also said:’We will disagree on the need for an intelligent force involved in the creation of life.’

    Life is an unlikely phenomenon the causes of it are likely to involve some improbable elements.

    Your leap of ‘logic’ is straight from
    (a) ‘I accept that some kind of intelligent designer was present and involved in creating life in the universe’
    to
    (b)’So therefore I accept everything in the Bible as the unvarnished truth.’

    Why is that? In fact the leap is from (b) to (a), isn’t it?

  186. princessxxx said

    oh, well, i would have never guessed ‘that intelligent thing’ as a derogatory word.

    kay is such an imaginative blogger.

  187. princessxxx said

    an imaginative blogger yes…
    but no case for intelligent design.

  188. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Betty, you said:
    I’m sure you’d agree, John, that even if there is an intelligent designer…

    I responded:
    We will disagree on the need for an intelligent force involved in the creation of life.

    Betty, obviously the “if” is not a question in my mind. When you would need all the matter in many, many, universes over the estimated time of existance of this Universe to arrive at one improbable form of life, then science denies the likelihood of it happening without an intelligent force. Occum’s razor puts the proof on my contention rather than the unlikely accident of life.

    Betty, you continued:

    …is absolutely no reason to think it is anything to do with the texts and beliefs some of us inherited from a small collection of semi-nomadic tribes in a small corner of the planet.

    I responded:

    We shall also disagree on your absolute about the texts. I do not believe in absolutes like that. That nomadic tribe left Ur of the Chaldees near where some believe civilization started.

    Betty, you, in fact, used the term “absolutely” in your own sentence. I deny that absolute. As predicted, we disagree. Curiously, though, normally “Christians” are the ones who claim absolutes.

    At best, your assertion about the “leap of logic” is a strawman argument. I made no such leap, but it is not the first time you made uncalled for assumptions. The first was “I’m sure you’d agree…”

  189. princessxxx said

    http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/this-may-seem-irrelevant-but-aliens-are-planning-on-eating-your-brians/

    Jo-Llo, hope this clears things up for you. ;)

  190. John Lloyd Scharf said

    kay~ms, you seem to be getting charged again with “resentment.” Is that the tag people use when they run out of logical arguments?

    Of course, I already know they have a prejudice against “semi-nomadic tribes.” If not prejudiced, it is a bit ethnocentric. Everyone has some tribal attachments, even if it is only to the tribe of Nacirema.

    Here is a question for you, though. Who should you never ask to teach you patience.

  191. princessxxx said

    oh that is a thought provoking question.
    my guess is you Jo-Llo

  192. Actually I was talking to Kay there, as she was gloating so sweatily.

    But to you John I say:
    Unless you can think of even the tiniest reason why we should think that the I.D. has anything to do with etc, I think avsolutely is a fine word to use.
    Since you are so particular JLS, let’s say ; even though there undoubtedly is an I.D. I am thinking that you may agree that such an I.D. is not necessarily or even probably the God of Christianity, or any God of any earthly religion.

    How’s that?
    And why is that you would need all the matter in many, many, universes over the estimated time of existence of this Universe to arrive at one improbable form of life?

    Occam’s razor, as I understand it, is the principle that faced with two or more reasonable explanations of a phenomenon, you should favour the simpler. As Newton said: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”

    It is simplicity that’s the key; not probability. And not simplicity for its own sake.The I.D. doesn’t explain anything, but frees you of the tiresome necessity of asking any more questions. Like where did the I.D. come from?

  193. princessxxx said

    it’s that age old hypothetical:
    “which came first,
    the pope…………….
    or the shit in the woods?”

    Jo-Llo, do you ever dress up as santa at christmas?
    if there is “intelligent design” at play here,
    you should seriously consider dressing up as santa,
    you’d be a natural.

    i wonder what elizabeth hasselbeck has to say about it?
    i’ll have to get back to you.

  194. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Occam’s razor is that if you have two solutions, you should go with the less complex. It is less complex to go with the hypothesis of intelligent design than to cook up some rationale for such an improbable result. Now, you could claim that they were extra dimensional beings, if you just have to cling to your “science.”

    Of course, those of us who are from those semi-nomadic tribes from Ur describe those as supernatural and have called it/them Elohim.

    Princess, I am not the one you should not ask to be taught patience by. Nor was it asked of you. It was asked of another. You did not have the patience to wait for her to answer.

    Oh… and just as a suggestion…. kegels have nothing to do with the gluteus maximus. That is a large and superficial muscle that can make you “tight-assed.” Kegels refer to exercises of muscles of the pelvic floor. Mainly that area Kegels refer to is the Pubococcygeus muscle. If you are a “Cougar,” perhaps you should do some more study of anatomy.

  195. princessxxx said

    Princess, I am not the one you should not ask to be taught patience by. Nor was it asked of you. It was asked of another. You did not have the patience to wait for her to answer.

    now here, you are just being stupid. i don’t wait to be asked anything.

    really, work on your own patience before you decide to take up teaching it as a serious profession. (you really kinda suck at it)

  196. And why is that you would need all the matter in many, many, universes over the estimated time of existence of this Universe to arrive at one improbable form of life?

  197. dorian said

    walter is quizzical
    and john is cynical
    betty plays caligula
    princess plays irrelevant
    dorian’s so gliberal
    oh how we torture kay
    we’re all derogatory
    and bound for purgatory
    then it’s satan’s fiery lair
    possible and very likely
    atheists are really stuffy
    christians may be holy
    but the flatulence just as smelly
    oh how we torture kay
    God’s golden hammer
    may fall on our arses
    enkilleridos, our only hope
    is always on sabbatical
    and lingering in the astral
    heretics and heathens alike
    question the sacrosanct scribes
    oh the many ways
    we torture kay!
    we’ve done it all before
    and no one’s keeping score
    just let the comments flow
    see how the darn thread grows!

    6 minutes. okay lawman, the 1 minute rule doesn’t apply at 3 in the a.m with inebriants on top.

  198. Walter Muller said

    Hi John, in a sense I have to agree on your statement regarding ‘concrete’, what you say in regards to the matter in space which can be horded in drections of experiment and no life comes of it, but only extinction, you are also correct, but also wrong, the answer to your and most scientifically minded people’s quest (do not exclude me from that) regarding this phenomena is most likely a statement I found in the Bible, this statement comes down to what we can call exceptance due to a absense of proof. Some might say its religion, but there is a huge difference. The statement I am referring to is this; “man can make, or create anything, but without spirit nothing can live” I cannot for the life of me remember this moment where it is, perhaps you could help out.
    To fully explain this I might step on some toes, but here it is; religion wants to believe that the Holy Spirit is what comes over you, and then you become a reborn Christian, or recieve devine knowledge or something similar.
    What that statement actually means is this; “nothing that lives” can do so without spirit, this spirit is what is inside all of us, I call it the real you, not the guy looking back at you when you wash your face in the mirror, this “life” is supplied by the Holy Spirit, through lack of a better description We can call it that. We as scientists do not want to accept that just maybe, there can be a life or intelligence we cannot see, feel or touch, and if such an intelligence exist how can it create physical things?
    I can only attempt to answer the last statement, and the route might cause serious cries of disbelief from the audience here, but bear with me.
    When anybody mention the word Astral travelling or Astral body, most people say; LET’S RUN, right! Right, ok, don’t run, think about this.
    Many people have written many books about this, but mainly as something to experiment with, a “cool phenomenan”, or perhaps for the thrill of being called, a “master” or something similar.
    The irony is, that you, and I also have a Astral Body or spirit, it is one and the same thing, and without it/you you or rather your physical body is dead, period. As you said John, nothing comes of hording atoms together in certain manners or shapes it just do not become anything, should that unseen intelligence decide that something must come of whatever we are attempting to built, it will live, if that intelligence think we are playing with something we should not, something which might cause our extinction it will not supply ‘life’, no matter how hard we try!
    You might say ‘bullshit’, think about this. If I should say that I was born with the ability to Astral Travel and have done it and found it to be a very dangerous thing to play with, and refuse to do it anymore because of those dangerous reasons, but it taught me that unseen intelligence do exist, and that unseen intelligence is what initiates creation of the physical and not the other way round would you believe me?

    Do you now understand why we struggle to accept most of what we see, as being created by some unseen force.
    Kay, your comment regarding the two commandments is very true, should we be able to really live like that we might clear up my answer to John.

    Dorian, thank you for the friendly words, it would be an honour if you will read my work.

    All the best
    Walter.

  199. dorian said

    re. astral travel – i concur with the account that it is something that’s not to be played with. there are the unseen energies not necessarily positive. whether or not the energy source comes from yourself or another, there’s always the chance the negative energy itself or its essence can stay and wreak havoc on your spirit.

  200. Walter Muller said

    Hi Dorian, it seems you have been around the block a couple of times.

    Walter.

  201. dorian said

    yeah walter, the last time i came back i started writing bad poetry.
    a dastardly bard attached itself to me.

  202. Hors Service said

    Gosh, i’m a bit lost^^

    I can’t find any sense in the commentaries, as far up as I go…
    And I can’t find a link with the article^^

    Could someone make a summary for a poor french tourist?^^ That would be very kind of him/her.

  203. kay~ms said

    Hi Hors.. I can see where this would be confusing to a newcomer… there are multiple debates going on but basically it’s a believers vs atheists debate.. but also a debate as to whether the Bible is 100% accurate although, I don’t know if there is anyone here that does believe that there are not errors in the KJ Bible.

    Princess’ comments (he doesn’t like being serious) and Dorian’s poetry (she doesn’t like to debate) are slight reprieves from these issues.

    Betty is our friend from Australia… an atheist who refers to our Creator as a “thing”. She says there is no resentment there… I going to have to say that I’m having a hard time believing that. Sorry Betty.

    Betty, you said: Since you are so particular JLS, let’s say ; even though there undoubtedly is an I.D. I am thinking that you may agree that such an I.D. is not necessarily or even probably the God of Christianity, or any God of any earthly religion.

    I have to ask why you would make that assumption? In applying “Occam’s razor” it would definitely be much more likely (simpler to assume) that a Creator would make Himself known… I mean, why go thru all of this trouble and not do so? It’s like saying that our existence has no meaning to Him. There is meaning upon meaning inside our world’s existence but it stops where our Creator is concerned?

    You said: The I.D. doesn’t explain anything, but frees you of the tiresome necessity of asking any more questions. Like where did the I.D. come from?

    Not true Betty, I think you have it backwards for many people… after looking at the question of our existence from a scientific point of view, probability and logic leads you to Intelligent Design. Because again, from a scientific point of view, our existence is not logical.

    And when you combine that with this:

    “In the end, though, you could take the simplest structure of life as a model. If you took all the atoms of that lifeform and rearranged them in all the possible combinations, you could exhaust all the possibilites using all matter in the known universe and still not have one that survives to reproduce.”

    or you could also refer to my “beach theory/ scenario”

    Your are left with the most logical conclusion… a Supreme Being.

  204. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Princess, name-calling, ie “stupid” is a poor substitute for argument. Your failure to learn patience is not on the teacher. I am just waiting for you learn.

    Walter, the Holy Spirit is not a thing or a process. The Holy Spirit is a term used to refer to the aspect of God that exists in time with us without a body. It describes a very narrow part of the spectrum that is God.

    Baptism, in the Holy Spirit, is a process on the other hand. Baptismos in the Greek, is used to refer to a process of change like using vinegar in the pickling process. When a cucumber is pickled, it is no longer a cucumber. In fact, it ceases to have any nutritional value. If there is anything listed on a jar of pickles today, it is because something else has been added that is not part of the process.

    Your ““man can make, or create anything, but without spirit nothing can live,” like your view of the Holy Spirit, seems to be a fusion of many pieces of Scripture into one. It is like you once upon a time used to listen to sermons and bits and pieces into separate slots of a mailroom. Then someone tilted the mailroom slots and all the information fell together on the floor. It reminds me of the same way a high school teacher of mine described his experience with LSD.

    HOWEVER, I would not attempt to disagree with the things you have said and concluded. One of the things I know is we all have a private understanding of the world. The more complex the experience, the more difficult it is to describe it. Toss in coming from different cultural experiences and using different languages and you need a god to sort it out for you. That is why people invoke the Holy Spirit for help in understanding.

  205. dorian said

    ah, vous êtes ici monsieur hors, bienvenue!

    that’s okay, i’m a bit lost too and i live here.
    scroll all the way up and at the top of the page you will see Kay’s article. you will see she incited a smorgasbord of comments, some impertinent and irrelevant, some astute some obtuse mais aussi divertissant.

    brava kay for bringing in the comments!! this one probably breaks the adkob record.

  206. kay~ms said

    Betty, you also said: “Your leap of ‘logic’ is straight from
    (a) ‘I accept that some kind of intelligent designer was present and involved in creating life in the universe’
    to
    (b)’So therefore I accept everything in the Bible as the unvarnished truth.’

    Why is that? In fact the leap is from (b) to (a), isn’t it?”

    Betty you skipped a few logical steps that I covered in my previous post… basically

    A Supreme Being is more logical than not.

    Making Himself known is more logical than Him not doing so.

    The Books of the Bible are the most probably texts on earth of His communication with us. The Christian doctrine is the most logical and sensible of all the other religions… if someone disagrees, I welcome that debate.

    So, in light of this, when one goes against probability, you have to ask why.

    And the human condition with all of our flaws answers that question. Ego and selfishness.

    But denial won’t change anything.. the Truth is the truth.

  207. kay~ms said

    Oh and Hors… there is also a confusion of genders of some of us here… basically we just ignore that.

  208. kay~ms said

    John said: “Oh… and just as a suggestion…. kegels have nothing to do with the gluteus maximus. That is a large and superficial muscle that can make you “tight-assed.” Kegels refer to exercises of muscles of the pelvic floor. Mainly that area Kegels refer to is the Pubococcygeus muscle. If you are a “Cougar,” perhaps you should do some more study of anatomy.”

    hahahahahaha…that was funny John!

    To answer your question…”Here is a question for you, though. Who should you never ask to teach you patience.”

    Um… I’m going to have to say Liberals and Atheists.

  209. John Lloyd Scharf said

    kay~ms, if you use different premises, you arrive at different conclusions.

    That there is a Supreme Being is too scary. It is better to edit that out of existance with random creation of life to prevent cognitive dissonance.

    That last term is used to describe when we do Double-Think in order to maintain a belief in such a way as to preserve our perception of ourselves as “good.” A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. Therefore, that self-perception is an evil in and of itself.

    THEREFORE, they decide to believe in RANDOM creation. Here is the thought experiment. We all have had described a tornado going through a trailer court and creating a junkyard. Chaos theory predicts it. On the other hand, the Random Creation crowd thinks if enough tornadoes go through enough junkyards, than not only will a trailer court be created from the junk, but a Boeing 787 and a Cray super computer.

    Imagine the kind of faith it takes to believe that pseudo-scientific theology. Their god makes exceptions to chaos. I just do not have that kind of faith in things unseen. I find the Occam’s Razor in this one is less complicated with at least some outside and intelligent source of Creation, if not the Supreme Being.

    Some may not see that as the “logical” conclusion, but we start with different premises.

  210. dorian said

    kay you know about my short attention span and dislike for redundance. thus my disinterest in debating your favorite subject further.
    i’ve establised 9 months ago how i stand on God (i believe), Jesus (a great teacher and prophet), the christian bible (a good compilation by some good writers). let the others share their different perspectives. my job here is to bring in some interesting people to our blog…
    no new posts from you lately? c’mon!

  211. Hors Service said

    Thank you all for helping me entering the debate^^

    Ok,
    @Kay:

    You said:
    “I mean, why go thru all of this trouble and not do so?”

    You like this answer, so I’m gonna give it to you: Because We Can’t Understand His Plan^^

    But there could be plenty reasons of him to do so: leaving us our freedom, for example.
    Or perhaps he can’t: if he’s omnipotent, he could create a world where he has no power…^^

    You said:
    “Not true Betty, I think you have it backwards for many people… after looking at the question of our existence from a scientific point of view, probability and logic leads you to Intelligent Design. Because again, from a scientific point of view, our existence is not logical.”

    False. I’m answering it in the “case of the missing link”, but I have not enterely wrote it yet^^
    I don’t see where is the fail in the logic in our existence.

    Kay, you’re just missing the whole view of the Universe, I’m sorry^^ But no problem, no one can.^^
    Noone has made life in a lab doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
    The apparition from anywhere of life is possible, even if it’s very unlikely.

    But there’s a HUGE time and a HUGE number of planets.

    And 2), we still don’t know how was life at the beginning, so to recreate it, it’s kind of really difficult…
    But scientists are on to it^^

    Anyway, you said:
    “Science is cause and effect… PURPOSE!”

    False. There’s no purpose in my towel to dry. As there’s not purpose in 1+1 to make 2. It just is.

  212. John Lloyd Scharf said

    kay~ms, I am going to have to say no to your answer of Liberals and Atheists.
    They seem to have no patience at all. In fact, when they run out of logical argument, they engage in name-calling.

    Look for the Master of Patience. Who can wait the longest for things to change? Note that this one is a Master Dragonslayer, too.

  213. Hors Service said

    Gosh, you’re fast, people!^^

    @Kay:

    You said:
    “The Books of the Bible are the most probably texts on earth of His communication with us. The Christian doctrine is the most logical and sensible of all the other religions… if someone disagrees, I welcome that debate.”

    Ok, let’s go! What about the Coran?

  214. John Lloyd Scharf said

    “Noone has made life in a lab doesn’t mean it’s impossible.” It does not mean it is not impossible either. Nothing can be determined from the unknown. To argue such is to engage in the fallacy referred to as Argumentum Ad Ignorantium or an Ad Ignorantium argument.

  215. Hors Service said

    @John Lloyd

    “It does not mean it is not impossible either”

    Exact! But Kay here seems to believe that non-proof is an evidence, which is not the case.

    There’s no proof of God either^^

    And scientists had some hints: like we have already made the 20 acides aminés (French… sorry^^) in a experiment recreating the Earth of the origins.

  216. John Lloyd Scharf said

    We have reached the age, those of us to whom fortune has assigned a post in life’s struggle, when, beaten and smashed and biffed by the lashings of the dragon’s tail, we begin to appreciate that the old man was not such a damned fool after all. We saw our parents wrestling with that same dragon, and we thought, though we never spoke the thought aloud, ‘Why don’t he hit him on the head?’ Alas, comrades, we know now. We have hit the dragon on the head and we have seen the dragon smile.

    You have only three strikes to guess at the author of this… Ha,ha, ha!

  217. John Lloyd Scharf said

    “And scientists had some hints: like we have already made the 20 acides aminés (French… sorry^^) in a experiment recreating the Earth of the origins.”

    Ah, mais le problème, monsieur, est vous avez impliqué un ” ; intelligent” ; lifeform.

  218. Hors Service said

    @John

    I don’t understand the link, but I think I know the author, alas, I can’t find his name^^

  219. kay~ms said

    Ok Hors… that’s as good a place as any to start. I will confess that I do not know a thing about the Coran but if you will tell me it’s basic doctrine as to our purpose of existence and what happens to our souls after we die… I will debate it.

    Sorry, I know that the statement that I made seems to imply that I know about all of the other religions (that Christianity makes the most sense), but what I am stating is that my faith in Jesus and my logic gives me the confidence to make that statement. And I welcome the knowledge of these other “religions”. I don’t consider myself closed minded.

  220. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Oh, and Hors Service, there are only FIVE amino acids in life. In your case, there are 3 billion base pairs of those four. All it takes is one photon of ultraviolet to destroy that chain.

    Guanine, just one of those five, has ten atoms of only three different elements: Hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen. The larger the atom, the less of it there is in the Universe. Larger atoms make larger targets for splitting. That is another effect of chaos in the Universe.

    However, those ten atoms can be arranged in a multitude of ways using different bonds or even different elements without ever creating the chemical guanine.

    You could, also, create large chains of basepairs without ever creating life, still. Another problem is that the larger the chain, the more likely it will be destroyed by chaos.

    A simplistic amino acid soup is not a source of life, anymore than a junkyard is a source of Cray super computers.

  221. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Mohammet’s tomb had a body in it. He did not come back. That Resurrection stuff is very tricky.

  222. Hors Service said

    @John

    “intelligent”, yep that’s really the point. The rest of life, our animal aspect is quite well understood, but the soul stays a mystery. And I hope it will stays so^^

    You said:
    “Oh, and Hors Service, there are only FIVE amino acids in life”

    Sorry, false, there are 22 in animal life (source: Wikipedia, but it’s a well known fact). 20 have been made in this experience, if my memory is right.
    We use only 4 of them.

    The rest of reasoning is true.
    But 1) life could be simpler: like the ARN world. We don’t konw how it was at the very beginning.
    But 2) as you previously said, there’s a lot of junkyards^^.

  223. Hors Service said

    @Kay

    Coran view of our Purpose in life and what’s after death is pretty the same as Christian one.

    It’s the same God, after all.

    More obedience to God’s Will, though. And their paradise includes 44 virgins for bachelors! :p

    You said:
    “what I am stating is that my faith in Jesus and my logic gives me the confidence to make that statement. ”

    Gosh. You understand that that’s why people killed other people?
    *Oh, but that was being good to them… They were living a sinful way. We cured them.*

    How can you talk of logic if you don’t know anything about Islam ?!?
    It’s like a child saying: “Oh I’ve never tasted it but I know I won’t like it…”

  224. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors Service, you really do not want to get into who has killed whom in regard to what. Hitler was an occultist. Stalin was an athiest. More people died in the name of Marxism than ever existed in Europe from 1100 to 1900.

  225. Hors Service said

    @John

    Why focus on Europe?
    India, Middle-East, Bouddhist persecutions in China, religious fights among Pre Colombian people…

    The whole story of Mankind has been filled with religious hate.

    And don’t compare what’s not comparable, please: what’s important is not the number of deaths, but this number relative to the population.
    And in addition, technical progress made mass murder easier…

    But I still agree with you.
    What I said it’s that believing so much in one’s own faith (in whatever, marxism, satan, little green men…) to conclude from that that the others are wrong leads to violence.
    Not limited to religious belief.

    And, for all infos I had, Hitler wasn’t really occultist, but Himmler was, I think.

  226. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors, you need to study before you write. There are only five amino acids in the DNA of all animals of that 22 you claim.

    Guanine is one of the five main nucleobases found in the nucleic acids DNA and RNA, the others being adenine, cytosine, thymine, and uracil. In DNA, guanine is paired with cytosine. With the formula C5H5N5O, guanine is a derivative of purine, consisting of a fused pyrimidine-imidazole ring system with conjugated double bonds. Being unsaturated, the bicyclic molecule is planar. The guanine nucleoside is called guanosine.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanine

    This is an area of great interest for me. In fact, I have had 100s of DNA tests done. I have had all the MtDNA, Y DNA, and autosomal tests available commercially. I have had my mtDNA full sequence done. I have had over 100 tests on my yDNA. I have had 30 autosomal tests done. The FBI does fewer than half of that, even now.

    You certainly are opinionated, as evidenced by your constant use of “false”; particularly in areas where what you know just isn’t so.

    In regard to your other subject in which you are making the wrong assertions, use Koran or Quran in your google to further study it. You know VERY little about Islam.

  227. kay~ms said

    So is that why you prefer to believe the Coran as opposed to the Bible… that you will get 44 virgins?

    You should look into Mormonism… you’d love that one then. Not only do you get a lot of virgins, you also get your own planet and become a “god” yourself! But let me at least warn you.. they ARE a cult. And of course, their doctrines are false.

    Religion shopping… that’s another result of the liberal’s agressive movement. According to the liberals, you can even make up your own truth…. and automatic validity even comes with it! The liberal world reminds me so much of Disney world.

    Hors, you said: “Gosh. You understand that that’s why people killed other people?
    *Oh, but that was being good to them… They were living a sinful way. We cured them.*”

    Could you elaborate on that statement.. I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

    Also, you said: “How can you talk of logic if you don’t know anything about Islam ?!?
    It’s like a child saying: “Oh I’ve never tasted it but I know I won’t like it…””

    Well, as I explained earlier… I have confidence in my faith and my logic, that Christianity is the most sensible faith… I am willing to debate based on that.

    So, I’m still waiting for you to tell me why you believe the Coran makes more sense than the Bible. It can’t be because of the virgins I hope.

  228. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors, stop “thinking” and start reading. Hitler was certainly an occultist and Himmler was just a tool of his. If you cannot read, at least watch the History Channel or something.

    In regard to those who have died, “religion” is the cause of the least deaths. Marxism has over-ridden those numbers for all time. You can put the Crusades, the Plague, and the Inquisition together without even approaching the numbers under Stalin – if for no other reason than the population then was much smaller.

  229. John Lloyd Scharf said

    kay~ms, some of the things you say about “Mormonism”/LDS are true.

  230. Hors Service said

    I’m sorry, it seems that we have a bit of a misunderstanding here.
    I was talking about the amino acids used to make proteins, not the ones used to the genetic code.
    Each one being coded by a triplet, or codon.
    My fault, I should have been more precise.

    That’s true, I shouldn’t use “False”, overall when science is involved. Please forgive me, I’ve surrended to easy writing. I should use conditional and “I think”.

    *Please, don’t use your own expertise as an argument, you really don’t need to prove anything, at least to me. I give consideration to all your statements*

    It’s true that I am opiniated, I don’t pretend the contrary.

    Yep, I know very little on Islam.

    But let me explain my point of view:
    To me, as an atheist, all the different ways to go to heaven/hell seems alike, with little difference. There is between Christianity and Islam, but there’s a lot more likenesses, compared to the other religions that didn’t used the Book.
    I could talk about it, if you want.

    Please don’t think I don’t know anything about Islam. I’ve studied it a lot, talked a lot, but that doesn’t make me an expert. Still learning!

  231. kay~ms said

    You guys are debating pretty heavily and over my head with the amino’s and such so, Hors, you may want to respond to this later… but I’m going to harp on the liberal / Christian issues right now anyway.

    Hors, you said to John: “What I said it’s that believing so much in one’s own faith (in whatever, marxism, satan, little green men…) to conclude from that that the others are wrong leads to violence.”

    This LIBERAL statement is SO riduculous and ludacris!!! It’s absolute absurdity!!!

    While it can be said that religios zealots of any faith do have a tendency to resort to violence, that DOES NOT mean that the answer is to not believe “too much”! What??? This is more of that, yes I’m going to say it again, LIBERAL POISON that is obviously spreading thru out the world. You CANNOT tell people what to believe!!! You CAN tell people not to hurt other people! Liberals are so confused when it comes to solving social problems… uh.. ABORTION..another perfect example!!

    In both of these instances.. it is God who is being pushed to the side. This is pretty much the definition of liberalism… pushing God aside.

  232. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors, what you have said about Christianist, Islam, and religion in general has been a combination of over-simplification, prejudice, ignorance, and misinformation. You do not even know that Islam and Christianity, in fact, do not come from the same “Book.” Taoism and Christianity are as close as Islam and Christianity. You do not see the differences between them because you are prejudiced against theism in the first place. This is as bad as saying, “All those Chinks look alike.”

  233. Hors Service said

    @john

    I use “think” to refer to what is my opinion at the moment, considering all the informations I had.
    I never got really interested in the mystical/occultal aspect of nazism, and I’m sure that you had more information on this than me. Since I know how to read, I will.

    Nope, there was second reason, as important, I think: technological progress.

    And if we go deep in the competition, I think that Pol Pot earns the “Winning Award” in murdering his own population, of about 20%…

    Furthermore, I don’t say they made more good than the Inquisition.
    As I have already said, I think that the excess of Belief is the danger.

  234. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Kay, liberalism is a useless political term, much like conservative. If you put everything into separate boxes of “liberal” and “conservative,” certainly do not ever ask a two “liberals” OR two “conservatives” define the meanings of the terms. The terms are too loaded.

  235. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors, Pol Pot was an athiest – Marxist Atheist. He alone killed 2.5 million in just a few years. Stalin had much longer… Decades. Most he killed by forced deportation. No one knows how many died in those “deportations” but one source says 43%. It was almost like Hitler’s “deportations.”

  236. Hors Service said

    @John.

    I’m sorry, I don’t agree.

    As far as I understood it, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are religions based on the revelations of God, thru prophets.
    Muslims even acknowledge that Jesus was a Prophet, the second after Mohamet?
    How can you say that “Taoism and Christianity are as close as Islam and Christianity”?
    Strange.
    The Book doesn’t mean we have the same, but we still get religious inspirations from all of them, at least the Islam does. It recognize the fact that Judes and Christians have had a part of the Revelation, but the Coran, being directly written under God’s direction, is the only Holy Book.
    Jesus is supposed to be the Messiah the Judes were waiting for, and by his teachings it got this faith more universal.

    At least, after talks with different members of this religions, it’s what I have understood.

    You said:
    “you are prejudiced against theism in the first place.”

    I was born and raised catholic christian, and I wasn’t forced to believe. I believed until I was 11 approximately.

    And I think that Religion can do a lot of good. If only it could get rid of these zealots…

  237. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors, Pol Pot was an athiest – Marxist Atheist. He alone killed 2.5 million in just a few years.

    Stalin had much longer… Decades. Most he killed by forced deportation. No one knows how many died in those “deportations” but one source says 43%. It was almost like Hitler’s “deportations.”

  238. Hors Service said

    @ John.

    I know he was an atheist, that doesn’t make him better.
    20% of the overall population, I meant.

    I agree with your first post. Liberal is very broad.

  239. Hors Service said

    @Kay

    I don’t pretend to tell people what to think. I just want them to keep a bit of critical sense, be laxist, tolerant, sometimes. I want them to know that there’s fails in every reasoning, even mine^^
    I would like you to learn about Islam, before saying even before having heard the arguments, that your faith is the Right One. I’m sure that your faith will be greater, and will have more value, than before.

    “LIBERAL POISON that is obviously spreading thru out the world”

    Of course. There’s certainly a global conspiracy^^ And an OBVIOUS moral decline… Since a long time… Strange that we didn’t get back to the Age of Stone.
    On the subject of abortion, I’ve answered on the subject;) Your turn!

  240. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors, you were not even Catholic. You would not have had enough catechism by 11 to be confirmed. You are far to prejudiced to “listen” to those of other beliefs.

    How can I say Taoism has more in common with Christianity? Perhaps because I was raised catholic (Church of England/Episcopal), was Baptist, Buddhist, Pentecostal,and practice Taoism currently.

    Islam I have studied from a number of perspectives, but the virgins in paradise seems to always have different numbers, depending on the ignorance of the one making assertions. Muslims call Jews “People of the Book.” The Book is the Quran, not the Torah or Tenakh or Books of Moses or “Old Testiment.” The Quran has no equivalent to the Dead Sea Scrolls or existance prior to the 7th century (610 AD). The law of the Quran for non-Muslims is an extra tax at best and extermination at worst.

  241. Hors Service said

    @John

    By the way, have you read everything I wrote carefully? I indicated that the number of deaths shouldn’t be taken into account, but their % of the considered population. And the time the dictator had to fulfill his bloody task.
    To my calculations, Pol Pot has the higher Deaths/population/year rate, but I can be mistaken.

    Anyway, that’s not really a debate… They were bloody dictators, that’s what matters.
    We could give infinite examples of cruelty…

  242. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors, your second message of claiming what is “false” was a pretentious telling of people what to think. Tolerant is limited in your case to “rant.” You absolutely have no business teaching others about Islam. It is obvious you never read the Koran.

  243. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors, Pol Pot and company were bloody atheists.

  244. kay~ms said

    When I use the term liberal is refers to the people with stances /beliefs that push God aside. Any other definition doesn’t concern me nearly as much, and some I may even agree with, but these definitions don’t apply to my use of the word in these issues that we are debating.

    Hors, you said: “I don’t pretend to tell people what to think. I just want them to keep a bit of critical sense, be laxist, tolerant, sometimes. I want them to know that there’s fails in every reasoning, even mine^^
    I would like you to learn about Islam, before saying even before having heard the arguments, that your faith is the Right One.”

    And you can obtain those things without “wiping out” Christianity. Which IS the liberal agenda. Boy, I’m really sounding like a zealot aren’t I? Well, if or when I ever resort to violence I’ll know that I’ve gone too far. See… it’s not a hard concept to understand.

    Hors, I am willing to listen… what are the differences between the Quaran and the Bible that give more credibility to the Quaran?? At the moment I have zero interest in learning about Islam… encourage me with whatever information you can give me… answering this question would be a great start… ;o)

  245. Hors Service said

    @John.

    I’ve never been a full Catholic in the episcopal sense of the term, that’s true.
    I refused to have 1st communion because I didn’t believed enough.
    But I had catechism, I went to the church, I read the Bible.
    Catholic can be described as a way of thinking, no?

    My best friend wanted to become a priest. I could gave you hundreds of examples, but I’ve always been fascinated by religious belief. I’m not prejudiced against religious belief, please believe me.
    But I’m prejudiced against extremists.

    For the virgins, well, it was a joke…

    I really don’t know anything about Taoism, except that it’s perhaps closer to a philosophy than of a religion, but people said to me that it was difficult to apprehend, so I recognize I have one prejudice^^ I would appreciate if you could talk to me about Taoism.

    For the Islam, I think it’s not only the Judes, but also the Christians, that are called “People of the Book”.
    I KNOW the Coran (Or whatever spelling… In french it’s Coran.) isn’t the Torah or anything. It’s supposed to have been told to Mahomet by God himself… So after the birth of Mahomet^^ But it’s true that there could have been previous versions of a Holy Book, like it’s the case for the Old testament, or some others holy books. It doesn’t seem to be the case for Coran, though.
    But it still doesn’t mean that they don’t recognize a religious value to the Bible… As (I think) we do for apocryphe gospels, or the Judes does for the Talmud.
    Otherwise, why would they have a particular status in the Islam?

    Yes, they have to pay extra tax, but they are protected, at least they should be…
    Which is not the case for pagans, if I’m right.
    (To me, it’s still racket^^)

  246. Hors Service said

    @John.

    I’ve read the Coran. Oh yeah, diagonally, sometimes it was boring, so I don’t pretend I know it by heart, or even in detail. And i did it only once. I couldn’t quote you a sentence. I just got a general idea of it.
    Well, believe it or not.

    And I don’t, and can’t, teach anyone about a religion in particular. I’ve never pretended it. But I could tell them to go and talk to someone who could teach them^^

    @Kay

    I, personnaly, would be pleased if everyone would resort to logic to be moral instead of Superior Being’s Will, but I really don’t think it’s the case for every liberal.
    And I don’t think it’s 1) Possible 2) Good that religious faith (including Christianity) disapeared.
    Religion can do so much good…
    I particularly like the way Catholicism is progressing, these times.

    I don’t want to wipe out Christianity.

    Liberal Agenda? Well, I hope nothing is planned for next saturday, I have to go and meet a friend^^

    To arouse your interest, Mahomet pretends to be the next, and the last, Prophet, delivering the message from God Himself, to end the Revelation!
    Isn’t that exciting?^^

    To John: Yes, it’s a shortcut, but it’s just a word in two lines to summarize the idea, which I recognize is way more complex.

  247. Hors Service said

    @John

    If I would be very nasty, I could ask if you were born Anglican rather than Catholic?^^
    It’s really only a question, because if you were born in the same Church of England as I think it is, with the Queen as the highest episcopal authority, in this case I think you’re born anglican. (At least, it’s how it’s called in french.). And Anglicanism is considered a part of Protestantism, I think. Even if it’s different.
    But as a catholic movement exists in England too, I would like to know if you were born really Catholic or Anglican? Just to make sure. I’m convinced that you know it, but perhaps you though I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.

  248. kay~ms said

    But Hors… when you insist that people not believe “too much” in their religion (to the point where they believe that other religions are wrong as you have stated) then you are promoting an invalidation of their religion. The liberal poison I keep referring to is doing just that with Christianity. You cannot tell someone to believe that all religions are true… that’s liberal stupidity for lack of a better word… it’s not logical or possible. The liberals way of dealing with problems is to ignore truths, especially The Truth. Ignore that it is impossible to believe that all beliefs are true…. Ignore that babies are being murdered when an abortion “doctor” sticks a needle in their hearts to stop them from beating. Liberalism equals IGNORANCE!

  249. Hors Service said

    @Kay

    No, I’m sorry, I meant that people shouldn’t believe “too much” to the point where they believe that other religions are wrong without even learning about them, or even worse, without even wanting to hear what the other religions have to say.

    You want the muslims, the taoists, the animists, to learn about the Christ and the Holy Bible, doesn’t you?

    I’ve never said that one must believe that all religion are true! I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough, but I’ve just said that people should make an enlightened choice. If think that Faith is even deeper when you’ve learned (not only you believe…) that the other Faiths are the wrong ones.

    I think that the Liberal Poison is just turning Christianity into a tolerant, peacefull, spiritual religion.

    You said:
    “Liberalism equals IGNORANCE!”

    Gosh!^^ Then: CONSERVATISM EQUALS IGNORANCE!!! :)
    I have more explamations points! So I win^^
    Could you be a bit more precise?

    Good night to everyone, it’s 1:20 in France!^^

  250. dorian said

    it just clicked. ‘resentment’ was not the word i was looking for to describe the ‘liberal poison’ and ‘liberalism equals IGNORANCE’ type terms that kay has used repeatedly for nine months. the word i was looking for was ‘disdain’.
    per secula seculorum. amen.

    some impressive debating happening right here. bravi.

    oh, did i hear the word catholic mentioned? messieurs, meet a roman catholic consequence:
    http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/dorian-and-the-seven-capital-sins/

  251. kay~ms said

    Ok.. good night Hors… but I’m still going to respond…

    This is what you said, comment #225: “What I said it’s that believing so much in one’s own faith (in whatever, marxism, satan, little green men…) to conclude from that that the others are wrong leads to violence.”

    I don’t know how else to interpret this… you are saying that it is wrong to believe that other faiths are wrong. That saying another’s religion is wrong leads to violence. That there is a limit to how much we should believe…(“too much”).

    Believing that other religions are wrong does not lead to violence… the majority of the earths population can attest to that. You’re talking about the minority… It’s not right to accommodate the minority ESPECIALLY when they are the ones who are wrong; causing harm to others!

    And to respond to an earlier comment that you made… what ever violence that may have been committed by people who called themselves Christians, is NOT the fault of Christianity.

    Unfortunately there are some “religions” that do condone violence, those are the ones to be concerned about… not Christianity.

    I said:
    “Liberalism equals IGNORANCE!”

    You said: Gosh!^^ Then: CONSERVATISM EQUALS IGNORANCE!!!
    I have more explamations points! So I win^^
    Could you be a bit more precise?

    Yes, liberals ignore truths…

    The liberals way of dealing with problems is to ignore truths, especially The Truth. Ignore that it is impossible to believe that all beliefs are true…. Ignore that babies are being murdered when an abortion “doctor” sticks a needle in their hearts to stop them from beating. Liberalism equals IGNORANCE!

  252. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors Service, you are yet again claiming things you think you know that are not so. I was not born anything. When the word catholic is used without caps, it refers to the Universal Church.

    However, and in deed, not only has the Holy Roman Church been in communion with the Anglican Church, but even married priests were allowed a special dispensation to cross from the Anglican to the “Catholic Church.” If you had taken catechism, you would know, likely, that both the Anglicans and RCC have to agree to the Apostle’s Creed, engage in sacredotalism, believe in transubstantiation and the Traditions of the Church. Anglican’s self identify as part of one Holy and Catholic Church. Of course, you have set yourself up as your own Pope, God, Savior, and Judge – being an atheist. You were not born Catholic as no one is. You were not confirmed and there is no indication you ever were in catechism. I have been in many airplanes, but I am not a pilot. You are not nor ever were catholic.

    In fact, I can officially take communion with both the Anglican and RCC. My confirmation and baptism are recognized by both.

    Going way back to the issue of Islam, you will not convince me you have read it. You have said too many things that show ignorance of it and Islam.

    You are promoting division by attempting feed the stereotypes that already exist.

  253. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Kay, Leninism and Maoism did/do promote violence. The same is true of the Marxism of Trotsky and Che. It is hard to find a branch of Marxism that does not believe that beliefs in general and politics in particular proceed from the barrel of a gun. Like most atheists, Hors wants to claim that religion is the opiate of the masses and cause of the world’s woes. He thinks his brand of prejudice is better than that of others.

  254. John: you seem to think being Catholic is a far more bureaucratic affair than most Catholics, or indeed the Catholic church do.

    In the strictest sense perhaps you can’t be born Catholic, but in the social world most Catholics actually inhabit such strictures are ignored, especially where Catholicism is the tribal totem, which it was until very recently in Ireland,in England where i grew up, in Australia, etc etc. Nobody ever told me I hadn’t been born Catholic, especially not the nuns or priests. I was confirmed: there may have been some vague catechisming, but all I can remember is, at the age of no more than eight or nine, fronting up for a smear on the forehead: it was like having your injections, and your consent wasn’t required.But as far as the church was concerned I was now a real Catholic.There wasn’t even a slap up feed which was the only thing that made first communion memorable.

    Try telling the church that you don’t think so, and you want out: this is what they’ll say

    ‘If you have decided formally to renounce your Catholic faith, there is a simple procedure. You need to write to an official known as the diocesan chancellor for the area within which you were baptised. Give him as much detail as possible about where and when you were baptised, and briefly state the reasons why you wish no longer to be considered a member of the Catholic Church. Keep it factual and avoid anything that he might construe as aggressive or insulting to the Catholic religion.

    A note will then be made in the baptismal register of the Church where you were baptised stating that you have formally renounced your membership of the Catholic Church. For all legal purposes, both in the law of the Church, and, where applicable, in civil law, you will no longer be considered a Catholic.
    It is not possible to cancel your baptism as such, since baptism is regarded by the Church as leaving an indelible mark on the soul, but of course, this will not concern you since you no longer believe in that.’

    ‘Like most atheists, Hors wants to claim that religion is the opiate of the masses and cause of the world’s woes. He thinks his brand of prejudice is better than that of others.’

    In fact Hors is a most reasonable chap who as far as I can see says and thinks the exact opposite of what you say he does.I think you are perfectly well aware of that.Some atheists, like Richard Dawkins, are uncompromising in their expression, as, let’s face it, are you. Most of us just don’t happen to believe in God.Different premises…….

    That whole typhoon in the junkyard analogy is just daft: it’s got nothing to do with anything.

  255. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Betty, I neither said nor implied Catholicism is bureaucratic affair. What you did at eight or nine was not confirmation. In fact, Betty, you are insensitive to what he is claiming because you are in agreement with his world view.

    It is confirmed by the name-calling in this statement:
    That whole typhoon in the junkyard analogy is just daft: it’s got nothing to do with anything.

    Of course, I began discounting your view early on with your claim:
    I’m sure you’d agree, John, that even if there is an intelligent designer…

  256. Walter Muller said

    John, you have said a lot of things in the last couple of posts. and some made good sense, you said a lot of other things which makes the other participants not too happy about you, but you are also a riddle, I do not know what to make of you? You stated this; A supreme being is too scary to believe, and added that random creation is better, then you explained many tornados, running through trailer parks, and in that process creating a Cray computer from the trash, saying that is not realistic but in stating that confirming what you prefer-(random creation). Then you called my idea as you percieve it; a collection of some sermons and other facts as a mix in a box which when turned up side down the pieces will fall on the floor a bit mixed up, insinuating that I heard a story but do not quite know where or how it fits together, is it perhaps because you are a “scholar” and you have correctly determined from what I have stated so far that I am not?
    Having studied at a accepted institution and having received your internationaly accepted degree (honourary as you so proudly annouced) does not make you all wise. It only make you an educated man, in your field of expertise. From the balance of your statements regarding religion it makes one think that being so critical towards religion, and you being a accepted RCC what are you really? And what is your belief or “hang up”? I have to admit you are quite glib, after your effort to make everybody else look like uninformed idiots you apologise with, everybody reason’s from a different premise, well done John!

    Kay, the Quran was written because of visions Mohammed had, these visions he received always happened while he was in “trance” but what is more interesting is the fact that this religion was started by his wife, Kadijah, Mohammed used to be her slave, but then her husband died, and in those days a woman was considered only good enough to be a breeding mashine, she realised this and married Mohammed because he also happened to be very loyal, he was also fifteen years her junior. One night shortly after they were married Mohammed had a dream in which a voice told him to read, then when he woke up he went outside the cave he was sleeping in and was confronted by an angel who called himself Gabriel, this Gabriel then told him that he was ALLAH’S messenger, greatly distressed and in terrible fear he ran to his wife Kadijah and told her this strange thing, she then listened to him and said that he need not worry, it was “her hope” that he would become the prophet of his people, when they got back to Mecca his wife Kadijah went to her cousin, a wise man of their tribe, between Kadijah and her cousin Mohammed was then pushed into becoming the prophet of Allah. Kadijah was married to a fairly wealthy man before she married Mohammed who worked as a slave for her husband and then later for her, after her first husbands death. But all this info is available in the first chapters of the Quran, you can read it all there and decide wheather you want to study that book or not.

  257. How can one insult an analogy? It’s daft because a junkyard isn’t analogous to the early universe. I know any analogy breaks down eventually, but this one doesn’t even get started.It’s sophistry.

    That was actually a proposition by the way, not a claim: one which you haven’t chosen to respond to.

    When the word catholic is used without caps it is an adjective and doesn’t refer to anything except the noun that it qualifies.

    When someone says something like ‘I’m sure you’d agree’ it’s as much a turn of phrase as anything: all this ‘how dare you presume to know what i think’ business is unnecessarily high-horsed of you.

    Just wondering: would you agree that until the age of informed consent, children should be taught comparative religion, and not regarded as belonging to, or needing to adhere to the tenets of, any religion? That would mean that there would be far fewer, in fact possibly not very many people belonging to any religion.But they would genuinely belong to it, which is what i think you prefer. It’s social pressure and conditioning that gets the numbers for any religion: in my opinion, at least.
    Just look how the working class in England abandoned religion en masse once it no longer had social value or sanction.

  258. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Walter, is English your native language? I made no effort to make others appear to be uninformed. I did not claim the position of belief in random creation, either. It causes less cognative dissonance.

    It is easier on the ego to believe there is no one that far above you as this “Supreme Being.” I never claimed to be looking for what was easier on my ego. If I were, I would have been an atheist.

    I said I was a graduate of the University of Oregon after someone assumed I had only attended a community college. There was nothing “honourary” about the degree. Perhaps you confused what being on the Honor Roll means at a US college or university, other than I did not just scrape by.

    Of course, I did have to complete 242 quarter hours just to get a BS. The minimum required was 186 to graduate.

    You obviously are getting it wrong when you assumed I am against “religion.” Most people involved in churches are more engaged in fellowship than doctrine. I have a great more respect for them than I do for a self-righteous atheist. In fact, most of what I have written is in support of theism.

    Your “quote” or concept as you saw it from the Bible did not match any concept of the Scripture that I know of. I could not even guess at it. It did seem like bits of one and bits of another. I cannot evaluate it as Scriptural or even a concept without something to ground it on.

  259. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Betty, calling me daft is just name-calling. You chose not to understand the analogy. You know it was not in relation to the creation of the universe. It is in relation to the creation of life. You engaged in a strawman argument.

    However, everything you disagree with or cannot comprehend is “daft.” Calling something “daft” is not exactly a logical argument.

  260. I’m not calling you daft, you daft bugger:) I know you aren’t daft. You are in fact as cunning as. I did mistakenly say ‘early’ universe when life emerged somewhat later in the piece, but even so an analogy has to compare like with at least remotely like, and a junkyard is not remotely like the universe. If someone said they got the sack at work and a car accident on the way home as well, and then you said something like ‘Yes, that’s like when I was making a cup of tea this morning and the little string came away from the tea bag. I had to get the tea bag out with my fingers and the water was very hot’? They’d look at you like you were, well, daft.

    If endless tornadoes in junkyards couldn’t make cars and computers or whatever, it follows that: endless tornadoes in junkyards couldn’t make cars and computers or whatever. Nothing else follows and no inferences can be drawn about life or anything else.

    1: a junkyard cannot randomly evolve into anything organised or sentient

    2: the universe is like a junkyard

    3: therefore the universe cannot randomly evolve into etc etc

    Now if that’s not daft, I’m a monkey’s uncle.

  261. John Lloyd Scharf said

    The Universe is not referred to. It is life that is the issue. It is concrete thinking, I suppose, that does not allow you to see how life itself could not be created by random elements.

    I suspect you do not do well at analogies. Here in the US, you cannot pass the entrance exams for graduate school without being very good with them.

    The junkyard represents the chaos.

    Of course, referring to others as “daft” seems not enough for you; so you continue on to call me a “bugger.” What next? An exploration of scatology?

  262. Walter Muller said

    Hi John, I do understand the difference between honor roll and an honourary degree, and congratulations on the scores you passed with, as you have also said participating in line with the teachers idea’s does help. And no, English is not my native language, although I do understand it fairly well and can write a few words in it also. The concept I have about the Bible is not one I have been taught somewhere, it is one I formed after many years of not quite understanding how Jesus and the Old Testament could be sold as one religion, it never made sense to me that in the first half we have a righteous viciously jealous god, and in the second half we find a person preaching “love your neighbour” and calling “who”? a thief, murderer, and liar, then I really started reading or studying the bible from another perspective, and my books is what flowed from that, In my opinion Jesus was not about religion, but about life, or about the study and understanding of it.

  263. The specific demand for a Boeing and a computer is very clever: but if it merely said that billions of tornadoes and billions of junkyards over billions of years might conceivably produce…..something……it would be less dishonest. After all, the concrete thinkers don’t hypothesise that Albert Einstein appeared all those billions of years ago, do they, but something which could eventually lead to something like him.

    The question also arises, not whether an I.D. could produce life, but HOW? What do you think?

    Chaos is a term of value: if the laws of physics were operating all along, was it really chaotic, or just a very naughty boy? Alternatively, as a creator was overseeing it all, it wasn’t really chaotic. Take your pick.

    How do you separate life from the universe?

    Graduate school: not quite sure what that has to do with the topic at hand.Oh I see. You are, not very subtly, trying to convey your intellectual superiority to moi. These little sideswipes of yours are far ruder than calling someone a daft bugger . My native tongue is English, and guess what, it has many shades and turns of meaning, and can even be used ironically. Bugger is a very supple word:

    ‘The word may be used amongst friends in an affectionate way and is used as a vernacular noun in order to imply that one is very fond of something (I’m a bugger for Welsh cakes). It can also imply a negative tendency (He’s a silly bugger for losing his keys) [i.e He's a fool for losing his keys often].

    ‘In some English speaking communities the word has been in use traditionally without any profane connotations. For instance, within the Anglo-Indian community in India the word “bugger” has been in use, in an affectionate manner, to address or refer to a close friend or fellow schoolmate. In the United States it can be a rough synonym to whippersnapper as in calling a young boy a “little bugger.”

    But I think you knew that. I see you have no objection to being called cunning though.

    By the way: questions I am still waiting for an answer to:

    And why is that you would need all the matter in many, many, universes over the estimated time of existence of this Universe to arrive at one improbable form of life?

    and:

    even though there undoubtedly is (for the sake of argument) an I.D. I am thinking that you may agree that such an I.D. is not necessarily or even probably the God of Christianity, or any God of any earthly religion?

  264. Walter Muller said

    Hi Bettyslocombo, I agree with your idea of Intelligent Design probably not being the God of Christianty.

    Hi John I thought about what you said regarding my concept not having anything to ground it on, the ground or basis have been with us since the Bible was written, “it is the Bible”, as the Bible have been the basis for all the thousands of other thesis’ and books written about it by “scholars” and others, also using other ancient historical scripts to compile theirs, mine came from the same source.

  265. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Walter, you said:
    The statement I am referring to is this; “man can make, or create anything, but without spirit nothing can live” I cannot for the life of me remember this moment where it is, perhaps you could help out.

    Walter, your “quote” is not in the Bible that I can find. Nor is there anything close to your “quote” in concept. Before you claim “same source,” do you read ancient Sumerian, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Koinanea Greek? Do you have access to the Bodmier copy of the Book of John? Do you have access to the Dead Sea scrolls? Or are you claiming you are filled with the Holy Spirit and that is your source?

    Getting back to your seeing the older books of the Bible being inconsistant with the newer ones based on your view of a violent God versus a placid God, I do not see it. You must not have read the Book of Revelations for the end or things or the Gospels where the Anointed Savior uses a whip of cords and calls the leaders of the Temple snakes, sons of Satan, and hypocrits.

    Before you start judging God based on your premises, let’s test your ability to judge. We know how Adolph Hitler ended up. Would you have strangled him in the crib if there were no other way to prevent him from causing that horrible pain to the world?

  266. Hors Service said

    @Kay:

    You said:
    “This is what you said, comment #225: “What I said it’s that believing so much in one’s own faith (in whatever, marxism, satan, little green men…) to conclude from that that the others are wrong leads to violence.”

    I don’t know how else to interpret this… you are saying that it is wrong to believe that other faiths are wrong. That saying another’s religion is wrong leads to violence. That there is a limit to how much we should believe…(”too much”).”

    I’m sorry if I didn’t make myself clear enough, english is not my native language, I don’t master all the subtelties.
    In the following post, I explain my vision:
    To conclude only from your own belief, based only on your faith, that the others are wrong, leads to violence.

    AND, @John: this also applies to atheism, paganism, conspirationism, or everything man can believe in.

    “too much” isn’t perhaps the right term. I don’t have the right term to say it, but what I mean is *Believing to the point to lose your critical sense*

    I didn’t said it was the fault of Christianity to murder other Faiths! Just people having “too much” belief. The didn’t even acknolewdged violence against infidels as real violence… Or said it was “necessary” violence…
    Not the fault of the Holy Scriptures!

    But in my own experience, a lot of Believers are quite prejudiced against others beliefs, even if they don’t really feel it. AND A LOT OF NON-BELIEVERS TOO.
    Being open-minded on every aspect of his own belief is a gift to a minority, and I don’t belong to this blessed minority^^
    But I think that things are improving.

    On the point of ignorance…

    Well, you seem to ignore the fundamental truths that some people get refused health care because they doesn’t have an insurance, that the sale of guns directly affect murder rates, that the alternative to abortion is an agony of your daughter in her own blood after a backstreet abortion (like it used to be), that doctors doesn’t stop the beating heart in most cases of abortion because it’s useless, the foetus doesn’t survive outside the womb, that carrying the rememberance of your rape in your belly isn’t doing any for both the mother and the baby… etc etc…

    It would be cool if morality would have evolved enough to make abortion unnecessary, but it’s still not the case.

    That’s for conservative ignorance.

    AND: some of them ignore the Coran, too^^

    Now that’s all said and done, I DON’T THINK CONSERVATIVES ARE IGNORANT. Sometimes, some conservatives are ignorant on a particular point. As are liberals. And when there’s opposition, there’s a debate.
    I just wanted to answer you with the same “I’m superior feeling” as you^^

  267. Hors Service said

    @John.

    Well, you seem as prejudiced against “self-righteous” atheists than I’m supposed to be prejudiced against belief^^

    and: http://www.liturgiecatholique.fr/Le-bapteme-entree-dans-la.html (French)

    During the baptism, the priest say:

    “La communauté chrétienne vous accueille avec joie.”

    translation: “The christian community welcomes you with joy.”

    If this isn’t clear, I don’t know what is.

    And, if you want to go deep in this silly game, YOU’VE NEVER BEEN A FULL CATHOLIC EITHER, as one must be DEAD to do so^^
    One has to receive the last sacrements!
    If you’re bad faith, I can be bad faith too!:p

    And i don’t even say it myself, read this official liturgy site I found you!

    You said:
    “Like most atheists, Hors wants to claim that religion is the opiate of the masses and cause of the world’s woes. He thinks his brand of prejudice is better than that of others.”

    Who was talking about feeding the stereotypes?^^ You, I read:p

    I’ve never began with this thing about marxism, communism or fascism!
    I’ve never said that they were better!
    You said I “WANT TO CLAIM”. It’s a crime of intent? As long as you’re not me, don’t say things in the place of me, please.
    Overall more when I don’t agree.

    I think that EXCESS OF BELIEF (In anything man can believe in, including atheism) cause all of the world’s woes.

    And I said two times that Religion can do a lot of good.

    If you don’t believe that I haven’t been to this cathechism or read the Coran, then I can’t help it, it just shows that 1) there’s a misunderstanding like it was with the amino acids or 2) you’re maybe a bit infatuated with yourself^^

  268. dorian said

    pardon me i’m a little daft this morning. or maybe i just need to make more coffee because my dog tipped over my half full cup all over the floor. at least the little bugger slurped it all up.
    the current discourse on i.d and junkyard universes with boeings and einstein and quran are all surreal right now. but my brain did pick out a few ‘stickies’and here they are so far:

    Hors:
    “intelligent”, yep that’s really the point. The rest of life, our animal aspect is quite well understood, but the soul stays a mystery. And I hope it will stays so^^

    for me, the soul is where God is. i don’t mind if God remains a mystery. God evidence presents itself thru love, hope, inspiration and others. we can all compare and debate mozart and beethoven’s music. but how did they acquire the gift? where does the inspiration come from? a mystery not needing a formula. if we could figure out the source of genius, then it would be a different world, wouldn’t it…

    betty’s comment#254
    so that’s what my grandmother meant by ‘once a catholic, always a catholic.’ i
    i still do go on special occasion and take the host (bypassing the confessional box)and sometimes just to listen to the choir or light a candle for my beloved departed and recommend rc catholic exorcism (by far the best but the line is long).
    how about a lateral move – you know, from rc to anglican? anglican catholicism the practical one. here’s what is unclear: it’s still considered protestant as they do not have the celibacy thing and the marian veneration. maybe walter and john’s joint canonical expertise will have the answer to this? i’m not planning on going back to church every sunday. i’m just curious.

    walter’s comment #256
    i like your quran bit. user-friendly.
    also, i thought it was only me that couldn’t figure john out. when that happens to me, my mind instinctively defers to my dowsing rod. at first it told me john liked reading ‘leaves of grass’ and that he played the flute. then it said he just thought everybody was an idiot and needed to be told so. well my two cents and pence on that is that i think everybody commenting on this post so far are pretty sharp and open to learning and good ‘conversation’ and are far from being slouches. three of us don’t have english as a native language and doing pretty well in articulating our thoughts and beliefs. i think that deserves some acknowledgment so here it is. bravi.

    the many visitors we’ve been getting are probably finding the discourse interesting as well.

  269. Hors Service said

    @dorian

    I, like you, hopes that the soul will remain a mystery, and “where the inspiration comes from”, even if I don’t think there is a Supreme Intelligence, which I think is a bit anthropomorphological.

    And I think that even if neurosciences would go better and better in manipulating our emotions (which, considering the History, is perhaps not a very good thing^^), there will be always this little part of us that is freewill, freedom, creativeness^^

    /

  270. John Lloyd Scharf said

    I did not prejudge you, Hors, as you said this:
    “The whole story of Mankind has been filled with religious hate.”

    I have been calling you on that propaganda/prejudice from that point on.

    I stick with my position of that like most atheists, you want to claim that religion is the opiate of the masses and cause of the world’s woes. You think your brand of prejudice is better than that of others.

    You claim to put the blame on those who are extreme. Those do not exist in isolation. Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin did not come to power on their own. Who is to decide whom is “extreme,” though? You? Should we accept you as the judge of what is extreme? Would you have dropped the nuclear bombs on two cities in Japan or would you have continued the war by other means? Or, would you have just allowed Japan to expand its imperialism again, like they did in Nanking? Was President Truman “extreme?”

  271. Hors Service said

    @John

    I said:
    ““The whole story of Mankind has been filled with religious hate.””

    I’m sorry, it’s true^^, lots of example, and not only in Europe or the Middle East^^ And I could say, *The whole story of Mankind has been filled with hate*

    Or

    *The whole story of Mankind has been filled with political hate*

    Which has a lot of examples too^^

    I’m sorry if my english didn’t meant it, but what I’ve meant is that there’s a lot of examples of people hating others people because they didn’t had the same religious beliefs.
    I don’t think Religion is responsible for that.^^
    It was supposed to be all love everywhere, then fools began to say that love meant war^^

    You said:
    “I stick with my position of that like most atheists, you want to claim that religion is the opiate of the masses and cause of the world’s woes. You think your brand of prejudice is better than that of others.”

    Well, I’ve already said that I didn’t thought so, I’m sorry I can’t go any further^^
    I think that religion has good and bad effects on the masses. I’m personnally atheist, and I have arguments to assert my belief that there’s no God, but I recognize that each one has to find his own way. No problem^^
    But what I find necessary is that each one should have a bit of critical sense, a bit of self-derision, too^^ Too much to ask?
    And the extremism of atheism isn’t better as the extremism of Religions…

    But to me you’re still being prejudiced, do you imply that most atheists are communists?

    You said
    “You claim to put the blame on those who are extreme. Those do not exist in isolation. Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin did not come to power on their own”

    I agree with you, and I think extremism can contaminate anyone, at anytime. The movie “The wave” is really good in showing that^^
    But I think you should take into account other parameters: the need to do like the others, the frustration, the desire to be recognize…

    you said:
    “Who is to decide whom is “extreme,” though? You?”

    Oh, this is easy!^^ Extreme is to me when 1) You dismiss other’s arguments by saying that they don’t conform to yours (Or your interpretation of a Holy Book, which is the same), and that they’re Evil [And/Or] 2) You use violence against unarmed people [And/Or] 3) You’re absolute in all your statements.

    I’m extreme sometimes too^^

    You said:
    “Would you have dropped the nuclear bombs on two cities in Japan or would you have continued the war by other means? Or, would you have just allowed Japan to expand its imperialism again, like they did in Nanking? Was President Truman “extreme?””

    What does it have to do with the debate??
    Do you really want me to give an answer, or is it a rhetorical question?

  272. kay~ms said

    Betty… I don’t understand why you are having such a hard time with John’s junkyard analogy. To say that junk is not the same as the universe is completey missing the point. The point being odds. But you don’t want to argue this point, you are avoiding it …because it supports the idea of a Supreme Being.

    Your analogy of the tea bag and the man who lost his job is not a good one at all in my opinion. The person with the teabag dilema is daft for thinking that his “tragedy” compares with the other man’s tragedy.

    The junkyard analogy is completely a different thing, for starters.. no emotion is involved. It’s science, logic, numbers; likelyhood, probability.

    As to your question to John about the God of Christianity being the author of ID being unlikely…

    And you also Walter…( by the way thanks for the info on Muhammad (sp?)

    My question to you both is…

    Why do you believe that it is not likely that the God of Christianity is not our Creator?

  273. kay~ms said

    oh.. I have to fix that…

    Why do you believe that it is not likely that the God of Christianity is our Creator?

  274. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors, you reaffirm my point about you with almost every message you post. Your prejudice is the source of your selective worldview of alll history. You repeat your worldview of:
    I said:
    ““The whole story of Mankind has been filled with religious hate.””

    I’m sorry, it’s true^^, lots of example, and not only in Europe or the Middle East^^ And I could say, *The whole story of Mankind has been filled with hate*

    It is NOT true. Very little of Mankind’s history has to do with war, hate, or even religion. You make choices every day. My questioning your fitness to judge what is exteme precipitated the question. Dodging the question rather than responding, regardless of whether you thought it was rhetorical or not, is an indication of your purpose, prejudice, and character. It was a test question of the real kind that someone had to make having nothing to do with Truman’s religion.

  275. Hors Service said

    @Kay

    You said:
    “The point being odds”

    Well, even if the probability is very small, considering the high number of trials, the probability to get life anywhere in the universe goes higher…
    As we don’t know a lot of things of the beginning of life, how it all started (which is a different problem than evolution), I think it’s maybe being too fast to say that the probability was very small. Life could have been different, at the beginning.
    I don’t think it’s an argument in favor of a Superior Being…

  276. kay~ms said

    ok… I guess my “disdain” is showing.. although I disagree with that specific term. (Dorian)

    Def.

    dis·dain (ds-dn)
    tr.v. dis·dained, dis·dain·ing, dis·dains
    1. To regard or treat with haughty contempt; despise. See Synonyms at despise.
    2. To consider or reject as beneath oneself.

    Do I DESPISE these specific liberal views being discussed (pointed out by me)? YES!!

    Is there haughiness in my despisal? I don’t see it. I don’t know, maybe there is… but primarily THAT IS NOT THE POINT!! This is such a common thing I have found with liberals…well, with anyone who is losing a debate… they resort to critisizing the others form/attitued etc. AVOIDING the point.
    With Liberals, what you all (Dorian) are saying is that being “haughty” or full of disdain is WORSE than these liberal offenses that I am bringing forth. Worse than innocent babies being murdered… worse than the radical liberal effort to FORCE thru societal pressure AND GOVERNMENT, their views and beliefs. Steifulling the freedom to form our OWN beliefs and to stand by them. To use soceital pressure is a low down dirty tactic that I, well yes, have DISDAIN for… I am better than that, I wouldn’t do that and if I did I would hope that someone would kick me in MY butt!!!

  277. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Obviously, Hors, you do not know the magnitude of the values involved or, as usual, are engaging in selective perception. You do not “think” about arguments in terms of the logic but terms of justifying your world view at all costs… as you did in dancing around the Truman Question.

    The world is all religion and hate to you. Why would we count your judgment of the validity of the argument as rational?

  278. Walter Muller said

    Hi John, let us leave the source for last. The righteous God, Isaiah 63 verses 1 to 6, quote, “Who is this coming from the city of Bozra in Edom? Who is this so splendidly dressed in red, marching along in power and strength?” “It is the Lord, powerful to save, coming to announce his victory.” Why is his clothing so red, like that of a man who tramples grapes to make wine?” The Lord answers, “I have trampled the nations like grapes, and no one came to help me. I trampled them in my anger, and their blood has stained all my clothing. I decided that the time to save my people had come; it was time to punish their enemies. I was amazed when I looked and saw there was no one to help me. But my anger made me strong, and I won the victory myself. In my anger I trampled whole nations and shattered them. I poured out their life blood on the ground.”
    Beautiful poem! about killing, and he is really proud of it! Makes Hitler look like a kinder garden. There are many more examples!

    Here is a quote from the placid God’s Son, the God whom Jesus refer to as father, we will get to that; Matthew 23 verses 34 to 36, I quote; “And so I tell you that I will send you prophets and wise men and teachers; you will kill some of them, crucify others, and whip others in the synagogues and chase them from town to town. As a result the punishment for the murder of of innocent Abel to the murder of Zachariah son of Berachiah, whom you murdered between the Temple and the altar. I tell you indeed: the punishment for all these murders will fall on the people of this day.”
    Now let me quote the parable of the good shepherd back to you, you quoted it for me the other day, I will only quote the second explanation; John chapter 10 verses 7 to 14,(my apologies to the other members for this lengthy post)7 So Jesus said again, “I am telling you the truth; I am the gate for the sheep. All others who came before me are thieves and robbers( you said it is a reference to the shepherds), but the sheep did not listen to them. I am the gate Who ever comes in by me will be saved; he will come in and go out and find pasture. The thief comes only in order to steal, kill, and destroy. I have come in order that you might have life-life in all its fullness. I am the good shepherd, who is willing to die for the sheep. When the hired man, who is not a shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees a wolf coming, he leaves the sheep and runs away; so the wolf snatches the sheep and scatters them. The hired man(prophets) runs away because he is only a hired man and does not care about the sheep. (who is Jesus referring to? the wolf-who scatters the sheep).

    let us now quote from the Old Testament; Zachariah 13 verses 7 to 8; “The Lord Almighty says, “Wake up sword, and attack the shepherd who works for me! Kill him, and the sheep will be scattered.”That stil did not satisfy his thirst for blood, he had to go on and kill two thirds of his people in the next verse, perhaps they listened to the message this prophet gave them which he recieved from Jesus, and that God/Wolf was not too happy about it, do you understand now, who did Jesus call a murderer, thief and liar!
    I will quote another couple of verses, John 8 verse 44 “You are the children of your father, the Devil, and you want to follow your fathers desires. From the very beginning he was a murderer, and has never been on the side of truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he is only doing what is natural to him, because he is a liar and the father of all lies.”

    I do not need to know any of the books or ancient languages you mentioned John, all the above is from the “holy scriptures” given to some “holy scribes”, “directly from the mouth of God”, how can there be “any lies in them”? I have noted six hundred pages in two books about these things, with references as I have done here. If you need more read my books.

    Here is something just for the sake of interest; In 2 Corinthiens chapter 4 verse 18 you will find this’ “For we fix our attention, not on the things that are “seen”, but on the things that are “unseen”. What can be seen lasts only for a time, but what cannot be seen lasts forever”.

  279. dorian said

    hi kay – betty’s an englishman, it’s okay if he makes tea bag analogies! ;)

    john, i’m an optimist but i think there’s more than very little in mankind’s history that had to do with war and hate and even religion. some good came about from religion too, like faith and reverence, but that hate emotion has destroyed so much of mankind. the numbers speak for themselves. let’s see what the dodgy hors has to say about this test of yours.

  280. dorian said

    oh kay, let’s not bring the liberals and the babies in again. i’m enjoying the i.d design debate.

  281. Hors Service said

    @John

    You’re being really absolute, at the moment^^ Take a deep breath, it will pass:p

    You said:
    “Your prejudice is the source of your selective worldview of alll history”

    I’m so much prejudiced I say that religion can do good things.^^ And has done!
    I could say that you have a selective worldview too, for the same reasons…

    You said:
    “It is NOT true. Very little of Mankind’s history has to do with war, hate, or even religion.”

    I think here that you see history through modern times definitions of “war” and “hate”. War didn’t used to make so much deaths, and used to concern everyone, not only the soldiers.
    How can you say it’s very little part of history, when Warriors have a so great role in so many societies? And the mythicism of the fight, being “glorious”, or “holy”, or even see the “Flower wars” within the Azteks, where war was supposed to bring prisoners, as a part of society?
    Same with clerks, shamans, priests, since the man is Man! All those Divine Right Monarchies, those Stone circles, they have very little influence?

    You said:
    “Dodging the question rather than responding, regardless of whether you thought it was rhetorical or not, is an indication of your purpose, prejudice, and character.”

    I’ve always been amazed by the aptitude of strong believers in putting people in boxes^^

    I think that sending those A-Bombs was the best choice Truman had. Want me to go on? Explain the apparent contradictions? If I’m already classified I don’t really the point in doing so^^

  282. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Walter, you have judged God without answering the question. Would you have strangled Hitler in his crib if you knew nothing else would stop him from creating WW2 and the Holocaust?

    However, you are, of course, being selective in your worldview about Hitler v. God. WW2 resulted in about 35 million dead. About 16 million were executed by Hitler’s order of Jews, Gypsies, et al. You do not show how you calculate there were 35 million people in the world before 2000 BCE or 16 million before 6,000 BCE. “Makes Hitler look like a kinder garden” is invalid on so many levels.

    However, if you are going to judge God, you need say what you would have done had you known the outcome with Hitler and why.

  283. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Again, Hors, your own words convict you:
    ““The whole story of Mankind has been filled with religious hate.””

  284. dorian said

    walter:

    “For we fix our attention, not on the things that are “seen”, but on the things that are “unseen”. What can be seen lasts only for a time, but what cannot be seen lasts forever”.
    2 Corinthians chapter 4 verse 18
    beautiful.

    now the angry warlord in bloody garb, not so pretty.

  285. Walter Muller said

    Some one once asked me what I would have done had I been in Germany at the time and a Jew would come ask me for shelter, my answer was this; I ould have hid him and be killed if confronted, had I Lived in the time of Hitler and had the chance to get close enough I would have shot him between the eyes, does that make me blood thirsty? Or do my surname, and does it make Hors a backstabber because some of his country men hand Jews to the Nazi’s during the war, Are you a Jew John?

  286. John Lloyd Scharf said

    “I think that sending those A-Bombs was the best choice Truman had. Want me to go on? Explain the apparent contradictions? If I’m already classified I don’t really the point in doing so^^”

    What was the hate or religion involved in making that decision, Hors? Do you now deny that this was part of the History of Mankind?

    You claim ““The whole story of Mankind has been filled with religious hate.””
    “Whole?”

  287. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Walter, the question remains. If you knew how Hitler would turn out, would you have strangled in his crib. The context is not DURING the war but before Hitler was even out of his crib before WW1.

    At this point, I am not asking about your nationality. Do not expect me to give out that information. Since it is totally irrelevant to the hypothetical question, you are just dodging the question. You could apply this to any infamous historical figure, including Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. Would you kill them as an infant knowing how things turned out?

  288. Hors Service said

    @John

    Ooooh, please don’t be of bad faith^^
    You know that I’m french, therefore I make sometimes little mistakes in the expression of my ideas^^

    And read my posts before anwsering. I’m sure there’s one clue or two you have missed, as you’ve missed all the tricky questions I’ve answered/asked^^

    I’m gonna repeat, and say that the meaning is “The whole story of mankind is full of examples of religious hate”. And examples of political hate, assassins, ethnic hate…

    Oh, now I see! Well, I meant “whole” as “from the beginning of history until today, and every year of it”. Maybe this will help?

    History OWNS Religious Hate doesn’t mean Religious Hate IS History.
    I thought you had a degree, or something? Perhaps not in science, then^^

    You said:
    “you do not know the magnitude of the values involved or, as usual, are engaging in selective perception.”

    We have found our Messiah! John knows How Life Began! He can tell the probability of it!:)
    Be cool, it’s magnitude order of “Life as we know it today”, and we’re making new discoveries all the time^^
    And it stills has a non-negligible probability, but I’m too lazy to find it again on the net^^ If you want to do so, no problem. As long as it is a non-creationist website…

    And I really like Walter’s example!^^ Some are really poetic, really nice. Shows well the complexity of God’s Word.

  289. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors, if you are actually interested in LEARNING about Taoism, I recommend the work of Ursula K. LeGuin, which is a poetic paraphrase of the Tao Te Ching. Taoism is far from being just a philosophy. While my belief is Christian, I cannot and do not practice that for personal reasons not relevant to this discussion. Taoism is a godless religion in belief with spiritual aspects. If you remove 613 laws from Christianity and Judiasm, you might have Taoism. I could explain that in detail, but it is too complex for this venue.

    I believe the work of LeGuin is less filtered through Anglo-European eyes, even though LeGuin and I have very different worldviews. I am neither atheist nor anarchist. I am a devote capitalist and progressive. I believe in private ownership and that every citizen should be able to vote on the approval of the national budget, among other things.

  290. Walter Muller said

    John, you are asking me to play God, I would not have killed him, life takes turns, and a turn could have prevented Hitlers slaughter, but it happened and had I lived then I would have been very sad at the state of affairs, but I would also have tried my utmost to prevent the war from starting had I been there and saw what it was coming to. But to kill the infant before the fact, no. John I have a question for you: You say that I am judging God, that is how you interpret what I have stated, how do you arrive at that? I showed a difference about who God really is, I did not say kill the one!

  291. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors, I did not and do not care what nationality you are.

    You alter little with your change of:
    I’m gonna repeat, and say that the meaning is “The whole story of mankind is full of examples of religious hate”. And examples of political hate, assassins, ethnic hate…

    Oh, now I see! Well, I meant “whole” as “from the beginning of history until today, and every year of it”. Maybe this will help?

    “Full” implies what? Can anything be “half full?” You are, in fact, claiming it is the most significant or largest part. It is not. You are, again, filtering.

    Your claim that begins as “as we know it today” is another ad ignorantium cop-out. You cannot argue “random genesis” given what we do know. Arguing we do not know everything is a logical fallacy and certainly not scientific.

  292. Hors Service said

    @John

    Thank you for your precisions, yes I’m very interested. I’m going to try to find this work.
    By the way, would you have an advice about representative Shinto work? I’m interested in shintoism too. Even if you’re not an expert, maybe you have an idea? Just asking.

    I’m capitalist too, and I believe in private ownership, but I think that this state of affaires should be put into limits by the State.
    I’m a strong supporter of a medium way between Full Capitalism and Full Communism.
    I think that the use of this system (my most adapted example is perhaps the scandinavian systems) will compensate the drawbacks of both ideologies.

  293. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Like all freedoms, private ownership cannot be limited without being lost.

  294. Hors Service said

    @John.

    You really does read only what you want to read, doesn’t you? :)

    You said:
    “Hors, I did not and do not care what nationality you are.”

    Neither do I, but you should care about what language I speak^^

    You said:
    ““Full” implies what? Can anything be “half full?” You are, in fact, claiming it is the most significant or largest part. It is not. You are, again, filtering.”

    I think that religious behavior, and religious hate in particular, have one of the most major role in History.
    Want more arguments? The Djihad following the rise of Islam. The confucianist faith beingadopted by the imperial court of China. The opposition between Buddhist and Shintoist in Japan in the Yamato Period.

    At least, religion has been an excuse for this hate. But the masses followed, as you really accurately noted it.

    You said:
    “You cannot argue “random genesis” given what we do know.”

    I can, and I do so^^ Like the example I’ve given you about the 20 aminos acids, there’s multiple clues that the genesis could have been a spontaneous process, like we’ve discovered some really complex organic molecules in the atmosphere of numerous planets.
    Arguing that we don’t know everything is no scientifical argument, yes. Arguing that it’s a proof for ID isn’t too.

    And given your antecedents, I don’t think you have the legitimacy to talk about “logical fallacies”, but neither do I;) And even if one has bad arguments, one can always note the flaws in other’s arguments.

    Good night everyone!

  295. Hors Service said

    @John.

    You said:
    “Like all freedoms, private ownership cannot be limited without being lost.”

    *The freedom of ones stops where begins the freedom of the others. It’s the duty of Law to fix these limits*^^

    Can’t remember who said it, but I agree with it^^

    Good night, this time! Bye!

  296. John Lloyd Scharf said

    “I think that religious behavior, and religious hate in particular, have one of the most major role in History.

    Want more arguments? The Djihad following the rise of Islam. The confucianist faith beingadopted by the imperial court of China. The opposition between Buddhist and Shintoist in Japan in the Yamato Period.”

    Again, Hors, you are filtering. What do you believe is the most important issue in:
    1.History?
    2.Civilization?

    I can give you answers that are the greatest focus for either of them and it certainly has nothing to do with hate or religion. Republicans hate republics. Democrats spend a great deal of time trying to regulate democracy out of existance. For atheists, it seems to prove how central religion is to history.

    The real and practical world involves very little of that. Wars destroy civilization. Hate destroys relationships. The history of civilization exists not because of or inspite hate or religion. The history of civilization exists regardless of those.

    Try again. What is the most important issue to history?
    What is central to civilization?

  297. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Walter, you do play god by judging God. You brand him to be worse than Hitler.You, in fact, claimed:
    Beautiful poem! about killing, and he is really proud of it! Makes Hitler look like a kinder garden. There are many more examples!

    The choices are limited in the question I gave you. Either you kill Hitler as an infant or you let millions suffer. It is not clear that you have made a choice from those two options in the case as I have given it. You keep trying to reframe the choices, either or both of which could be claimed to be evil.

    This is as clear as I am going to get. It is an either/or question. Do you:
    A. Kill the infant Hitler?
    B. Allow the torture and deaths of millions?

  298. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors, it is the duty of the govenment to protect the people and enforce contracts. Law is a way of doing those things with justice. What you do by limiting private ownership is to go the way of Animal Farm. Some are more equal than others.

    The government exists at the whim of the people. We have rights that cannot be alienated by governments, therefore. Of course, that is just an ideal in the US. It is likely why a nation of less than 315 million out of more than 6.7 billion produces 26% of the wealth of this planet. Rather than share poverty, this nation provides equal access to creating wealth. It is the reason ships can move about at sea engaged in commerce under our protection without tribute being required. The Scandinavian democracies exist because we created a world in which they are safe.

    Hors,you seem to want to talk nationalities. Are you mandated to learn/speak/read/engage in commerce using the German language?

  299. Walter Muller said

    Hi John, did I add behind those remarks-Judge him, or did I liken him too? you seem to want me to see as you see, unfortunately for you I do not. point 1, Kill the infant? In the eyes of the God you defend the answer would be yes, kill him, in the eyes of the Father, the one Jesus talks about, the answer would be; no, teach that child different values as he grow up then the war would never have happened, point 2- had Jesus’ Father’s advice been followed nobody would have been killed, Jesus told us two thousand years ago to “love our neighbour” and “love and honour our creator, but we preferred to live religion. Jesus told you and me to open our eyes and ears but we preferred to look into the darkness. He said to us; you know the way to the kingdom, but you search for a convert, and when you find one make him more deserving to go to hell than you yourselves are, but we did not listen, and now two thousand years later you ask me the same kind of questions the teachers of the law asked him.
    Your questions do not have a yes or no answer neither do life, Jesus said; you cannot worship Mammon and God you will love one and hate the other, giving us a choice, before him we had no choice.
    This is my final answer. Good night.

  300. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Walter, you are obfusticating. Likening God to Hitler is judging him. In the end, you do not know what the long term results of one death over another are.

    In point of fact, there is no difference between telling someone to lie down their own life or telling them to take the life of another. I ask you the questions that Jesus would of any hypocrit. You judged God based on your understanding which is limited to a small part of what a few writers observed.

    No one knows the end of a thing from the beginning. Except God. Refusing to make a decision, whether it is on how you will answer the question, or otherwise, is a decision in itself.

    You remind me of the priests when they were asked an unconfortable question:
    23Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you this authority?”
    24Jesus replied, “I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?”

    They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 26But if we say, ‘From men’—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet.”

    27So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”
    Then he said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

    I did not question the judgment of God in the “Old Testiment.” You did. You act as if the Anointed Savior came to change the Law. Scripture claims there is one Testiment, One God, One Savior, and one King of Kings.

  301. Walter Muller said

    Hi John, you asked me to play God! Then you twist my words, and gave me righteous answers, yet you yourself on this site never answer any question stated to you with a yes or no, but always with if this or if that and everybody to his premise, Jesus also said “Investigate “all” things but hold on to what is “good”, what is “good” to you John?

  302. Walter Muller said

    What did the annointed say John, HE brought the sword not peace, families will stand against each other, no John not with a physical sword, but with how they will see what is “good” and what not, he also said to the pharisees when they accused him of driving out demons in the name of Beelzebul, if Satans kingdom is devided against itself with groups inside of it fighting against each other the kingdom will fall apart.Where do think are you living?

  303. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Walter, I asked you a question. I did not ask you to play god. You did that when you judged God.

    You claim:

    Jesus also said “Investigate “all” things but hold on to what is “good”, what is “good” to you John?

    At no point did JESUS say this. Give your proof. It is certainly not in the Scriptures. Many things are good, but not all are profitable. What I do know is that it is wrong to put words in the mouth of the Anointed Savior that HE never said.

  304. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Walter, Simon Peter was armed and it was authorized by the Anointed Savior. You are making this up as you go along now.

  305. Walter Muller said

    John, he also told Peter to put his sword away, as for the words I put in his mouth, it is in the scripture, seek and you shall find, the other statement I made regarding “the spirit is what gives life, man’s power is of no use” is also in the scripture, I will give you ample time to search for it, then after three days I will come back and quote them to you, as for “judgement” “the ruler of this world have already been judged”, I guess you know where that can be found. But you prefer to ignore the references regarding this matter. You refuse to investigate, you refuse to look from another perspective, you refuse to look outside the box, scared that you might be blinded, your God said; (close the eyes and ears of this people so I do not have to come back and “heal” them), Jesus Said; (open your eyes and ears then I can heal you), And yet you still do not see, afraid of the light John?

  306. kay~ms said

    Hors, you said: “In the following post, I explain my vision:
    To conclude only from your own belief, based only on your faith, that the others are wrong, leads to violence.”

    I still disagree with you. Again.. there are many many people, the majority of the worlds population who only know and only believe in their faith and they do not resort to violence.

    I think you are saying that it is wrong to say your religion is the correct one if you haven’t learned all of them.. first, that is next to impossible to do… learn all of the religions, ( past, present and future). And so I guess the resulting argument would be then we shouldn’t believe or have faith in any one religion because we cannot know them all. But the problem is that we are talking about faith, not history or any tangable thing. It’s spiritual and personal and you cannot tell someone how much they should believe in their faith. And you cannot tell them that they should not believe that other religions are false… you cannot tell someone what to believe or not believe!! This is an erroneous liberal doctrine.. it’s not possible to believe in all religions. I can’t believe I even have to explain this!! See… this is that liberal poison… once it gets in, it’s impossible to cure. Just like Reverse Ignorance.

    For me as a Christian, to not believe that other religions are false, as liberals insist we believe, automatically ends my Christian membership. And that seems to be exactly what the liberal movement is trying to do… wipe out Christianity. You may not be aware of it but if you tell me that I must believe the validity of other religions that is exactly what you are promoting.. the end of Christianity. Again… it is wrong to tell someone what to believe or not believe.

    Like I stated earlier… the problem is not with people believing soley in their faith.. it is with people who do not respect the rights of others to believe what they choose. In a sense you are as guilty as the radical islamists… they desire to force everyone to believe as they do. Wow… think about that!! See… two wrongs don’t make a right. Correct the problem, don’t compensate for it by “correcting” the majority that don’t resort to violence and are respecting other’s rights… correct the minority who do not respect other’s rights. Fix the part that is broken!!

  307. John Lloyd Scharf said

    You claimed this:

    Hi John, you asked me to play God! Then you twist my words, and gave me righteous answers, yet you yourself on this site never answer any question stated to you with a yes or no, but always with if this or if that and everybody to his premise, Jesus also said “Investigate “all” things but hold on to what is “good”, what is “good” to you John?

    I responded this way:

    At no point did JESUS say this. Give your proof. It is certainly not in the Scriptures. Many things are good, but not all are profitable. What I do know is that it is wrong to put words in the mouth of the Anointed Savior that HE never said.

    If you do not recant your claim about him saying it, I will not continue with you.

  308. kay~ms said

    Also Hors, in response to comment #275…

    the bottom line is… is our existence an accident or on purpose? Supreme Being or no Supreme Being? Those are the only two choices.

    I agree with your comment:
    “Well, even if the probability is very small, considering the high number of trials, the probability to get life anywhere in the universe goes higher…”

    But logic still favors a Supreme Being. The complexity of existence favors a Supreme Being. Your argument is similar to the situation in a court room… when the defense asks that usual question… Is it possible? The witness / expert has to say yes even though EVERYONE knows it is very very unlikely. Logic favors a Supreme Being.

    And don’t forget.. you (all atheists) are still left with that nagging question… where did the first matter come from that led to the universe’s existence? That nagging question that fully and completely defies science and logic.

  309. Anonymous said

    Good question. Where did it come from? The S.B. that is.

    Yet again: an I.D. can exist but it is impossible to go any further than that: we can’t know anything about it.
    It’s alright if you believe that the Biblical god is the I.D. Go for it.It’s nice to have a coherent worldview.

  310. Anonymous said

    Jesus also said “Investigate “all” things but hold on to what is “good”

    1 Thessalonians 5.21

    That took me about thirty seconds to find and I’m just a poor pink haired atheist who works in a department store.I’m off to give my pussy a bath.

  311. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Jesus is not quoted in 1jst Thessalonians 5:21, whomever you are. These are not, as I clearly stated, the words of JESUS:

    At no point did JESUS say this. Give your proof. It is certainly not in the Scriptures. Many things are good, but not all are profitable. What I do know is that it is wrong to put words in the mouth of the Anointed Savior that HE never said.

    Walter Muller said
    July 14, 2009 at Tuesday, July 14, 2009
    Hi John, you asked me to play God! Then you twist my words, and gave me righteous answers, yet you yourself on this site never answer any question stated to you with a yes or no, but always with if this or if that and everybody to his premise, Jesus also said “Investigate “all” things but hold on to what is “good”, what is “good” to you John?

    Whomever “Anonymous” is, they are out of the running until they admit their poor attempt is mistaken also. I will not be responding to any Anonymous, if for no other reason than the pathetic inappropriate vulgarity.

    Actually, as I consider it, the one who wrote that is weak and a coward as well as vulgar.

  312. Walter Muller said

    Hi John, that person is a pink haired atheist who helped you out, she is not weak, neither, vulgar, only a little bit afraid, in the very short post she made, she showed more honesty than most people I know. It just so happen that I have a Satanist friend who is just as brutally honest in her view of life and I respect her for that as I respect this pink haired atheist person’s honesty. Allow me another quote; John 7 verse 24. “STOP JUDGING BY EXTERNAL STANDARDS AND JUDGE BY TRUE STANDARDS” Jesus’ words.
    giving us permission once again to judge, and not only to chose our religion.

    Your denial of the quote!- Jesus said; because you take my word, I am in you as the father is in me, and therefore the father is in you; read John chapter 15. If it was spoken by some one who took the word of Jesus then it is the same as if he spoke it himself, for he is in that person as that person is in him.

    If you are finished with me because of that, then I have to accept.

    Another quote; John chapter 8 verse 43 “Why do you not understand what I say? Is it because you cannot bear to listen to my message?”

  313. Alright then it was St Paul. Our mistake.

    Sorry: I just forgot to log in, which makes me forgetful rather than etc etc. The surreal consequences are just too delightful to contemplate.
    I did more or less tell you it was me though. I employed a construction you seem to be unfamiliar with, which is known among we sadly decayed cowards and vulgarians as: a joke.
    I can tell that you have never sullied your lofty soul with British comedy of the classic variety so to avoid any further misunderstandings:

    Down here among the common folk vulgarity is part of the common currency of exchange, because we are able to laugh at the absurdities of life, rather than spending our whole lives in a lather of self-importance. Personally I find your constant preening about your academic attainments and general air of condescension extremely vulgar.

    May I point out that you are not mandated to set the tone of this thread or any others here, because it is not your blog: it’s ours, and allows all kinds of expression. The idea of you not responding isn’t much of a threat: you do it whenever you can’t win the hour with a bit of undergraduate logic chopping.

    And I am unanimous in that.

  314. princessxxx said

    HEY BITCHES!

    Jo-LLo sez – “Princess, name-calling, ie “stupid” is a poor substitute for argument. Your failure to learn patience is not on the teacher. I am just waiting for you learn.”

    wait all you want granny.

    oh, name calling, like ‘irrelavant’. well, that is no argument.
    but if you believe everything is intelligently designed and then consider part of that design as irrelevant. well that pretty much defeats your argument for I.D. now doesn’t it.

    it takes a lot of patience to deal with “stupid” people like you pretending to be smart.

    you and kay should get together and make intelligently designed babies.

  315. The Anointed One said

    Stop messing about.

  316. The Anointed Saviour said

    Charlton Heston is right. I didn’t say it. That Paul character was a complete tool anyway.

  317. You two are just weak cowardly blasphemers. Shame on you.

  318. Okay now that everyone has said things along the lines of christianity let’s get into hypotheticals. Because when it comes to the divine there are many. There are many “secret” christian societies. The true christian Kahballah practitioners, Hermaic Order of the Golden Dawn, the diocese of the catholic church. This is just to name a few sects of christianity that teach both the bible and “the power of God.” Which of course was given to us by creation. (The Catholic Diocese has secret practices once you get to a certain title in the church. There is speculation of all kinds what happens. Only the ex-communicated will tell and there is not that many with the inner workings of the inner sanctum.) That is if you believe that particular creation myth. What is really funny is that 90% of the world’s religions teach that a god or god(s) “breathed” thier power into man upon creation. Of course we can debate what that means for years. Many would say that means God or whoever you worship gave us a soul. What if there is more? What if not only with that soul that part of God that is made in his image. (The wording in the Torah among other writings I will not get into, suggest that what was made in Gods own image is the soul. It makes sense because God has no form, God is niether male nor female, God just is. This is from a scriptural stand-point. I will not be intentionally be starting my usual tirade either. Since its like talking to a deaf-blind person with no way of sign language. Some christians are like that too. Closed mind, closed ears. Not all of you mind you but a majority.) But what if, that he gave us this soul for a purpose? We can create life through our seeds. No matter what the Christian Church has told you, God does not create each person one by one. A person is created simply by the sharing of genetic material. The human body guides the embryo during development etc etc. I know I used big scientific words, but science is not anti-god. Many from both camps would tell you otherwise. But really from a christian teaching standpoint, if God did not give us this power who could?
    No one really because then you are acknowledging that there is a power greater than your God automatically causing a huge paradox. Which is what the catholic church did when they wrote about demonology and all that nonesense. Now back to the point!

    What if God wanted something more for us? What if God really gave us the power when he created us in his image to be able to not only to create and destroy but to influence and control the environments and elements HE created. What if he gave us the potential to be more like him than any of his other creations. Now I am not saying we all can become as powerful as the most high. But what if the human race was ment for more? What if Jesus taught something different than what was written? We cannot know any of these things for certain because the winners get to write and change history as it is taught and read to the decendants. But what if our ancestors did not agree to these ideas? There is a spiritual world beyond a book. For christians that could be a foundation, just as the Torah and Talmud were the foundation for Quaballah Practitioners. Before you could even study the basic book and theories. You needed to be atleast upper twenties, low thirties. Have a great knowledge of the Torah and can pull from memory key portions. My point to all of this what if God wants you to flex this muscle? Just somethings to think about.

  319. PRINCESSXXX said

    and there is nothing wrong with buggery.

    if there were more buggerers around there would be more world peace.

  320. dorian said

    dammit , i knew i should’ve set the alarm. i’m here for the party and everybody’s gone. am i the only one on pacific time? everybody having lunch or dinner? oh well. might as well have some coffee…

    this thread should get a ‘best blog thread’ award. not so bad for a humble little blog. thanks, everybody, not the last chapter, i hope. or should i expect a dénouement?
    high five, tothewire!!

  321. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Oh, I am sure the M&M crowd will be back.

  322. Walter Muller said

    Hi John, although you are finished with me, I have to say this, thank you for the debate, pity we won’t have another, you make a tough opponent.

  323. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Debate? There was a debate going on? I must have missed it. I think I was paying attention too much to you and the rest of the Mock God and Masterbait crowd (M&M).

  324. kay~ms said

    Betty said: “Yet again: an I.D. can exist but it is impossible to go any further than that: we can’t know anything about it.
    It’s alright if you believe that the Biblical god is the I.D. Go for it.It’s nice to have a coherent worldview.”

    At the risk of sounding sarcastic (not intended)… thanks for your approval but I really wasn’t looking for it.

    I just want to know your logic behind your belief that our inteligent designer isn’t the God of the Bible.

    And why is it “impossible” to go any further than acknowledgment of I.D.? Why can’t we know anything about it??

    Are you saying that the Intelligent Designer wouldn’t be capable of revealing this information to us? I think that is what you are saying.

    Could you please explain / expand on this?

  325. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Kay? Betty has a capacity for logic? If it were a felony, Betty has not generated enough evidence for a conviction. In fact, I doubt that Betty has ever had any convictions.

  326. kay~ms said

    Come on Liberals and Atheists…. I’m waiting…

  327. kay~ms said

    Betty.. if you acknowledge the possibility of I.D. how can you not acknowledge the Designer’s ability to reveal Himself? I’m confused…

  328. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Kay, there are no Liberals or Atheists in this group. There is Larry, Moe, and Curly of the M&M crowd. If you said,”Send in the clowns,” however, they are definitely mucking about. Feel free to point and giggle at them.

  329. kay~ms said

    And I would really love a response from the liberals to my point about the erroneous liberal doctrine that says that we must not believe that other religions are incorrect.

    Comment #306… Hors?

  330. kay~ms said

    John, I acknowledge that the common liberal tactic is to resort to humor when they do not have an argument but I am still hoping for an attempt. If there are not attempts I will have to assume that I have proven my point sufficiently and ask that the liberals and atheists reconsider their stances. If they do reconsider their stances… and I’m just asking for reconsideration, I promise not to gloat. Otherwise….

    This is a completely fair request… this is the end result of proper debating and is / should be the ultimate goal… to find the truth or at least get closer to it.

  331. Hors Service said

    @Kay

    Wait a second, please^^ Even a day, you forget that I’m on French time, and today is… National Day in France!^^ So I went to a firework and then to a party with friends.

    Happy 14 Juillet everybody!
    Even if don’t really like our national anthem… It talks about spilling blood, and so on…

    @John and Kay

    And I assure you, it’s difficult to talk to walls with no sense of humour or self-derision.
    But I’m going to make it anyway in my next post^^

    Second point, one of the best hints of extremism is lack of humour.
    You’re both so absolute in your statements… And so prompt in supperposing your stereotypes on the people you talk to.

    John, I must say I’m a bit disappointed about you. At the beginning, you made really good points, showing me the gaps in my reasoning, but now, you’re just being more and more overproud, and it even seems to affect your reading capacities. I’m perplex… Please, get some rest. I’m sure you’re capable of debating, without making the questions and the answers when the last ones doesn’t suits your worldview.

    My next post will be about the subject! Give me just a bit of time!^^

  332. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Your expection is reasonable. The M&M crowd has not just run out of legitimate logical argument. They never had nor intended to have that.

    Have you actually seen them let truth get in the way of their self-indulgent retorts? They believe truth to be subjective because it threatening to their worldview, their self-esteem, and their peer standing.

    This is the same group that was “rebellious” in junior high/middle school so they would fit in with everyone else. They despise those with a post-secondary education because they never had a real one of their own.

    Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. At some point, you have to acknowledge there is a certain vanity in your hopes for them. You believe you can provoke reason from the M&M crowd.

    However, they will go back to the same old square one they did at 13. If you think they emotionally or intellectually matured since then, I invite you to yet again read what they have so far written. I suppose when a paper was expected of them, they resorted to the same thing of hashing together the same half baked mentality of their pier group.

    Of course, back in the day, for them, critical thinking was not an expectation of any teachers. That includes college instructors for the most part. Of the ones I had, the best DEMANDED that and the rest just wanted you to regurgitate their doctrine.

    Today, I ran into an article of a journalism student and reporter in the mainstream media who suddenly discovered the University of Oregon only has two Republicans. Imagine my surprise! There were two of them! That seems to be more than I remember when I attended.

    The worst one was a Marxist Leninist named Harry Humphrey who used to get so excited in this sociology class I took that froth would appear at the corner of his mouth. In the end, he questioned why I had changed from graded to pass/fail. My final exam he scored my paper A++. I did not answer him and just brushed him off.

    Mainly I did the work to prove to myself that he was just a hack and could get around him. My paper was, in a sense, a work of fiction with a dialogue between his god, Marx, and his satan, a certain early writer on Christianity. That writer was actually meant to be a strawman for his arguments. My work reversed that, but he did not pick up on it.

  333. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors, you are extremely solisistic in you self-appreciation of your own “humor.” At this point, the real comic element is that you believe that you or these others are humorous. Run on, boy. I will continue to point and giggle at your pathetic attempts. I actually understand and like both British and French humor. Too bad you do not, Sir Spamalot.

  334. M&M crowd? I am glad I am not in that crowd since I have to actually Mock God, and since I am married I have no need to masturbate. (Even if I was not married I would have no need to masturbate.)Or are you talking about contemporary Christians as the M&M crowd. Since Christianity certainly mocks god by say the worship of and prayer to multiple entities is okay. How many times do you praise god and how many times do you praise Jesus? The Holy Trinity is something completely unique to the new testament. Even though there seems to be three names for god in the Hebrew text that does not mean that the holy trinity is valid. The three names of God in the Hebrew each showed different sides. Adonai the name most commonly referred to as the LORD in the English translations. Was used when God showed great mercy and love upon his people. Adonai is used 90% of the text. Even though Elohim is a plural word, it was used for when God did something. Like create the earth and man. In the English Elohim is called the Holy Spirit. Whenever God works that was the description the Hebrew text gave. YHWH or in the English text Jehovah is a very sacred name only used less than a handful of times. Only Rabbi’s could speak the verses that used this name. This description was when God used his awesome wrathful powers or when he spoke to prophets directly. These really are not names but descriptive words that describes the actions of God. The main faces of one being. When you pray you pray to god, not to his moods or descriptions. God made the commandment No God shall ever be put before me. Who do Christians pray to? Who do they ask forgiveness from?

  335. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Oops, misspelled that:
    solipsism
    n. Philosophy.
    The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
    The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

  336. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Enkill… You date inside your species and outside your sex? Obviously, you have no sense of humor, or, it seems, sarcasm and metaphor. Of course, with concrete thinking that you so often engage in, it is hard to escape that for you.

    I would discuss that “Holy Trinity” concept with you, but I do not see it in the Scriptures. But, then, I do not even acknowledge “new testiment” as a concept. It seems to be a pagan myth originating with and perpetuated by Constantine.

    Oh, nice attempt at pretending you have any interest in any part of the nature of God.

    Personally, I cannot answer for those who self-identify as Christian and have a doctrine of Trinity. I disagree with that concept, but I do not hold that against them – or, indeed, any doctrine they have. I

    f God has a problem with some doctrine, HE seems not to have asked for my judgment concerning it. All I have to deal with is that relationship with Him, which seems to be beyond me. I have no idea of the full nature of God. If you think you do, you have a right to your delusion.

  337. Hors Service said

    @John

    You said:
    “I can give you answers that are the greatest focus for either of them and it certainly has nothing to do with hate or religion. ”

    If I understand well this sentence, because I could be mistaken, you’re pretending to have The True Focus Of History And Civilisation.

    ^^
    It’s so much frontal vanity that I can’t really think of an appropriate answer. I hope for you that the meaning of this sentence isn’t this.

    You said:
    “The real and practical world involves very little of that.”

    Go to Palestine/Israel, and say to them that their practical life has very little to do with hate or war.
    Or to Sudan.
    Or to Kivu.

    Go to Iran, and say to them that their practical life has nothing to do with religion.
    Or to America^^ Like the mormons or the Amish parts…

    I don’t say that Religion plays THE MOST important part in History and Civilisation, I’m not as self-rigtheous as you, but at least A very important part.
    The rise of the Islam after Mahomet’s death has a lot to do with the people believing in this new religion, which had effects on the economy and on the politics. New ways of behaving, like no more alcohol. And it certainly a great influence on day to day lives…
    The adoption of confucianism ended the constant rebellions in China (but not for a long time^^), giving new hope to everyone and social stability, because of the nature of this religion (at least, the use of it by the governement).
    The Judes became so rich because they must be bankers, as a lot of professions were forbidden to them, and because they were allowed to make profit from credit. The catholic authorities were forbidding this profit from lending money to catholics, and the others professions to Judes.

    You said:
    “Try again. What is the most important issue to history?
    What is central to civilization?”

    You’re certainly gonna take it for a tentative to evade, but I don’t have the answers of these questions.
    I’m not like you.
    I only thinks that some facts of civilization have a major influence on History.
    Of course, not on what History IS (The definition of the word), but on the course of History.

    Anyway, History is the History of the civilizations…. As men are not living alone, I don’t see anything else it could be the History of.

    You said:
    “What you do by limiting private ownership is to go the way of Animal Farm.”

    I’ve never pretended to limit private ownership, but as usual, you don’t listen (Or read, in this case^^)…
    I think that solidarity is necessary, by a limited punction on the wage, to the good of everyone.

    Examples: I’ve worked all my life, and I get a cancer. Can’t afford the drugs. I think that the state should provide help.
    I’ve worked all my life, now I’m old and I can’t do any more work. Sadly, I was never rich enough to have anything left for my old days, and I was sterile. I think that the state should provide help.
    I’m very intelligent but I’m too poor to afford the correct school, and I can’t work because of a medical disease. I think that the state should provide help.
    My research is essential, but it will provide fruits only in 50 years (as the relativity, for example). No firm wants to fund it. I think the state should provide help.

    Tell me I’m marxist if you want, but it won’t be true.

    You said:
    “The Scandinavian democracies exist because we created a world in which they are safe. ”

    And all your nationalistic prose.
    “Ship can move the sea under our protection”…
    You’re not alone, you know? Europeans assure their protection, too. We’re allies. You didn’t created a world in which they are safe. We (Americans + Europeans) done so.
    And the scandinavian have a perfectly functioning army, too.
    If we go further in history, I could say that you exists only because France helped you against the English. But it’s no interest for me to take pride in this type of things.

    And Europe is 360 millions, and owns 20% of world’s wealth. No so bad.

    You said:
    “Hors,you seem to want to talk nationalities. Are you mandated to learn/speak/read/engage in commerce using the German language?”

    No, I don’t want to do so. I only talk it when people engage in nationalist pride.

    mandated? Can you explain me what you mean by this term?
    Anyway, I speak passably german, but I’m worst than in English.

    Was möchten sie wissen?

    I will answer to the following posts later, I’m tired of your ego right now.

    @Kay

    I’m sorry it’s very late, and I am very tired. Tomorrow, I’ll anwser, promise. Perhaps on the page “case of the missing link”, though.

    Good night. Sorry to be so quick today.

  338. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Of course, Hors, you very self absorbed in your solipsism as well as self delusion. Sometimes I am surprised at how ignorant at how Europeans are regarding how vulnerable they are in terms of shipping.

    The US Navy provides the security of the sealanes. The second largest conglomerate of navies, including all the European ones under the Commonwealth is less than a third the size of the US Navy. It is not nationalism.

    It is the realistic fact, just like the fact that Iran’s military, in terms of soldiers, is the largest. It is larger than the People’s Republic of China.

    Whatever your delusions about Europe, while it MAY cover 20% of the planet, it does not create 20% of its Gross World Product…. The US creates 26% of that. The US Navy was the first to STOP paying tribute to the Muslims in the 18th century – after invading Tripoli.

    This has NOTHING to do with national pride and EVERYTHING with US citizens having to support YOUR commerce. If we CEASED that, we would use far less fuel.

    In fact, we might be able to restrict ourselves to just Canada. What happened off the coast of Africa is barely a taste of what would happen. The only reason it does/did happen is a problem of jurisdiction when Somolia is an outlaw nation.

  339. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Oh, and you certainly have no clear understanding of either civilization or history.

    History requires the witten word.
    Civilization requires cities.

    Based on that, what are the most important events in history?

    Based on that, what is required to have a civilization?

  340. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Hors,you seem to want to talk nationalities. Are you mandated to learn/speak/read/engage in commerce using the German language?”

    No, I don’t want to do so. I only talk it when people engage in nationalist pride.

    This was not an answer to the question. You do not like being accountable by answering questions.

    If you are not mandated to learn/use German, you can thank the US. Your nation lost and would not have come back were it not for the military and the means of production of the US. You are deluded if you think otherwise.

  341. John Lloyd Scharf said

    HORS SAID:

    “I will answer to the following posts later, I’m tired of your ego right now.”

    HA!HA!HA!HA! As if you answer question and to not have an over-inflated sense of yourself…. (point/giggle/point/giggle)

    Since when do you ANSWER posts. You ignore questions and make answers to issues not posed.

  342. kay~ms said

    Hors… you said: “Second point, one of the best hints of extremism is lack of humour.
    You’re both so absolute in your statements… And so prompt in supperposing your stereotypes on the people you talk to.”

    I’m disappointed that you haven’t recognised my humour… it’s in almost every comment I make. It balances out my comments that express my frustrations. And I love my sense of humour!! I couldn’t get by without it!

    But don’t forget we are talking about serious subjects here. And I do believe that when I’m “supperposing” stereotypes I am always backing them up with actual occurances that support those stereotypes. Which is a necessary first step (identification) if the desired result is to eliminate those faulty misguided ideals.

    Are you sure you weren’t just attacking my (“lack of”) sense of humour just to change the subject?? possibly.. maybe?? I’m thinking yes, because I think I really got you in a corner on this debate. I really do believe that I’ve proven that a very popular liberal belief is extremely faulty. And I’m really hoping that you will pass that on to all of your liberal friends over there on the other side of the pond. Help put this world back on the right track instead of the train wreck that we’re headed for.

    Then we can move on to the next liberal poison that needs to be dealt with… Reverse Ignorance.

  343. Walter Muller said

    John, I am no military expert, as far as that is concerned I use my common sense to determine what I think to be accurate, here is a fact you missed; Chinese army soldiers-300,000- Iraqi army soldiers-253,000 figures released by your government. Another fact which cannot be determined is this, Do China agree to that figure and do Iraq agree to it, will they ever reveal the true figures? Do you really think those nations which are your rivals will make such information available to anybody? But then again I like Hors is totally stupid because we do not possess a University degree like John, and therefore nothing anybody who do not fit into his gategories is non existant as far as John is concerned. Maybe we then become “unintended”, my apologies for daring to answer you John.

  344. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Walter, your figures are extremely far off. Even without the paramilitary of Iran, your figures are rediculously wrong. However, not counting the paramilitary of Iran would be the same as not counting our National Guard.

    Iran’s active military is 945,000. The reserve is more than what you quote with 350,000, alone. The paramilitary of Iran is at least 400,000. NEITHER of those figures your gave were from “my government.” Even the CIA numbers no longer reveal that information in particular. They list an estimate of those reaching conscription age at 16. However, Iran allows them to “volunteer” at 15.

    However, the method of counting certainly has changed since January 20th of 2009. I have been monitoring this issue for about 10 years. They used to show pictures of the nuclear facilities in Iran online. Those pictures are no longer available. It would scare the hell out of me if I lived anywhere near a likely target for that.

    Of course, Walter, you have yet to honestly answer the question I asked about Hitler (or Pol Pot, et al): 1. Kill as infant, 2. Allow to live to kill millions.

    You want to judge God for making a decision you refuse to do. You refused to answer that question as structured – typical. That is to decide whether to kill some one or a group to change the long term effect.

    If you have any common sense, you have yet to show it.

    Regarding education, it requires persistance and work. It forces you to discipline your thinking and communication. However, from my perspective, a person is “stupid” when they are willingly ignorant. A person who does not know a thing is merely ignorant. The difference is not in how many years I was in college but whether I continued to learn. You have already narrowed your mind and “common sense” tells me you stopped being open or investigating long ago.

    However, when you claim to “daring to answer” me, I have to giggle to myself at your flagrant dishonesty and pathetic misinformation.

  345. ‘I just want to know your logic behind your belief that our inteligent designer isn’t the God of the Bible.’

    And why is it “impossible” to go any further than acknowledgment of I.D.? Why can’t we know anything about it??

    Are you saying that the Intelligent Designer wouldn’t be capable of revealing this information to us? I think that is what you are saying.

    Well Kay, it would be capable of doing so, but how can we tell if this has in fact happened?

    What’s the other one? Oh yes: I think I asked you this a while back. Where is this liberal doctrine that says you can’t say other religions are wrong?

  346. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Kay, you want to believe. You assert, “But don’t forget we are talking about serious subjects here.” They toss in far more of what is irrelevant with regard to the topic. I no longer even attempt to go with that after the original name-calling and vulgar comments. Welcome to their Noobian world.

    This may be of benefit to you:

    On the internet, n00bs make their colonies on forums. They migrate in waves, usually on weekends, and proceed to clog up bandwidth with stupid questions and sometimes even stupid answers. If you happen to be unfortunate enough to be on a board large enough to attract migrating noobs, there will hopefully be authority in charge who is smart enough to take extermination measures before they can make nests and larger colonies. THE BANNER HAMMER is one form of authority.

    Larger colonies can result in the mutation of some into spammers. Not commercial spammers, but pointless spammers. A noob can become one of these at any point, but the larger the amount of noobs, the more chance pointless spammers will appear.

    Often, but not always, noobs will attempt to communicate in their own primitive language, known as “n00bish.” It is a variant of the hacker language that exposes them as having little intelligence or will to learn. Here is an example of some noobish. Do not attempt to comprehend it: it cannot be discerned without professionals at hand.

    stFU /../..an, i r teh r0xx0rz liek emin3m, u cna go tO EHLL OR ATLE4St help m3 wit hthIS!!111!!!!!!!1~~1!!“!! LOLLOLOLLOLOLlOoLLOlollLLl u n00b

    Although you may find this unbelievably funny and/or annoying, it is best to restrain yourself and keep from talking back to them, as they are very territorial and easily angered. This will result in their attempted verbal abuse of you, possibly backed up by other noobs, because they work in packs when doing offensive tasks. It is not an easy task to learn this language because our intelligent accent will keep it from sounding quite right when spoken. You can write some simple noobish of your own, however, by slamming your face into your keyboard repeatedly.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=noob

  347. Walter Muller said

    John, you are a ……(I cannot even put a name to it)example for what a Christian is supposed to be, I think Kay feels alien to even talk to you, and for that matter even the Satanists. You wanted to know more about me, then I gave you something, you proceeded to negatively probe me, on which I argumented Jesus’s statements to you, yet you kept up your vile manner, by now all the people who visit this site have read your stuff some of which makes very good sense, on others not as much, but I suppose you will call this judging again! You are a well educated person, why don’t you read through your answers to the people here and think for a month before you come back to reply to anybody again, the spam security you suggested might just kick you of first.

    Hi Kay, I am busy reading through your statements, and I will reply, it might not be as educated as John’s but I think we might actyally have a decent conversation.

  348. Search the Web on Snap.com said

    Hi Kay, you asked the question why do some beleive the God of the Old Testament is not the I.D, In my explanation to John you will have noticed that I do not agree with that entity being the father of Jesus, and in my explanation to John I gave quotes for that disagreement. As for a statement enkill_Elidas made regarding life blown into us at creation by God, that life being soul and understood by him to be the image of God and not our physical bodies, I have to agree with. Also in the second chapter of the explanation he mentioned, he/she (I do not know the sexuality of enkill_Elidas) asked a couple of questions which can be related to the question on why do this I.D not reveal itself to us?

    Do the I.D perhaps meant for us to develop to a state where and when we realise different truths or better truths and upon such time then will reveal itself to us, all of this might sound alien to religious people. Religion have unfortunately caused people to hide their own intelligence, prevented some of the greatest minds to develop because of the fear that “maybe if I should study this or that God will punish me”.

    A perfect example is the time when the first Appollo were sent to the moon. At that stage I was a child of about ten years old and the people in the country I stay in were awe struck and highly afraid that God was going to punish us for flying up into heaven, our priest even from the pulpit blaimed the evil Americans for the destruction of our earth that would follow one Sunday.

  349. Let’s all do some reading:

    ‘Abiogenesis is the field of science dedicated to studying how life might have arisen for the first time on the primordial young Earth… abiogenesis is under constant attack from creationists, who continually claim that the origin of life by natural processes is so unlikely as to be, for all practical purposes, impossible. Following are some articles that challenge this claim and demonstrate the fundamental misconception at the core of the creationists’ arguments:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

    eg:

    ‘Science shows us that the universe evolved by self-organization of matter towards more and more complex structures. Atoms, stars and galaxies self-assembled out of the fundamental particles produced by the Big Bang. In first-generation stars, heavier elements like carbon, nitrogen and oxygen were formed. Aging first-generation stars then expelled them out into space – we, who consist of these elements, are thus literally born from stardust. The heaviest elements were born in the explosions of supernovae. The forces of gravity subsequently allowed for the formation of newer stars and of planets. Finally, in the process of biological evolution from bacteria-like tiny cells (the last universal common ancestor) to all life on earth, including us humans, complex life forms arose from simpler ones.

    Upon considering this self-organization of material structures in the realm of philosophy, one may conclude that it happens either because the underlying laws of nature simply are the way they are, or because they were designed by God for this purpose. Since we know that the laws of nature are so self-sufficient that, based on them, the complexity of the entire physical universe evolved from fundamental particles, and further, complex life forms from simpler ones during biological evolution, we can reasonably extrapolate that they would also allow life itself to originate spontaneously, by evolution of complex structures – regardless if we believe these laws are designed or undesigned. Therefore, we should expect an origin of life by natural causes from both theistic and atheistic philosophical perspectives.’

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

  350. Anonymous said

    WARNING: I DO NOT APPROVE OF OBSCENE LANGUAGE. THIS IS A PG-RATED SITE. COMMENTS CONTAINING OBSCENITY SHALL BE DELETED. PLAY NICE AND DON’T MAKE ME COME DOWN AGAIN.

  351. thisisgodspeakingagain said

    I HAVE SPOKEN.

  352. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Walter, you put words in the mouth of Christ Jesus (AKA: Anointed Savior) and then whine when you are called on it. After being called on your error, you have been in denial and minimization. Dishonesty is “vile.”

    As long as people post that claim to be God and other M&M statements from the Noobians, I would suggest that the “answers” I have written are extremely tame.

  353. Walter Muller said

    I do not know what happened with the name, (search the web on snap.com) my apologies.
    I am reading.

  354. John Lloyd Scharf said

    bettyslocombe, thank you for your example of an appeal to an illegitimate authority. I love the pronouncements on the statistical improbability of life issue without any discussion of the elements involved.

    Such faith these writers have in things unseen. They are like the Vitalists who thought flies had biogenesis in feces rather than coming from eggs.

    Of course, this fellow supposes that all needs to be done to disprove some intelligent force existed is to deny “Creationism.” For him, it is a Creationism vs Evolution issue.

    One could accept evolution as a concept without assuming random genesis of five complex molecules arranged in strings of basepairs of DNA that are on the order of billions.

    It is actually an argument between Science, requiring experiment, and the conjecture of the Vitalists that life can come from non-life. It was a very political issue at the end of the 19th Century. In fact, Pasteur caused the Vitalists such pain that they went to great pains to combat his results. One of those was to finance Darwin.

    This part is a real point and giggle:
    “How likely is it that even a single bacterium could form by chance in the primordial sea? Not very likely, that’s for sure, and creationists have been only too happy to provide ludicrously huge numbers purporting to be the odds against such a thing. However, even if these calculations are correct, they are irrelevant, as modern theories of abiogenesis require nothing of the kind to happen.”

    It absolutely requires it, even with “modern theories.” Of course, the very forces which create that primordial soup are also the part of chaos theory that tear apart not only life, but those amino acids involved.

    When it comes to the butterfly effect, every event still has to compete with every other event. When you have an infinite number of butterflies to start with, the effect of one becomes far less.

    One need not even get into the failings of the black box theories of those so attached to random genesis, but I will. What would a lifeform look like that came from random genesis.

    We define life as something that can take in food for energy, reproduce itself, and get rid of wastes. One of the reasons a virus is on the edge of life/non-life is that it cannot reproduce itself. It depends on the host organism for that.

    So, a virus would not be a first candidate for the random genesis. In fact, our first candidate would have to consume inorganic compounds as food to survive. That severely limits the number of organisms that could exist. Even water bears have limits. Tardigrade genomes vary in size, from about 75 to 800 megabase pairs of DNA. I suspect even the smallest lifeform must have that 75 million base pairs.

    One base pair has about 20 atoms in it. Base pairs are limited in regard to which can pair with which of those five molecules. However, a molecule with 20 atoms in it can be arranged in a great many ways, depending on the bonds involved, without creating one of those five molecules. Even if there were only two kinds possible, one that was a candidate for life and the other not, what is two to the 75 millionth power?

    One of the things about life is that there is not just one way to accomplish it. The thing about it is that there are so many alternatives that do not produce life. Many, in fact, are detrimental to life, like carbon monoxide.

  355. John Lloyd Scharf said

    History requires the written word.
    Civilization requires cities.

    Based on that, what are the most important events in history?

    Based on that, what is required to have a civilization?

    Why are these the antithesis of violence or hate?

    What is the most unifying concept that has produced and fostered both the written word and the formation of cities?

  356. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Good news, Betty. The Candidatus Carsonella ruddii consists of a circular chromosome of 159,662 base pairs and that the genome has a high coding density (97%) with many overlapping genes and reduced gene length.

    So, that hypothetical in post #354 regarding 2 to the 75 millionth power is reduced to 2 to the 159,662th power.

    Of course, Mycoplasma genitalium, which has the smallest genome of any FREE-LIVING organism, has a genome of 580,000 base pairs.

  357. kay~ms said

    Betty, you said: “Yet again: an I.D. can exist but it is impossible to go any further than that: we can’t know anything about it.”

    I asked how you came to the conclusion that it is impossible to know anything about it. That what you are saying is that a Supreme Being wouldn’t be capable of revealing this information to us.

    Your response: “Well Kay, it would be capable of doing so, but how can we tell if this has in fact happened?”

    So, are you acknowledging that you statement that it is impossible to go any further is incorrect? I’m just trying to be clear. Because it is not impossible. He could show himself to us. If He is capable of I.D., He is capable of showing Himself to us.. you can’t acknowledge the one and not the other.

    So, from there, you ask…”How can we tell if this has in fact happened?” Which I think translates… how do we factually prove that the God of Christianity is the God of Intelligent Design?

    Which then leads us back to my original question to you… “‘I just want to know your logic behind your belief that our inteligent designer isn’t the God of the Bible.’

    Because, I acknowlege that we don’t have “factual proof” that the God of Christianity is the Supreme Being. So, we would then apply our reason and logic based on what we do have to determine if He is our Creator.

    So that is why I am asking you this question… what is your logic / reason for this belief that He is not our Creator?

    To answer your other question: “What’s the other one? Oh yes: I think I asked you this a while back. Where is this liberal doctrine that says you can’t say other religions are wrong?”

    So is your point that there is no actual written liberal doctrine? Well, this is not in dispute… I don’t know of any such document.

    So now can we move on to the actual point? A COMMON liberal belief is that all religions are valid, that it is wrong to say (and actually believe!!) that another’s religion is false. I can name 3 people of this blog alone who believe this to be true. EE, Dorian and Hors. Hors is on a whole different continent, so I think it is safe to say that it is a widespread belief of liberals.

    Put it this way… you won’t find any conservatives believing this erroneous and illogical “doctrine”.

  358. Hors Service said

    @Kay

    Promise kept, I’m answering your posts!^^
    By the way, could you answer my last one about sex in “caveman view on abortion” about sex? I could get wrong ideas, like I have cornered you, if you take too long to answer^^
    Talking of corners, I’ve still arguments:

    You said:
    “I still disagree with you. Again.. there are many many people, the majority of the worlds population who only know and only believe in their faith and they do not resort to violence.”

    I think that
    1) If they don’t resort to immediate violence, it’s often a diffuse sentiment of hatred, and prejudices (Like the major part of the catholics of Poland thought that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus, which made the deportations easier.) (Another example: India, which from times to times has bursts of religious riots.)

    2) If they don’t resort to violence, it’s also because they’re not confronted with other Faiths. There’s no religious violence where there is only one religion.
    The zones where Faiths are confronting are a bit tricky, but they also bring a lot of good when the different religions are exchanging, like it was the case in Spain until the Catholic Monarch threw Jews and Maures away.

    I don’t see any examples in history when people stopped and tried to understand each other, then decided to fight, knowing perfectly what they were figthing. But I’m no historian.

    You said:
    “I think you are saying that it is wrong to say your religion is the correct one if you haven’t learned all of them”

    Not all of them, but I think one should have a reasonable overview. Don’t be absolute.
    Like, it would do good to your faith if you learned at least about Islam and Judaism. Because 1) They have the same God
    2) Christianity has deep roots in Judaism
    3) Islam claims to be the sequel of Christianity

    And, some of the little Christian differences: Catholicism, Churches of Protestantism, Orthodoxia.
    Just a quick overview, so that one day, when you met a Muslim, if he says to you “I haven’t learned about your religion, I don’t know anything about it, but I believe mine is the only Truth, and I’m sure of it”, you can answer him “I’ve learned about Islam, and I’ve concluded that Christianity is the Truth”.

    Because, I think that if it’s not the case, then the corollar is that the belief only depends on where you’re born (If you know only shintoism, you’ll become a shinto… Or you create your own religion. Which happens not so often.). Which means that the most true religion, at least the one that will at the end prevail, is the one where the believers make the more children, which you’ll agree is absurd.

    You said:
    “It’s spiritual and personal and you cannot tell someone how much they should believe in their faith. And you cannot tell them that they should not believe that other religions are false… you cannot tell someone what to believe or not believe!! This is an erroneous liberal doctrine..”

    I’m not telling you not believe that other religions are false, I’m telling to believe other religions are false with arguments to say so. Or, perhaps say “As far as I know, which is limited (Like it’s the case for everyone), i believe that the others religions are false”.

    Remember that people from other religions are saying exactly the same thing as you, but YOU know better, isn’t it? Don’t you want them to see the Truth? I say this honestly, without irony.

    I, personnally, make the same:*As far as I know, which is limited, I believe that True Love must be a certain way*. I’ve no real objective scientifical reason to think so, but still, I believe. And when someone tells me he/her doesn’t believe in the same True Love, I discuss. And considerate arguments. Sometimes, I change my beliefs. Sometimes, not.

    You said:
    “it’s not possible to believe in all religions.”

    Of course it isn’t. Did I said so? Believe in one, but know what some of the others have to say.

    You said:
    “And that seems to be exactly what the liberal movement is trying to do… wipe out Christianity.”

    Not only Christianity, but every religion of the World, to achieve our machiavelic plan of World Domination!^^
    1) Don’t put everyone who’s against your view of God in the liberal box, and every liberal in the same box. As I don’t put all the believers in the same box.

    2) I personnaly would be very sad if the Catholic religion was wiped out, even if I don’t agree with it. I like the way lots of my Catholic friends behave, their moral values, their disinterestedness, their way of believing in the deepest of their soul without constantly refering to God, their tolerance.
    Much better than a lot of the atheists I know.
    But it sometimes seems that you don’t have the same God as them.

    You said:
    “Again… it is wrong to tell someone what to believe or not believe.”

    Again, I’m not telling you to believe or not that your religion is true or false, or that all religion are false, or true, but to have an Enlightened Belief.
    I’m telling you to learn a bit, on your free time, about other religions, with an open mind.
    You showed willingness in learning about Islam, it’s a very good start.

    I recognize that some people have this Enlightened Belief, people from all religions (well, not all, but I know people like that from at least 4 major ones), and I respect their belief.

    If you don’t want to learn about other religions, you’re closed-minded. I don’t think you are, but I think you’re maybe too convinced to let yourself approach another way of thinking without rejecting it immediately, just because it’s different.

    You said:
    “In a sense you are as guilty as the radical islamists… they desire to force everyone to believe as they do.”

    Believing “too much” is not the appropriated term, but I don’t know the exact term. Believe as much as you want, just don’t let it blind you. It’s all I ask.
    I don’t want to force you to believe as me, even if I think I’m right. I just want you to keep your eyes open.

    ***
    To go one with the subject, I would say that in fact, I, personnally, think that all the religions I’ve been in touch with are wrong.
    I think that they’re too much anthropocentrist.
    But I very often agree on the major moral principles, and I think that the religious belief gaves a good structure to them. I agree with the philosophy, but not with the mythological stuff.

    After a bit of thinking about it, I think that the idea of the religions being all true isn’t so absurd, but let me devellop:

    Who are we to understand the True Nature of God(s)? Or the Superior Being(s)? -Perhaps even that the concept of multiplicity has no value here-
    You said yourself that Man cannot.
    Or, like you know, it has always been the work of men (prophets, priests, apostles…) to apprehend, understand, transmit the Messages and the Nature of the Divine.
    One can say, each one has seen a bit of it. Each according to his own limited understanding.

    So, each religion, each dogma, would have a part of Truth.
    This could explain all the apparent contradictions of the Scriptures, and the variety of the Religions.
    Because people are only people.
    This could explain the strange phenomena that only certain regions of the globe (like the Middle East, for example) received the vision of God, when the rest of Earth was left in darkness.

    As Man grow in his understanding of the Nature of The Supreme Being(s), religions would rise, fall, mutate.

    One could achieve the full understanding of the essence of the Divine (it’s an utopy, of course), by either going very deep in one religion, eliminating all that is the package of the Message, or either comparing multiple religions, to understand the common Truth from where they all derive.
    It’s an idea that I find interesting. What do you think about it?

    /
    You said:
    “The complexity of existence favors a Supreme Being.”

    Not really, I think that to think something is very complex just because we don’t have the understanding of it, and then concluding that it must be the work of a Supreme Being, because it’s too difficult for us, is a bit anthropocentric.

    To me, it’s underestimating the power of the great numbers and the Random. We’re very little in a very wide Universe, why the Creator would make so much galaxies if we were the center of it? Why believe that a star billions of time larger than the Earth was created only to feed our grass?

    The probability of life on Earth is very small, true, but the probability of life in the Universe isn’t so small. And we still don’t know what was life at the beginning, we only know what happened after the
    I feel it like a lotery ball who would come out and say “I am the Chosen One!” when there’s only luck involved.

    /
    I think that I read that you don’t agree about the Big Bang? Well, if it’s the case, here are 3 proofs: There’s a radio background noise in all the universe, practically homogeneous. It’s the first light emitted few microseconds after the Big Bang, distorted by the growth of the Universe.
    If there wasn’t any Big Bang, the sky would be white on nights, the stars being equally reparted through the universe. The black is the light of stars that hadn’t the time to come to us yet, so it means that once, light appeared.
    You can watch the first moments of the Universe with a powerfull telescope: the further away you look, the further back in the past you look, because light travels only at 300 000km/s

    My mistake if I was wrong about what you though on the Big Bang
    /

    You said:
    “And don’t forget.. you (all atheists) are still left with that nagging question… where did the first matter come from that led to the universe’s existence? That nagging question that fully and completely defies science and logic.”

    Well, it’s not the only one to defies science, that’s why it’s called research^^
    The latest theories about it:
    The matter could maybe only a consequence of the Universe having multiples dimensions, twisting and twirling. When they contract, there’s more matter.
    The matter could come from the energy of the void, which creates and destroy particules all the time.
    The matter could be an illusion, they could maybe be really very little bits of strings.

    But I don’t pretend to understand anything to these theories, it’s very complicated maths and strange but true concepts who defies common sense.
    The quantum world is a very strange but fascinating place^^

    And don’t forget.. you (all Supreme Being believers) are still left with that nagging question… where did the Supreme Being come from that led to the universe’s existence?:)

    @John.

    Still going on with crushing the others with your self-importance it seems, delighting yourself in hammering your A++ marks, your graduation, or your stereotypes about other people’s education.
    I suggest you have a cold shower.

    I will answer to your comments (Oh yeah, it’s not really answering, because to seem to know in advance everything I could say or think…) tomorrow, it’s getting late and I had a party.

    I prefer talking to Kay, at least she puts her pride in her beliefs and morality, not in herself.

  359. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Kay, I am of the bunch that think you can let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy. Once set upon their course even the wrath of God will not change them.

    So, when you see a bankrupt morality and world view, you sometimes have to make a Chapter 9 and Chapter 22 filing. At least, that has been MY revelation.

    It is not like anything they are proposing is new. I doubt there has been a new thought in liberal theology since they invented the sewage removal or the printing press.

    Most of life is not about doctrines or hate as they suppose. Most of life is about relationship with each other and with that “Intelligent Designer.”

  360. dorian said

    kay, you’re still using the ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ terms for everything.

    as john said,

    ‘Kay, liberalism is a useless political term, much like conservative. If you put everything into separate boxes of “liberal” and “conservative,” certainly do not ever ask a two “liberals” OR two “conservatives” define the meanings of the terms. The terms are too loaded.’ – well put, john.

    kay, you’re naming names here but forgetting some:

    ‘So now can we move on to the actual point? A COMMON liberal belief is that all religions are valid, that it is wrong to say (and actually believe!!) that another’s religion is false. I can name 3 people of this blog alone who believe this to be true. EE, Dorian and Hors. Hors is on a whole different continent, so I think it is safe to say that it is a widespread belief of liberals.

    Put it this way… you won’t find any conservatives believing this erroneous and illogical “doctrine”…

    – so i’ll play your naming names game here. lawman is atheist, but more conservative than you can ever be. he believes that ALL religion, including GOD, is false.
    January 3, 2009 lawman2 said
    ‘i believe in what i can see,touch,feel,smell…not in santa,or your god’

    tothewire is a church-going christian, like you. she does not say anybody’s religion to be false and believes there should be interfaith dialogue : http://enkilleridos.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/interfaith-dialogue/
    and then there’s betty, also princess and walter. all liberals, in your book.

    and sure, maybe religious tolerance is just that widespread, since all of the names mentioned here cover FOUR continents so far. none of the people here, including john, are invalidating anybody’s religion. they are merely asserting their own specific beliefs and concepts of different doctrines and citing historical records and hypotheses, and everybody knows no one is changing their stance. i think in the course of this debate, the attempt being made at invalidation is one that has to do with intellect. but i sense that bottomline, everyone will come out of it with a ‘believe what you want to believe’ (maybe adding a ‘you fool’, in john’s case)attitude. people with something to say should be able to postulate and pontificate to their heart’s desire. and we all learn in the end so everybody wins. i feel another bad poem coming on but you’re all safe for now because i have to get back to being a conscientious capitalist and work the biz. later, gaters!

  361. dorian said

    i guess we were writing comments 357 and 358 at the same time. my trusted dowsing rod was right once again.

    die kapitalistische

  362. kay~ms said

    Dorian, I am still using those terms because they define what I’m concerned with. Like I stated earlier… I’m only concerned with those liberal views that go against Christianity. The views that conservatives do not adopt. And I am talking about majorities here…

    Lawman is a Republican, I’m not sure he could be considered a conservative, especially in the religious sense since he is an atheist.

    TTw as I recall is of the common liberal belief that we shouldn’t say that another religion is wrong. That it is wrong to do so. So I probably should have included her in that list.

    Anyway, I’m not sure what your point is in this instance. I’m talking about the majority, not the exceptions… (in Lawman’s case).

    And you said this which is another major liberal misconception that I have learned about in blogging with the liberally minded people here …

    “and sure, maybe religious tolerance is just that widespread, since all of the names mentioned here cover FOUR continents so far.”

    You are implying that to believe that another’s religion is false equals intolerance! HOW?? That is another one of those ridiculous, erroneous, liberal beliefs!
    Your statement proves and supports my point! Your statement lines up completely with Hors’ statement that believing that another’s religion is false leads to violence. You two are like two liberal peas in a pod!

    To CORRECT another faulty liberal “doctrine”…

    Religious tolerance is respecting another’s right to believe what they choose.

    Religious tolerance DOES NOT require us to respect their actual religion! Do you all see the Anti Christian liberal movement showing itself again???

    Please do not tell me I am wrong for not respecting Mormonism, which IS cult, and is based on doctrines that say that my God is not who He claims to be! Do Not tell me to respect this!!! This is ANTI Christian doctrine!

    But again, I do respect a person’s right to choose to believe in this “religion”. I won’t “tell” them what to believe… I will debate with them and explain why I believe that their “religion” is false… and they are welcome to do the same.

  363. John Lloyd Scharf said

    OUT OF ORDER SAID:
    Still going on with crushing the others with your self-importance it seems, delighting yourself in hammering your A++ marks, your graduation, or your stereotypes about other people’s education.
    I suggest you have a cold shower.

    I will answer to your comments (Oh yeah, it’s not really answering, because to seem to know in advance everything I could say or think…) tomorrow, it’s getting late and I had a party.

    I prefer talking to Kay, at least she puts her pride in her beliefs and morality, not in herself.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    The mention of the A++ grade on the final paper was to tell how an atheist, frothing at the mouth, was egotistical like you. That which you accuse me of is more a reflection of your own pious self-justification and insecurity about your own education than anything to do with me.

    Tomorrow and tomorrow. Tomorrow never comes as fast as your excuses. Time is up. Your excuses are too late. You failed the exam.

  364. ‘ asked how you came to the conclusion that it is impossible to know anything about it. That what you are saying is that a Supreme Being wouldn’t be capable of revealing this information to us.

    Your response: “Well Kay, it would be capable of doing so, but how can we tell if this has in fact happened?”

    So, are you acknowledging that you statement that it is impossible to go any further is incorrect? I’m just trying to be clear. Because it is not impossible. He could show himself to us. If He is capable of I.D., He is capable of showing Himself to us.. you can’t acknowledge the one and not the other.

    So, from there, you ask…”How can we tell if this has in fact happened?” Which I think translates… how do we factually prove that the God of Christianity is the God of Intelligent Design?

    Which then leads us back to my original question to you… “‘I just want to know your logic behind your belief that our inteligent designer isn’t the God of the Bible.’’

    That’s right: being able to show itself is inherent in being powerful enough to be an I.D. It doesn’t take us any further towards knowing about how or whether this has happened.

    Kay, I think you should try and answer my question first. Not only how do we know which of the many I.D s of history, if any, is to be preferred, God or Allah or any of the creation myths, but how to accept, except on the basis of faith alone, that any of them represent a communication between I.d. and humanity?

    Its just as likely that an I.D. might set the ball rolling and leave it there, or go off and create another billion universes and life forms before lunch.

    ‘So now can we move on to the actual point? A COMMON liberal belief is that all religions are valid, that it is wrong to say (and actually believe!!) that another’s religion is false. I can name 3 people of this blog alone who believe this to be true. EE, Dorian and Hors. Hors is on a whole different continent, so I think it is safe to say that it is a widespread belief of liberals.

    Put it this way… you won’t find any conservatives believing this erroneous and illogical “doctrine”.’

    Dorian is right. Look at Lawman. There are plenty of rabidly conservative atheists. I don’t think anyone here says it’s wrong to believe or say that another’s religion is false, more that it’s wrong to say so in terms of heresy, or imply that a religion is evil because of what is done in its name.

  365. John Lloyd Scharf said

    DORIAN CLAIMS:
    January 3, 2009 lawman2 said
    ‘i believe in what i can see,touch,feel,smell…not in santa,or your god’

    I suggest lawman2 does not believe in methane, carbon monoxide, X rays, and dozens of other gases and radiation that cannot be seen, felt, or smelt. I wonder if he can hear a black hole or taste evolution.

    No one has seen, touched, felt, heard, smelt or tasted randomized genesis from millions of years before the existance of Man. It is entirely a construct that seems to fit the evidence as well as a conspiracy theorist does present events.

    In fact, I doubt Lawman ever saw, touched, felt, smelt, heard, or tasted any historical figure. Even those of the 20th century, few of have known of them outside of secondary sources, like pictures, movies, sound recordings, et cetera.

    It is a wonderful, albeit solipsistic, world view.

  366. ‘Please do not tell me I am wrong for not respecting Mormonism, which IS cult, and is based on doctrines that say that my God is not who He claims to be! Do Not tell me to respect this!!! This is ANTI Christian doctrine!

    But again, I do respect a person’s right to choose to believe in this “religion”. I won’t “tell” them what to believe… I will debate with them and explain why I believe that their “religion” is false… and they are welcome to do the same.’

    But Kay, you can’t ‘debate’ with someone with all those exclamation marks and capitals. It makes you look hysterical.If you are secure in your beliefs,as I am sure you are surely there is no need to be so infuriated by anyone else’s, however wrong.

    If that’s the starting point it is all to easy for someone to come along and whip up a group of similar people into the state where they will attack the ‘other’. No one is saying that you would, but it does happen, which is why it is in fact better to be more inclined to say ‘Their way isn’t my way but they are good people and we can live together amicably’ and not to harangue them endlessly.
    That’s liberalism.

  367. dorian said

    john, your skepticism surpasses lawman’s. if he begs to differ he can come down and tell you himself. if you scroll up to the beginning of the thread you can see this atheist’s comments. it seems that you want to make presumptions on even someone who isn’t present and can’t defend himself. everyone here so far has shown temperance and graciousness, especially our non native english speaking guests.they are even apologizing to you on some occasion. why? they show humility. I just wanted to point that out. does anybody else see that? this is just a personal observation.

  368. “THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING JOHN LLOYD SCHARF”
    and other scatological musings.

  369. princessxxx said

  370. kay~ms said

    Hors…

    You said: 1) If they don’t resort to immediate violence, …

    “immediate violence” … Are you saying that we as human beings cannot have disagreements without violence? That is just not true.

    You said: “I don’t see any examples in history when people stopped and tried to understand each other, then decided to fight, knowing perfectly what they were figthing. But I’m no historian.”

    I’m pretty sure that there were many attempts to understand each other in history and war still resulted.

    YOu said (in reference to the requirement to learn all religions in order to know yours is the correct one): “Not all of them, but I think one should have a reasonable overview. Don’t be absolute.”

    I think that most people, including myself do have a reasonable overview of religions other than their own. I know enough about Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, etc to reject them. I don’t NEED to learn anymore. My faith fullfills my needs. One of my needs being the fullfillment of logic and reason.

    I agree that the idea of learning other religions is not a bad one but I don’t feel that I need to do so. The point being.. am I going to hurt someone by not doing so? No. If another religion does promote violence, then I would hope that they would go out and learn other religions that do not promote violence.

    I guess, if you go to a part of the world where the religion does promote violence, then those people, if they look within their hearts will feel the need to look for / learn about other religions… my heart does not tell me to do so as a Christian.

    If my “religion” tells me what Jesus did on the cross is not enough to save me then my heart would tell me to look / learn about other religions.

    I said:
    “It’s spiritual and personal and you cannot tell someone how much they should believe in their faith. And you cannot tell them that they should not believe that other religions are false… you cannot tell someone what to believe or not believe!! This is an erroneous liberal doctrine..”

    You said: “I’m not telling you not believe that other religions are false, I’m telling to believe other religions are false with arguments to say so. Or, perhaps say “As far as I know, which is limited (Like it’s the case for everyone), i believe that the others religions are false”.

    Actually, Hors, this is what you said: “What I said it’s that believing so much in one’s own faith (in whatever, marxism, satan, little green men…) to conclude from that that the others are wrong leads to violence.”

    You are saying that it is wrong to believe that other religions are wrong in the sense that it leads to violence.

    YOu then clearify that we should learn about other relgions before we say that they are wrong….

    So are you saying that if we learn about other religions before we believe in only one that it will not lead to violence? (you’re statements are starting to get confusing / conflicting)

    I don’t think that would be the case with the Radical Islamists for example.

    I still disagree with your stance. I don’t think that we should say that a person is not wrong to choose one religion as long as they do they’re research. It is no one’s place to tell someone how to choose their faith. It’s not like choosing your Political affiliation. And I don’t think that educating ourselves about other religions will stop religious violence. Again, the people that resort to violence don’t care about other’s rights , so learning about other faiths will not make a difference with them.

    I said:
    “it’s not possible to believe in all religions.”

    YOu said:

    Of course it isn’t. Did I said so? Believe in one, but know what some of the others have to say.

    My answer… yes, you did say so…” believing so much in one’s own faith (in whatever, marxism, satan, little green men…) to conclude from that that the others are wrong leads to violence.”

    Your clear implication in this statement is that it is wrong to believe that other’s faiths are wrong because it leads to violence.

    YOu said:

    “Well, it’s not the only one to defies science, that’s why it’s called research^^
    The latest theories about it:
    The matter could maybe only a consequence of the Universe having multiples dimensions, twisting and twirling. When they contract, there’s more matter.
    The matter could come from the energy of the void, which creates and destroy particules all the time.
    The matter could be an illusion, they could maybe be really very little bits of strings.”

    Now you’re being humorous… all of these “theories” start out with existing matter… atheists do this everytime and it makes me laugh… I ask where the first matter came from and I get theories that include existing matter!! It’s funny but it is also kind of sad.

    I know I didn’t address all of your points, any that you still want answers to, please point them out to me, and also could you give me the specific question from the other post that you wanted me to answer?

    Bottom line, your statement did imply that believing that other religions were false was wrong because it leads to violence. It seems that you have since retracted a bit from that statement after thinking about it. But now you are saying that we should research other religions before deciding that ours is correct. And I disagree. Again, it’s not anyone’s place to dictate how others should choose their faith. Maybe, possibly a Political stance or such but not faith. And I don’t believe that religious radicals who commit violent acts will stop if they learn about other faiths.

  371. @John

    I assure you I have a sense of humor and I really do enjoy sarcasm. That comment was designed to be sarcastic to a point. Where the holy trinity is concerned, it did originate with the pagan maiden, mother, crone aspect of Beltaine. Unfortunately Constantine cannot take credit for that because the trinity theory was denounced as herecy by the Council of Nicea. It was not until the second Council of Nicea in 787 CE that the trinity was introduced.

    as to lawman’s statement, we can detect methane and carbon monoxide in the air with equipment. In fact it is the only way. As methane gas after extracted from the waste does not really have a smell the smell is added (much like propane) by man as a safety feature to detect leaks. So he should believe in those things. However, we do not have any equipment to detect the divine or even physically prove that alternate realities and such actually exist. Which is what I believe he means. But we may never know since he has been inactive since my birthday. I do hope he is alright. All of those examples you have given can be proved to have existed at one time. Noah’s Ark has been proved to exist. As you can actually physically touch it and see the documentary etc. These things can be proven. But the idea of God and Heaven cannot be proved as of yet.

    This is my thoughts on God. There may be one divine being that everything comes from. That being formless. The source of all things, this being is good, bad, neutral. This being is everything and yet nothing. Many have come to this conclusion and spent many years trying to explain this idea. This is where I believe religion came from. As a way to explain something that is really unexplainable and in our current forms we could not even fathom it. I also believe that we can attain a higher plane of existence, not being God since all things go back to that being and that being starts the cycle over again and we are apart of that. But when we attain that higher plane of existence human beings in particular could view us as Gods. Even though we are truly not. I believe that the universe is in cycles similar to how Buddhism teaches about the cycle of rebirth. Birth, life, death, rebirth. And how attaining the state of mind that is Buddha or enlightened one, Buddha is not a god, nor do Buddhists actually worship the many that have attained enlightenment. Buddhism teaches that everyone has that potential. I do not think once you reach this enlightened stage you just become nothing. That in itself is impossible. I just think Nirvana, Shangrala, or what have you is the next step in our spiritual journey. And we continue to move on to the divine being become one with it and start the cycles all over again. These are my core beliefs, based on research on different religions and practices. I learn new things all the time and with that new knowledge I expand it. I believe that everyone’s beliefs are their own and in a way are apart of one universal truth. So they are true. Even though I like to debate the semantics of religion. My goal in debating things I have learned with other people is to try to get them to think that there maybe more. That there is more to the current I.D. than we really believe. I believe I can prove I.D. and I believe it has been shown to us through science, which is a tool nothing more. If you think about it there is proof that can be seen. Contrary to kay’s belief. Look at how the moon’s gravity affects all water, including the water that makes us up. How when the moon’s cycles of revolving around the Earth can be seen and does affect the planet. You can expound that with our orbit around the sun and if that sun ever expanded even slightly everything will be out of balance and life ceases. Just an example, but to me it validates the idea of an I.D. even if we do not know the whole picture we can see a little spoke or cog of this design. But this is my beliefs attack it if you want. I cannot prove it to be true, but to me it is. And that is what is important. If what is true in your heart of hearts is that I am completely wrong then that is true to you. But I will not go back on my convictions because someone else tells me they think I am wrong. I do not expect someone else to go back on their convictions unless they have room for doubt.

    And Kay Christian Doctrine also says to respect and love thy neighbor. Would you cease to love thy neighbor because they are Mormon or Pagan or Jewish and will not convert? Because if you cease to love thy neighbor because of such things that too is Anti-Christian doctrine. Believe it or not tolerance is apart of the Christian Doctrine. Jesus even told in a parable the word can be spoken to but sometimes will fall on deaf ears, for whatever reason that may be. He never once said attack or shun your neighbors because they refute the message. Any preacher or church that teaches otherwise is Anti-Christian doctrine as far as I am concerned. “Love thy neighbor is the Lord’s greatest commandment.” Jesus taught that. Jesus said exactly that to his apostles. And tolerance has no place in Christianity? Have you ever read your own bible?

  372. The problem is Kay: if I.D. is material,it must also have an origin. If not then any matter it creates has come out of nothing,just as you accuse those who believe in non-intervention of saying.

  373. Enkill_Eridos said

    Betty the problem with proving whether all like came from nothing or a single organism is this. In order to find the fossils that would prove the origin of life on Earth it would be pretty close to the earths crust, more likely fossils that are beneath the ocean’s floor. Since man tends to look up and not down for answers. I do not think that either theory will be proven or disproven any time soon. Although I do think, it is possible for life to have spawned from a single organism. Or through transference. The fact is though the fossils that would prove that may be in our gas tanks at the moment. Since we have seen through fossils how species adapt to new conditions, and therefore evolve in order to cope with the new environment. We can only date these fossils so far. Scientists believe that there are older fossils that can be found.

    @kay

    How is it impossible to believe in all religions? I believe that every religion I have studied thus far has truth to it and they all are apart of one truth. The golden rule and karma are basically the same thing. The only differences in religions really are the afterlife dogma’s. But they are all so similar as well. I say it is possible, just improbable or impractical to most that want to fit in with society today, or specific social circles.

  374. princessxxx said

    e_e , noah’s ark existed? i didn’t see that documentary.

    got that link?

    i watched something the other nite that showed that it would be impossible to have 2 of every animal on that size of a boat.
    that story has always been myth to me. i’m curious to see what you are referring to.

  375. John Lloyd Scharf said

    princessxxx said
    July 16, 2009 at Thursday, July 16, 2009
    “THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING JOHN LLOYD SCHARF”
    and other scatological musings.

    Did you feel better after writing that? Does taking cheap shots at others increase your self-worth? Regardless of your concerns about about whether I am good or bad – evil or good, did that add to your stature? If so, I am happy for you because it did you good and I lost nothing at all.

  376. princessxxx said

    i don’t know john, does taking cheap shots make you feel better?
    that is all you seem to be doing?

    how’s your self worth? point & giggle.’

    you talk a lot of bullshit.

  377. I hear Coventry’s nice this time of year.

  378. princessxxx said

    it most have gotten your panties in a bunch enough that you had to comment on it.

  379. princessxxx said

    http://www.visitcoventryandwarwickshire.co.uk/

  380. John Lloyd Scharf said

    princessxxx said
    July 16, 2009 at Thursday, July 16, 2009
    e_e , noah’s ark existed? i didn’t see that documentary.

    got that link?

    i watched something the other nite that showed that it would be impossible to have 2 of every animal on that size of a boat.
    that story has always been myth to me. i’m curious to see what you are referring to.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    How do you know what size the Ark was??? The measurements are in cubits are based on the size of the body of the person making measurements. Typically, a cubit is taken to be about 18 inches, or half a meter long. That is about the length from the elbow to the knuckles. For a person near nine feet tall, that would be just under a meter. If a cubit were almost a meter, then the Ark would be larger than a super tanker.

    Many species of canids are just a variety of one “dog.” Look at all the variety there is in the domesticated dog. There are hundreds and they look like anything from a chuhuahua to an Irish wolfhound. There are pigeons/doves that are so far apart in what they look like that they were given different species and even family names.

    Given that we have no idea how long ago this was (with apologies to a certain Bishop), any amount of time could have passed from the “Great Flood” to now. There could have been some diversities created in the species, for you fans of evolution.

    It could have been at least 70,000 years ago at least, depending on how much nitrogen was in the atmosphere for the last eon. If there was less nitrogen, then there would have been less carbon-14 created. When nitrogen is bombarded with cosmic radiaton, it is changed into carbon-14.

    If that happens less, then less carbon-14 is created. Carbon-14 dating says a thing is older when there is less carbon-14. If there were less nitrogen at the edge the atmosphere to be irradiated, then objects would be dated older than they actually are.

    We have no absolute way to determine how much nitrogen was free in the atmosphere because all other things would be equal. There IS some evidence that plant life did free up nitrogen from minerals that did not originally exist. Therefore, there is more nitrogen now than there was originally.

    You may now go back to molesting Schrödinger’s cat.

  381. John Lloyd Scharf said

    dorian said
    July 16, 2009 at Thursday, July 16, 2009
    DORIAN CLAIMED:
    john, your skepticism surpasses lawman’s. if he begs to differ he can come down and tell you himself. if you scroll up to the beginning of the thread you can see this atheist’s comments. it seems that you want to make presumptions on even someone who isn’t present and can’t defend himself. everyone here so far has shown temperance and graciousness, especially our non native english speaking guests.they are even apologizing to you on some occasion. why? they show humility. I just wanted to point that out. does anybody else see that? this is just a personal observation.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I made no presumptions that Lawman was not present. Why did you?

    I have seen no “humility” from your non-native speakers. I do not mistake sarcasm for humility.

    My thought is that if you bring the comments of another into a discussion, then you give up control over the response made to your contentions.

    I see that now I am moderated. I said I would teach you patience. That which is not tried is not learned. It is not MY “panties” that are in a bunch after all.

    HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

  382. princessxxx said

    well, jo-llo, i understand perfectly what a cubit is. i’ve known that since a child.
    and if it wasn’t enough for you that i know what a cubit is, the professors in the documentary explained all of the measurements fully.

    now, explain how you know that noah was 9ft tall.

    oh, that’s right, i forget, you know everything.

    well if there ever is a billion tornadoes tearing thru a billion mobile home parks over a period of a billion years. i hope one of those mobile homes is yours.

  383. Princess: he can’t hear you. He is in Coventry.

  384. princessxxx said

    oh, poor Coventry. maybe it is nice this time of year, but if Jo-Llo is there i think i will make my holiday plans for SouthBeach.
    (and just an aside between you and me, Betty, I don’t think he hears much. it can be difficult to listen when all you do is run your mouth)

  385. princessxxx said

    Jo-LLo, kay is the one responsible for moderation of this post. i have nothing to do with it.
    and i’m not wearing panties.

  386. Here’s something to mull over from
    http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/anthropic.htm

    ‘The probabilities of the Universe being just so that humans could live in it have, by some of the proponents of Theistic Anthropic Principle (TAP), been calculated to be so absurdly low that they say we may safely assume this could never have happened by chance. However, TAP is not unchallenged, and I will now give an overview of the ways in which it has been attacked.’

    in part he says:
    TAP contains a logical error in its use of probabilities

    One of the premises of TAP is that, if a universe comes into existence naturally, the probability of it being ‘fine-tuned’ is very low. In logical notations this statement can be written as P(F|N)<<1, with N = the universe came about in a natural way, F = the universe is fine-tuned, and P(a|b) meaning: the probability that a is true, given that b is true. A probability of 1 is a certainty, a probability much lower than 1 (<<1) means that its happening is very unlikely. Then TAP claims that since this is so, it must also be so that, if a universe is 'fine-tuned', the probability of it coming into existence naturally is very low. But this is an entirely different statement that does not logically follow from the first one. This second statement is P(N|F)<<1, which is evidently different from the first. Is it good reasoning to exchange N and F in such a probability statement? 'This … is an elementary if common blunder in probability theory. One cannot simply exchange the two arguments in a probability like P(F|N) and get a valid result.' [5] As an example, take F = 'I have a Royal Flush' and N = 'I will win this poker hand'. If F is true, N will almost certainly be true too, so P(N|F) = 1. But if N is true, F will most likely be false (since a Royal Flush is very unlikely), so P(F|N)<= P(N|L).

    The chance that a universe in which we observe both life and fine-tuned constants is natural, is equal to or greater than the chance that a universe in which we observe life (and have not looked for fine-tuning) is natural. This result shows that seeing that our Universe is fine-tuned, in addition to the fact that there is life in it, can only increase the chance that it is natural! The fine-tuning argument should not be used by theists, but by atheists! [5]

    Conclusion

    The Theistic Anthropic Principle fails in many ways: it assumes that fine-tuning is possible though this is not proven; it is carbocentric and biocentric and thus fails to show that our Universe is special; it uses faulty analogies between things in the Universe and the Universe itself (which is the set of all things); it assumes that God is the best explanation for the Anthropic Coincidences, though this is not true; it fails to take probability densities into account, and thus cannot show that our Universe is unlikely; it is based on a ‘lottery’ misconception of probability and it uses wrong logic to come from ‘A natural universe is unlikely to be fine-tuned’ to ‘A fine-tuned universe is unlikely to be natural’. Finally, it has been shown that observing fine-tuning can only increase the probability that our Universe is natural, and can never decrease it. I conclude that TAP is sufficiently refuted, and the last observation shows that it could even be used as an atheistic argument.

  387. John Lloyd Scharf said

    princessxxx whinned:

    well, jo-llo, i understand perfectly what a cubit is. i’ve known that since a child.
    and if it wasn’t enough for you that i know what a cubit is, the professors in the documentary explained all of the measurements fully.

    now, explain how you know that noah was 9ft tall.

    oh, that’s right, i forget, you know everything.

    well if there ever is a billion tornadoes tearing thru a billion mobile home parks over a period of a billion years. i hope one of those mobile homes is yours.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Why would Noah NOT be nine feet tall? What is to keep Noah and family from growing to the maximum height for a human? They had the best of foods and no disease, right? They were only a few generations away from the original model with no genetic defects.

    Of course, you can keep your running sarcasm going about me being a know-it-all, but I never claimed that. I never claimed to “understand perfectly what a cubit is.” That bit of perfection is all yours.

  388. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Kay, am I confused? Did these athiests not claim the high ground for not being violent? And then I see this:

    oh, that’s right, i forget, you know everything.

    well if there ever is a billion tornadoes tearing thru a billion mobile home parks over a period of a billion years. i hope one of those mobile homes is yours.

    Oh! I get it! That was their “humor.”

  389. princessxxx said

    the best food and no disease? were are you getting that from?

    well, first of all i don’t believe the Noah story,
    but according to the bible, the “days of Noah” were the worst of times.
    and the earth was infected with alien hybrid giants, but i don’t think Noah was one of them.
    in any case, god or I.D. whatever apparently was grieved that they had made such a terrible mistake.
    funny, i would think the omnipotent would have seen that one coming.

    kay i have to hand it to you, your pal Jo-Llo makes everything you say sound reasonable and even polite in comparison.

    i think Jo-Llo is just being a sockpuppet.
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sockpuppet

  390. princessxxx said

    oh you see, there you go again. making all your “arguments” pointless.

    i never claimed higher ground or that i was not violent.
    you just go putting words in everyones mouth.

    i’m betting your professor gave you that A++ that you are so proud of, just to keep you from taking the course over again.

  391. http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

    Creationists often claim that the chances of a modern enzyme forming by random means are astronomically small, and therefore the chances of a complete bacterium (which is composed of hundreds or thousands of such enzymes & proteins) is so near to impossible that it would never happen in the 13 billion years or so since the universe took shape.

    The main problem with this argument is that it assumes abiogenesis (the initial formation of life from simpler molecules) was a totally random process. It also assumes that in order for abiogenesis to be successful, a complete microbe would have had to form spontaneously. In fact, the same non-random forces which propel biological evolution also propelled abiogenesis. Specifically, Natural Selection.

    The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have?

    If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.

    Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.

    For example, the simplest self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.

    Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

    In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.

  392. What do the scientists think the chances are of there being an interventionist god? Higher or lower than 1 in 1040?

  393. princessxxx said

    an interventionits god? sounds like a trick question.
    and what would be an interventionist god anyway?
    one that makes sure that out of the billion mobile homes, only Jo-Llo’s is destroyed?

  394. princessxxx said

    oh betty, your video was “removed due to terms of use violation”

  395. Whoops. Moderator, kindly remove that. The moderation is very erratic isn’t it? Moderation always is: here one minute gone the next….but let’s try:
    v

  396. princessxxx said

    well, that is a beautiful song. nick cave is a honey.
    perfect music to go to bed to,
    goodnite. sleep well.

  397. kay~ms said

    Betty said: “That’s right: being able to show itself is inherent in being powerful enough to be an I.D. It doesn’t take us any further towards knowing about how or whether this has happened.”

    It won’t take you further towards knowing if you don’t look. Didn’t you critisize believers earlier for accepting I.D. because it give us an excuse to not look further? Comment 192.

    You said: “Kay, I think you should try and answer my question first. Not only how do we know which of the many I.D s of history, if any, is to be preferred, God or Allah or any of the creation myths, but how to accept, except on the basis of faith alone, that any of them represent a communication between I.d. and humanity?

    I can’t tell you how to do it other than by faith… look with an open mind and give God a chance. And also use your logic and reason.

    “Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door will be opened”.

    But with many non believers they want proof before they will believe. They don’t want to look for Him, they want Him to come to them “if He exists”.

    “Its just as likely that an I.D. might set the ball rolling and leave it there, or go off and create another billion universes and life forms before lunch.”

    I disagree… that might be one scenerio but certainly not “just as likely”. It’s more sensible that our Creator has made Himself known to us.

  398. kay~ms said

    EE… I never said that I didn’t love Mormons (or other non Christians). I just don’t believe in the “gospel” of Joseph Smith. I believe it is against God. I hope that I am not “attacking and shunning my neighbors who do not believe in Jesus. If I am, I am wrong. I don’t believe that I am doing so by disagreeing with their “religion”.

    You asked: “How is it impossible to believe in all religions?”

    Because non Christian “religions” have beliefs that say Jesus is not who He said He was. And Jesus is the only way for us to be saved. He is the only one who has given His life for us so that we can be saved. If He is not who He said He was then what He did on the cross would not save us.

  399. Walter Muller said

    Hi everybody, time is not the same for us all, where I am it is 8 o’ clock in the morning now. Betty I have read some of the stuff you gave the links on, and it is good science, nothing wrong with it, although I have to add that John have a much better scientific mind than me, (this is a compliment John).

    The question we all ask everyday everywhere on this planet is the same as the question we on this blog are asking and trying to answer now. Show God to me, show me the I.D, show me my creator, we even go on our knees many a time, some physically, others mentally and we beg, we cry; please god/God/my creator, we call that entity many different names, some of which I cannot even express verbally, Just show me/us in some manner that you are out there give me some proof.

    And it just don’t happen! Some get answers, they pray that a friend or family member may get well from illnes, and that person get well, another pray that he/she will be able to afford a better home, and it happens, and then those people say, my God exist, he gave me this or that. Others also receive it but they see their own and the suppliers hand in it, and thank each other. But in spite of all that God still have not shown Himself to them, yes in the Old Testament of the Bible he did, but the believer have difficulty in convincing the guy who saw his own hand in his wellbeing, because God was here two thousand plus years ago, and the guy who sees his own hand in things also see some serious discrepencies in the Bible, the reason being that he/she do not read that book with a religious mind anymore, but with a logical one.
    Before the religious guys get angry or feel that they might be trodden on again, allow me to explain, this is going to be a lengthy explanation, and only my opinion, not a new world truth, I respect your points of view, and your religion, it is not a bad one, as Kay said; according to her probably the best one, and you might be correct Kay.

    As far as the atheists are concerned, they accept that life exist, but they just do not agree that the creator of it is the God of the Old Testament, that guy was pretty destructive, and I agree with them on that. Betty mentioned that micro organisms live and procreate and evolve, and he is perfectly right, the thing however that puzzles him and others is that these micro organisms “live”, it has life, a simple concept, but unexplainable! Is it unexplainable? The Cristian say yes it is, God gave it life, and they are correct, but the atheist do not like that God, neither do the Satanist and many other religions.

    The answer to this difference of opinion is once again in the Bible! This book cannot be discarded by nobody, it is probably one of the best books ever written, compiled by some of the greatest brains that ever walked this planet. Also containing very well hidden secrets. Jesus, probably the most controversial figure who ever lived are portrayed for the religious man as the son of the God of the Old Testament, for the non religious man he is the personification of everything he do not believe in.

    Should one however look at this book as a source of knowledge, you start to find different things, and different meanings in the words and sentences in this book. Some will not like what I am going to say now, all I can say to them is this, try to understand, try to see your oppositions pain and cries of help, you yourselves are lucky in the sense that you already know half a truth, what you are going to read now is another kind of truth, but not the same as yours, but derived from your source also. I will not use quotes only similar words or references.

    Firstly Jesus said; you have believed in the Devil (a false god) since the beginning, the beginning means the beginning, since Adam and Eve. He also said this world do not know his father, but will do so if they take his word, and his father also did not know this world but now do through him, which comes down to this, religion as is portrayed in the Old Testament is incorrect/false, he Jesus stated this many times, I do not even have to tell you where, most of the atheists know the Christian Bible better than the Christians, which explains their cries of despair. Jesus also said this or something similar; man’s power is of no use at all, without spirit nothing can live, then the bible gives an explanation; “if you recieve the holy spirit you will understand everything” Is that explanation correct? Jesus gave us some advice with that statement, we can create all we like but if the creator do not approve of that creaton it will not live, meaning, he the I.D decides what to put spirit in and what not. The ateists I think will be able to accept that. Was that not perhaps what Jesus tried to tell us, but he went further and explained that should we understand what he were trying to convey we would eventually become a part of the unseen which is the driving force of all you can see, feel, touch and smell.

    when we look at that micro organism under the microscope we see it lives, but we cannot see what drives it, what drives it is spirit, from where we stand it must be a very new spirit, because we are able to control it, is it possible that you or me could have started where that small micro organism is now, talking spiritually, the spirit in you could have been in such a small thing once, just think of the immense knowledge you have now, locked away not accessable because religion or the fear of God have prevented us to even think of such a possibility.

    This was what I meant in a previous post when I said perhaps the I.D is waiting for us to wake up to all the possibilities, Jesus called it “open your eyes and ears so that I can heal you” give us more understanding compassion to not play God once we “see”.

    Do you now understand John, Kay and all the Christians out there, we are in this together some have certain knowledge others have other knowledge, combine it and we can find “love your neighbour” and “honour and love our creator”, is that not a better I.D to believe in?

  400. Enkill_Eridos said

    some really good stuff. I also invited the person that did the video to be an author. Since we do need his particular view point. I must remind everyone that this blog was created to have multiple points of view. It is also based on Tolerance.

    @kay
    I already explained an example of how I.D. is found now in the way things work on a cosmic level. Things are really way too precise for there to not to be an I.D. I do not believe there is an I.D. for each individual as we are all apart of a greater whole. Us existing and thinking how we think acting how we act completes that greater whole and thus helps completing this mysterious I.D. The real question you two are debating is WHO is the one behind the I.D. and I already left my thoughts about that.

  401. John Lloyd Scharf said

    i’m betting your professor gave you that A++ that you are so proud of, just to keep you from taking the course over again.

    All I needed was a pass at that point, but the context of that post made that obvious. I was making a point about the Marxist-Leninist (atheist) having a extremely biased and narrow viewpoint. For him, Christianity/Capitalism were his Satan and Max Weber was his idea of the false profit.

    Anyone who wanted to pass his course had to regurgitate his propaganda. I was in my late 20s and objected to him making a sociology class into a class on Marxism. I never had anyone preach religion to me in school. The fact that I, a Vietnam Vet and taxpayer, had to finish this course. I would not have committed myself to it if I had known. The course description was deceptive.

    I had known the University of Oregon would be a hotbed of liberalism. What I did not know was that they would have instructors that frothed at the mouth and made a one sermon Hellfire-And-Damnation preacher seem broadminded.

    If you want to keep revisiting this subject, I am more than willing to discuss how Harry Humphries turned his podium into an anti-Christian pulpit and how I recorded his “lectures” so as to get what he was saying.

    In fact, though, much of what he was saying was mindlessly repetitive rhetoric, much like your attempts to bait me.

  402. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Betty, the smallest lifeform in existance is 159,662 base pairs. Your information is propaganda.

  403. dorian said

    walter, John, are you familiar with the ELS (Equidistant Letter Sequence)in the torah? your opinions?

  404. Enkill_Eridos said

    @john
    I try to bait everyone because I want to know peoples real convictions. I also like to know where all the buttons are. You don’t have an instruction manual so I have to press randomly. I enjoyed it. I am a Sadist I know. I also shared my core beliefs with you and in turn I have learned a lot. Of course my initial false prophet comment was towards Bill Keller’s claim he was the prophet of God.

    @kay
    Not all non-Christians believe as you say. Careful on that one. Non-Christian religions do not really talk about other religions specifically. It is more of a broad term 99% of the time. It is those pesky individuals with individual thoughts. Just because someone denies the Christian Church does not mean they deny the main idea behind the religion. Are you saying that even though LDS does accept Jesus into thier hearts EXACTLY like every other christian does that they are not saved? Because it is different than yours? Are you implying that one can only be saved if they are a member of a recognized church? Are you also implying that if one rejects the church but accepts Jesus they are not saved? How can you make these judgments when no man is fit to judge? This includes Bill Keller. He does not shit roses and he is not a prophet. And you do not have to say that you hate something, because sometimes your “actions” and the way you write something about a certain religion could convey that there is some hatred or dislike towards those people. Even if they accept Jesus as their Lord and savior. No where in the New Testament does it say that Mormons are against God, or Catholics are against God, etc. etc. And I can flip the coin around as I have been in my attempts to bait John. And say the Jews believe that Christianity is a cult and that it is not of God. They do have some real compelling arguments to that fact. But the Torah and Talmud does not say specifically Christianity or Islam is a false religion. The ones that are saying that is the individuals. Of course neither the Torah, Talmud, or the christian testament say that they are not. But it can be inferred that tolerance is needed to accept those people as God’s Children even if they reject him. It is also inferred that you do this to show that you are of a higher character and follow God’s Will. Which scripturally is his commandments to his people. There are over 600 of those. The most famous are those ten that preachers like to preach about. If anything in the bible is God’s Will it is his commandments. One of those is love thy neighbor. This didn’t mean physically but to accept your neighbor as apart of God’s creation. I was just trying to remind you the difference between neighbor and organization. I do not hate Bill Keller, but I do not like some claims he claims which the bible says to shun people that makes such claims. Lots of contradiction but still. Bill Keller the man I tolerate. But Bill Keller the preacher I do not.

  405. Well said Enkill.Why not ban anyone who says ANYTHING insulting for a week? Courtesy isn’t so hard.
    Insult could include sarcasm, condescension, and speaking scornfully of others’ expression or intellectual wherewithal.Princess will just have to pull her head in: or she can have a dispensation as court jester

  406. Walter Muller said

    Hi Drian, no unfortunately I am not aware of the ELS in the Torah, maybe John knows something about it. You can give a quick explanation if you know or an idea, always good to find new things.

  407. Walter Muller said

    Hi Dorian, my apologies for the spelling of your name, sometimes the keys need an extra prompt.

  408. Now I’m really confused.. How is baiting someone tolerance?

  409. If there is no creator, let’s say, as a ‘thought experiment’, and there is life, as there is, then its improbability is irrelevant, because it has happened.
    Presumably the probability or otherwise of there being an I.D. isn’t calculated as being in inverse proportion to the probability of life being naturally occurring, but according to how probable it is that it exists.Otherwise if we weren’t here to worry about this stuff, even if the Creator existed but didn’t happen to have got around to doing any creating yet, the probability of its existence would be zero.

    No? Oh well: I always was terrible at Maths. When I was studying for my degree….oh let’s not go there.

  410. Walter Muller said

    Hi Dorian, I googled ELS, and found it exist but as with Drosnans book one cannot correctly determine hidden codes due to word alterations and changes in spelling etc as the Torah was updated over time, same as with the Bible, it seems accurate use of it is not possible.

  411. its tolerance because I am NOT saying you are completely wrong and you are an idiot, nor have I ment anything to be taken as such. And the mere fact that I as a Moderator do not allow such behavior. I do not condone banning because oh your views are different than mine. The reasons I would ban someone is because of overly lewd behaviors or links to lewd websites. As this is a PG website and I see it as rather a bunch of intellegent people conveying thier views through statements and rebuttles. Which is what a debate is. Betty I do have to say your views are compelling and I was conveying my views on the matter. There are some points I agree on, I do not think creationism as it is taught happened. I think that the creation myths was more of a metaphor and it was a way for man to explain the unexplainable. Later that turned from creating religion to studying the natural world. That is called science. Me jumping in on yours and Kays discussion was kind of brutish. For that I apologize. I am not saying you are wrong I just put my beliefs on the table. I like to think I am neutral because I see both sides to the argument. I am not defending either’s points of view just my own. Someone else’s point of view cannot be my own so I cannot take any other side than my own. Which I tend to think is in the middle. I am neutral in most things sometimes I am not;however, that is the human condition. Now here is my question because I really want to know the answer. If there is a higher being with an Intellegent Design, wouldn’t that design include something that is alot more than this one insignficant speck of a planet? Furthermore do you think it is possible that this designer just put the building blocks of life, atoms and whatever else makes life, well life. In hopes that life will happen as it is designing a bigger picture like a multiverse with near infinite space? Just like a seed not every seed germinates but you hope the one you planted will. Is it possible that we were one of the many seeds put down in hopes that it would germinate? Forget man already tried to explain this. I want to know your answers.

    @Dorian
    I feel hurt you would not ask me about the ELS. It is a subject that interests me. I do not have a lot of knowledge on the subject; however, I would like to know what you have to say on the matter. Since I know it is a huge topic make a post of it and hopefully we will migrate from here to there to debate about the theory.

    @everyone else particularly site admins, and authors
    Get your fill of posting comments on this particular article. I feel that over 300 comments is beating a dead horse and the author needs to write new material and has enough ideas from everyone else to do so. Unless I am outvoted by the other moderators. I now put this up to a vote of the admins. Do we close the ability to comment on this particular post to allow others to post on other comments? Or do we keep the posting open. Vote now by post now. gogogogogo. Of course we are not total authoritarians even though in this case we should be. The readers Vote by post now as well. gogogogogo.

    @Walter
    It is possible if you use the ancient texts. Fortunatly the ancient texts, due to the Hebrew people’s excellent skill at being able to preserve scrolls, are readable. As the Torah has been updated the Hebrew people has kept each revision up to close to the original. And there are linguists who study and are fluent in the ancient writings. The site you pulled up is actually misinformed. Since each revision of the Torah is revised to the modern way the language is used it is not revised as the Christian bible is. It is revised by retranslatio of the ancient texts. This is to insure complete accuracy.

  412. I agree completely: I have been thinking so for a few days. It’s common and sensible practice to close a thread when it has run on and got a bit enervated like this one. Truly thou art a wise and just moderator.

  413. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Dorian, there has been more than one television show on the “Bible Code.” From a strictly intellectual viewpoint, I have doubts. It could be valid, but you might be able to get some of the same things from the Badghavita. I could give you a better Tarot reading than their results.

    From a spiritual viewpoint, it is false. The Bible is an interesting history and has some directions for living, but without the Holy Spirit, it goes no further than that. I would not call myself a Christian, though. I am a believer who has known the filling of the Holy Spirit. You can never deny it, once you have had it.

    Unlike many of those who are Believers and are saved, I will suffer the Second Death. I also am certain this is just. I can turn my back on God, but I cannot deny God or mock God. I do not lie to myself about God. You all can play that intellectual game with yourselves as atheists. It is an interesting exercise, but totally vain and useless. So is worshipping the creation instead of the Creator. The Bible is part of creation, but it is not meant to be worshipped.

    For the Random Creation folks, it would be a natural operation to be predicted by pure chance. For me, it is irrelevant at BEST.

  414. John Lloyd Scharf said

    bettyslocombe said
    July 16, 2009 at Thursday, July 16, 2009
    Well said Enkill.Why not ban anyone who says ANYTHING insulting for a week? Courtesy isn’t so hard.
    Insult could include sarcasm, condescension, and speaking scornfully of others’ expression or intellectual wherewithal.Princess will just have to pull her head in: or she can have a dispensation as court jester

    Feel free to ban yourself for a week.

  415. Call it a last sally,

  416. e_e, thanks for that link to the ark.

    i don’t recall exactly what program i was watching the other nite (medication), but it debunked what is featured in that video as well.
    i was going to look it up and make a post about that, but, i think a change of pace is a good idea. something with little or no religious implications.

    a great idea to invite the gentleman that did the video to be an author. a real different viewpoint than what we have at the moment.

    button pushing. genetic? learned? a god given right? i dunno, but we are all so guilty sometimes. hehe

    and betty, thanks, i cherish my job as court jester and i would hate to have to give it up, or worse, be beheaded.

  417. dorian said

    okay everybody, lots of good topics out there for a next debate. compelling as it is, let’s try and veer off the origin of species/religion/bible (save for the historical or archaelogical aspect of it) /abortion and such – and any other beaten and dead equine topics. as you can see the thread has passed the 400 mark. for the sake of diversity and the attention deficit disordered, and i’m sure it ain’t just me, let’s all prey on something else. let’s make like moses and exodus from this page. we’re all creative, intelligent, knowledgeable. so throw out some topics. here are some:

    mythical characters or places: could they have existed? (atheists, bite your tongues) like king arthur or atlantis or lemuria, king solomon’s mines, for example

    who do you think is the best band ever and why?

    what do you think is the best movie ever made and why?

    do ghosts exist? if yes, provide evidence. if no, provide debunking evidence.

    nostradamus, the ‘bible code’, edgar cayce, aleistair(sic) crowley, houdini,

    etc., etc….

    everybody has an expertise, so give.

  418. princessxxx said

    & lets place bets on our posts since there is nothing else to bet on.

    highest trender for a week? month?

    the numbers are fascinating but too low, swastika is #1 for a while. kay, this post is doing really well. and

    http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/07/11/satan-worshipper-bill-keller-says-michael-jackson-is-in-hell/

    numbers are pleasing me just fine.
    everything is a game to me lately, hehe

    and try to play nice ;)

  419. dorian said

    e_e, i asked walter and john because at that point of the thread they were the ones i saw. yes, it makes sense that ELS is something you’d be familiar with!

    john, i still have to meet a veritable tarot reader. maybe you? got a 1-800 number?

    there’s room for more than one court jester so betty and princess are appointed. i’d like to be bard, first i have to procure a lute. guitar doesn’t cut it.

    re. getting moderated – there are certain wordpress programming dictates that somehow throws comments straight into the holding and spam buckets, we don’t know them all but two i know of are multiple links and some profanity. site rating has to do with the latter. and of course those with editing and administrative powers can have their way with anything. there are two present and another two invisible at the moment on this site. sometimes those moderators are busy and forget to check the buckets for retrieval of non-spam comments. that’s why your precious words sometimes don’t show up.

  420. princessxxx said

    yes, betty has a wonderful comment in spam.

    libras are the best comedians. throughout history.

    i like this:

    http://www.cfcl.com/ching/

    it is the perfect example of Interpretation.

  421. dorian said

    p – don’t get me started on the betting. i’m abstaining for a week.
    anyone have absinthe? hors? how about in svizzera – flay, where are you?

  422. princessxxx said

    http://www.cfcl.com/cgi-bin/i_ching

    this was my reading: standstill (stagnation)

    so true

  423. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Dorian sarcastically said:

    john, i still have to meet a veritable tarot reader. maybe you? got a 1-800 number?

    Tarot is like reading the astrology signs in the newspaper, for the most part. Read any of those predictions and it is highly likely it will fit the situation, if you are a “believer.”

    However, there is a way of using Tarot in much the same way some psychologists use Rorschach inkblots. It is more about drawing out what you know. My thought is that subconcious everyone refers to is connected to a way of knowing that is more like intuition.

    You hear things you forget. You know things you want to forget. There may even be a part of us connected to God that we are ignoring on the concious level (guilt vs conviction), but for the most part, it is more a natural function of thinking than some supernatural prophesy. If you think it is occult, you should stay away from it. It tends to become what you think it is. If you give a thing too much worth, you are worshipping it.

    But, then, what do I know. I am one of those know-it-alls who actually thinks when people have pangs of a conscience, then that it is a conviction of the Holy Spirit. Along that line, when people have “intuition” about a thing that comes true, that it is an inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

    When someone creates, discovers, or invents something, it is a talent given by the Holy Spirit. In that realm, the original builders of the Tabernacle were given those talents as artisans for the workmanship needed. Like all those talents, it is not one we pick or even would pick.

    In direct answer to your question, though, no. I do not have a 1-800 or even a 1-900 number. I only talk to friends face-to-face. If I have to work, then I charge $40 an hour, even if I only wash dishes.

  424. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Princess preened and claimed:

    libras are the best comedians. throughout history.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    And here I thought they were just noobs and trolls……

  425. princessxxx said

    “Hey… want to hear a great one liner?… ready?… Liberals for Christ… I know, I know… your sides are hurting …. mine too..”

    you know, kay, it was you the set the tone of this thread. that is what you said as the first line of your post.

    it starts off condescending with a joke..a bad joke..but a joke.
    and then, you say, all joking aside no more jokes. are you kidding?
    betty & i are le tribunal bouffons.

    hors service.

    s’il vous plaît revenir.

    nous sommes tous fatigués de l’agresseur.

    la fastidieuse tyran

  426. princessxxx said

    john lloyd scharf moaned & groaned & belched & farted and said:

    “I have to work, then I charge $40 an hour, even if I only wash dishes.”

    that sounds like something a “pretty woman” hooker would say.
    but i doubt he is either one of those.

  427. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Princess Power Whined:
    s’il vous plaît revenir.

    nous sommes tous fatigués de l’agresseur.

    la fastidieuse tyran
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Peut-être vous ne pouvez pas le prendre aussi bien que vous aimez le bomber dehors.

  428. princessxxx said

    i’m doing just fine.

  429. John Lloyd Scharf said

    princessxxx advertized.

    July 16, 2009 at Thursday, July 16, 2009
    john lloyd scharf moaned & groaned & belched & farted and said:

    “I have to work, then I charge $40 an hour, even if I only wash dishes.”

    that sounds like something a “pretty woman” hooker would say.
    but i doubt he is either one of those.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I would think that would be work more up your alley – particularly that rate of compensation. In “Pretty Woman,” she was charging far more than that, even as her going flat rate before she met him.

    However, wage labor and prostitution have a lot in common.

  430. John Lloyd Scharf said

    princessxxx exclaimed loudly:
    July 16, 2009 at Thursday, July 16, 2009
    i’m doing just fine.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    HA!HA!HA! You are the one complaining of being “tired” and calling me a tyrant.

    It loses a bit in the translation, but:
    Vous avez mis la harangue dans le tyran.

  431. dorian said

    hey john, i was only half sarcastic there. i believe that there are seers very capable of using their intuition to ‘channel’, if you will, the holy spirit and do very good readings. i do know of a talented tarot reader, my brother. he stopped doing it years ago. he didn’t for read those he knows but i observed him read a couple of people and i was amazed. i know a good astrologer too. i have respect for the esoteric practices for prophecy, because i believe in that synergistic conjunction between nature and spirit – i’m not able to articulate what i mean here, help me – and it takes a special gift to see or ‘read’ beyond our objective consciousness. too bad modern man has lost, or forgotten much of our primordial instincts. animals can sense so much more than we can. anyway, now i’m wanting to go into my eastern zone. this and princess’i-ching reading got me there.

  432. princessxxx said

    i hear that a lot!
    kay said i made her un-christian.

    you know john, sometimes i have pangs of conciousness. i don’t think they are holy spirit driven, but i do have them.

    i think i read on the other post you had cancer, me too. it can be hard sometimes.

    also, one thing you posted i agree with you 100%.

    prophets must be right 100% of the time. i’m talking about bill keller. kay is a big fan.

  433. John Lloyd Scharf said

    If anyone is a tiresome attacker here, Princess, it is you. The first post from you I saw you said:
    princessxxx said
    July 7, 2009 at Tuesday, July 7, 2009
    oh kay, you said “If the world put their trust in Jesus we would even have world peace. All we need to know and live by is in the Bible…”

    well, we all know that that is a load of bullshit.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    As I said in 428, you can dish it out, but you cannot take it and in 431, you put the rant in tyrant.

  434. dorian said

    p and john slappin each other around again? this time en français. my sanctum awaits, au rêvoir mes amis.

    oh. john how about an article from you. let us know, we can post for you. we may be manic at times but our ethics are in the right place so nothing will be edited. the offer extends to hors and walter. our email: tothewires@yahoo.com

  435. princessxxx said

    i think that is a good idea. john has different opinions.

    and i enjoyed walters, too. and hors service, i like getting opinions from other lands and languages.

  436. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Princess, you do not read well. I had a mass that looked like cancer from a sonogram but the CAT Scan shows I have an extra lobe on my kidney and the urologist says it is normal tissue. I have lived with two people who had cancer, though.

    I was there for the first as she went from a 20% chance of living through all her chemo to a 60% chance of living for five years. However, she found Christ and wanted a white picket fence and marriage. I was married for 21 years once and was cured of that mistake. After we parted ways, she went on to get her master’s degree and is past that five year mark.

    One of my SOs had cancer two years ago. They removed the tumors and she is doing well. My other SO had a cancer scare about a year ago when they saw a few cancer cells. She had a biopsy and they are monitoring her.

    One of my SO’s is retired like me and is a four star chef. The other is a professional with her master’s degree and an IQ in the 140 range. The retired one is anything but retiring. The professional is also very open, but she cares far more about getting along with others than either of us others. I am the most assertive of the pack.

    Of course, like other information that is personal about me, you and others will, as you have, use it as grist in your mill to attack me… Like telling about my education.

    Not a problem, though. Unlike you, I can give back as good as I get and enjoy drawing your petty pathetic rants into sharp relief. It is the “intellectual” version of “doing the dozens.”

    About being 100% correct as a prophet, that is a requirement under Mosaic Law. The penalty for failure with false prophets is death.

  437. princessxxx said

    no see, i’m not going to attack.

    i had three surgeries in the last three years.
    i had my lymph gland under my right arm removed, it had become necrotic.
    and last year i had a growth removed from my left ureter that turned out to be benign.

    if you think i’m tyrant on the web, you should catch me in a hospital bed.

    anyway, 2 yrs ago i was told to get me final affairs in order, but becoming saved or born again did not cross my mind.

    and you gave me a good laugh.
    “I was married for 21 years once and was cured of that mistake.”

    that’s funny, and i have to add, i don’t recommend marriage for anyone, gay or straight.

    seriously consider putting up your own post. i haven’t been on this blog as long as the others,
    but it really does aspire to

    A Different Kind of Blog
    news and things sacred and irreverent put together by opinionated people.

    and new & different opinions welcome.

    i enjoy it, even the slapfights because i am masochistic. kay can tell you that.
    i probably provoke to get slapped a bit more than the rest.

  438. princessxxx said

    oh yeah, and you are right about false prophets. that is what brought me to this blog in the first place.
    sure it’s odd, i don’t believe in god, but i warn people about false prophets. doesn’t make any sense to me either, but i am compelled. that could be a mental disorder or an act of the holy spirit. people could interpret that either way. i label it a hobby.
    i think stoning is harsh, but taking away their tax exemption sounds like modern day justice to me.

  439. John Lloyd Scharf said

    I listened/watched a video online by Bill Keller. He is strident and we disagree about this being a special point in history.

    However, his opinions are just a reasonable as most. They certainly are not prophesy and he does not say, “Thus saith the Lord.” He is an evangelist, not a pastor or a prophet.

    I wonder if he ever discusses relationship near as much as politics. He is not a joyful person. He moans too much about the condition of the world and talks to little about what contributes to successful relationship.

    He said we are more concerned about dogs than we are about humans. He was speaking in comparing abortion to animal abuse. I see it as more important in marriage and family. People treat their dogs better than their spouse. “He treats her like a dog,” has lost meaning. PLEASE! Treat her like your dog. Treat him like your dog. Speak in kind tones and give special care for that persons wellbeing.

  440. princessxxx said

    ok, well, you see, this is where the problem lies. and i’m sure now everyone d9,betty,kay are rolling their eyes, but.

    bill keller does claim to be a prophet of god. and i would like to hear your opinion on this.
    from bk’s website 3/10/04

    “I am also very well aware that Pat Robertson has predicted President Bush will win in a landslide. The fact is, on November 9th, either Pat Robertson or Bill Keller will be wrong. I have clearly stated in the past that the penalty for a false prophet is to be stoned to death. I support that standard and am willing, I wonder if Pat is. Like most who say they hear from God and have been wrong, Pat has always found an excuse why he was wrong and just keeps on going. The fact is, God is NEVER WRONG. One of us is a false prophet! I will make NO EXCUSES.”

    the rest of us have been going back & forth on this one for a while.

    sorry the rest of you guys i am barfing that up again, but, i think it might help john understand the rift i have with kay as she promotes this. i have only been here about 3 months, the rest 10 months. and this bk argument has been beaten into horse hamburger patties.

    people should try to be nice to each other. there seems to be truth in familiarity breeds contempt. marriage, i have read is like a 50 50 chance.
    i can be nice at times and the rest on here, even kay, are very nice. and vulgar at times.

  441. John Lloyd Scharf said

    Princess claimed:

    i enjoy it, even the slapfights because i am masochistic. kay can tell you that.
    i probably provoke to get slapped a bit more than the rest.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Sounds like a S.A.M. Smart-Assed Masochist.
    So, do you like floggers with more thud than sting? Or are you more into kangaroo whips and resined canes.

    Regarding Kay, I do not see her as the sin qua non to any discussion of Christianity. She is not model for Believers. As she might admit, the Anointed Savior is. On the other hand, she would have no problem in rebuking me and would have if it were not the forum in which she finds herself. At this point, she likely feels like a nine-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

    DORIAN CLAIMED:
    oh. john how about an article from you. let us know, we can post for you. we may be manic at times but our ethics are in the right place so nothing will be edited. the offer extends to hors and walter. our email: tothewires@yahoo.com

    Actually, I trust you like I do a junkyard dog to follow your nature and your ethics leave a great deal to be desired:
    1. Dorian, you are bigoted in your perception of who is resentful.
    2. Dorian, you think the Master Baiter, Princess, brings “levity and good humor” where I only see sarcasm and cheap shots. (Princess really hates it that I am better at that.)

    Despite all that, I will consider your offer. Deconstruction and attack are good for me. Iron sharpens iron. Unfortunately, most of what is here is just more brass which you insist on calling “humor.”

  442. John Lloyd Scharf said

    “I am also very well aware that Pat Robertson has predicted President Bush will win in a landslide. The fact is, on November 9th, either Pat Robertson or Bill Keller will be wrong.I have clearly stated in the past that the penalty for a false prophet is to be stoned to death. I support that standard and am willing, I wonder if Pat is.”

    Well, I have made a lot of predictions. I hope, if anything I said sounded like prophesy, it came out to be true. Perhaps we can pull a Clinton and say “define landslide.” The worst thing to happen to the Republican Party was the Speaker D. Hastert and President G.W. Bush. The worst thing to happen to this nation is Speaker Pelosi and her whipping boy, President Obama. I sometimes wonder if the teleprompter is fed by her in progress.

    My uncle, a Republican speaking of a Democrat who was President at the time, said everyone elected to be President was good and ethical. I cannot remember if he was still alive when Clinton was in office. My perspective is that the Speaker of the House runs the nation. That means Chairwoman Pelosi has been in charge of our nation’s economy since 2007 with the Supplimental Spending Act of 2007. Up to that point, government spending was near 18% of the GDP. Our deficit spending was only around $400 billion, even with the costs of war. It will be over a trillion dollars this year.

    If she spends money on something and the President’s veto is over-ridden, then it has to be spent. President Nixon was the last one to personally balance the budget because he, unconstitutionally, impounded the funds. The budget surpluses stopped when Speaker Gingrich left office.

    In the end analysis, did President Bush win or did he actually lose by being elected. We know much of what we think he did bad. On the other hand, we do not know what he did good that is still considered secret. In the long run, President Obama will never be the hero and President Bush will never be the villian people now see them as.

    In fact, President Obama’s popularity is on the wane and not much different than the beginning of President Bush’s polls BEFORE 9/11 and AFTER his second election. Of course, in the end, the only polls worse than President Bush were that of Congress.

    You know how one half of a pair of socks will disappear into the vortex created in your dryer? I gave up and bought all black socks. Well, my theory is there is a vortex that affects elected politicians. Ours is in the Congress and Britains is in their Parliment. Individuals can do damage in government, but the disaster starts when they go into Committee and make inquiries. If you want to kill legislation, sent it to a committee. If it ever makes it out alive, it will still not be what went in.

    In the end, if the Limbaugh prophesy holds true, then the best thing for the Republican Party in 2012 will be Speaker Pelosi and President Obama.

    However, in the final evaluation, Bill Keller should watch out for falling rocks. He is an exception to my rule. I normally think false prophets have the first name of Jim/Jimmy/James and their attire includes white shoes and belt.

  443. OK.. Here is a trivial pursuit. In many places in Scripture they are told, “Take off your shoes for the place on which you walk is Holy.” Many have this image of the Anointed Savior as wearing sandals. Was he? Why did Mary Magdeline anoint his feet? Why did she not use sheep fat instead?

    In one place, the Anointed Savior says if the Apostles are rejected by a community that they are to kick off the dust from their feet when they leave. Do you think the Apostles were wearing sandals?

    Is Heaven Holy? Will there be a need for shoes in Heaven? Or will Believers walk barefoot?

  444. dorian said

    tsk tsk, john, your judgments of my ethics are a bit harsh, don’t you think? after all, you don’t know me at all, do you? you accept the offer so you must like something about me, masterbaiter princess and the others and this place you share with us. you can deconstruct and attack or else construct and defend, but whatever you do, know that we the owners of this blog are following our good nature in allowing you to do your thing here, however negative your vibes or energy may be for the most part.

  445. dorian said
    July 16, 2009 at Thursday, July 16, 2009
    tsk tsk, john, your judgments of my ethics are a bit harsh, don’t you think? after all, you don’t know me at all, do you? you accept the offer so you must like something about me, masterbaiter princess and the others and this place you share with us. you can deconstruct and attack or else construct and defend, but whatever you do, know that we the owners of this blog are following our good nature in allowing you to do your thing here, however negative your vibes or energy may be for the most part.

    In other words,you think your feces is not odiferous and make a slightly vailed threat to ban me. How banal and petty.

    You claimed:
    comment 119 is an excellent demonstration of the self-righteousness and secularism that perpetuates these bad stereotypes of christians. come to think of it, i’ve never heard mormons or jews or hindus, et al., or for that matter, other christians, be this resentful towards others.
    a shiny trophy for kay. go sit next to tom in oprah choprah’s sofa.

    Your prejudice, if not ignorance, was showing in that comment. I responded to it negatively the first time.

    Regarding your opinion of Princess’ “levity and humor,” she said this:
    oh kay, you said “If the world put their trust in Jesus we would even have world peace. All we need to know and live by is in the Bible…”

    well, we all know that that is a load of bulls hit.

    Vulgar without humor and the levity of a steamroller.

  446. Hors Service said

    I’m back!
    I’m sorry, I’m not on the same shedule as you all, and sometimes I have work to do…
    But, I’ve said that I would answer, so I’m answering.

    And I see in the latest posts that John has decreased in self-satisfaction, which please me. John seems to be a very nice person when not confronted to opposing views.

    @John:

    But I think I must answer to your previous posts, so let’s go:

    You said:
    “Kay, there are no Liberals or Atheists in this group. There is Larry, Moe, and Curly of the M&M crowd. If you said,”Send in the clowns,” however, they are definitely mucking about. Feel free to point and giggle at them.”

    Stop trying to recusate arguments by mocking opponents. Answer them. I could say that you’re just another educated donkey, with the right erudition to hide your pride in a high-flown style, but I don’t do so.
    I recuse your narrow-minded attitude on some particular points.

    You said:
    “Have you actually seen them let truth get in the way of their self-indulgent retorts? They believe truth to be subjective because it threatening to their worldview, their self-esteem, and their peer standing.”

    I believe that the truth is often distorted, manipulated, rotten by people like you, who believe so much in themselves that they can’t imagine something exists outside.
    I LIKE when my worldview is threatened. It’s when things become interesting. What’s the use in talking with people with the same opinions as you?

    Anyway, what kind of peer standing will I get on a foreign blog?!?

    You said:
    “This is the same group that was “rebellious” in junior high/middle school so they would fit in with everyone else. They despise those with a post-secondary education because they never had a real one of their own.”

    1) It’s false. At that age, I was cruel, agressive, self-centered (as practically all kids of that age are), but I always felt that trying to show “rebellion” by wearing this or that clothe was stupid and hypocrital, as were the people who were smoking to act “older”.
    I didn’t had a real post-secondary education? Gosh, then my diplomas are false ones… (And I’m only saying I have diplomas because you attacked me on that point. Having a diploma doesn’t make you wise.)

    2) You don’t judge people by what you suppose they could have been 10 years ago. You just don’t.

    You said:
    “Of course, back in the day, for them, critical thinking was not an expectation of any teachers. That includes college instructors for the most part. Of the ones I had, the best DEMANDED that and the rest just wanted you to regurgitate their doctrine.”

    And you’re generalizing to all teachers. I had bad ones and good ones, in equal parts.
    You’re supposing one didn’t ask us critical thinking, and like a lot of things you said, it’s false.
    On of my science teachers used to give 0 to the ones who didn’t comment on aberrant results. At least in France, the philosophy exams I had consisted in discussing a question in 3 equal parts: first 2, giving arguments for both sides, the last, your personal opinion.

    Of course, I’ve met also prejudiced teachers.

    You said:
    “Mainly I did the work to prove to myself that he was just a hack and could get around him. My paper was, in a sense, a work of fiction with a dialogue between his god, Marx, and his satan, a certain early writer on Christianity. That writer was actually meant to be a strawman for his arguments. My work reversed that, but he did not pick up on it.”

    Proud of you, aren’t you? Don’t be childish.
    What does it shows? That some atheists are blinded, immature, narrow-minded? It’s not new. Some believers are actually just the same.
    People are only people.

    You said:
    “I will continue to point and giggle at your pathetic attempts. I actually understand and like both British and French humor. Too bad you do not, Sir Spamalot.”

    And you go on… With even direct attacks…

    You said:
    “Whatever your delusions about Europe, while it MAY cover 20% of the planet, it does not create 20% of its Gross World Product…. The US creates 26% of that. The US Navy was the first to STOP paying tribute to the Muslims in the 18th century – after invading Tripoli.”

    Europe is MAXIMUM 15% of the emerged lands, so 20% of the PLANET…

    http://www.insee.fr/fr/insee_regions/lor/actionregionale/colloques/Europe_Monde.pdf

    European Union in 2010: 20% of the Gross World Product.

    Recognize it, you’re asserting lies sometimes. Like when you said I’ve never been a Catholic.
    Have a bit of humility.

    I don’t know a lot about this part of history, but it seems to me that England, at this time, didn’t paid any tribute to anyone anymore.

    And we are protecting our ships near Somalia, too. America don’t protect them at the moment, so we do it.
    I perfectly recognize that the US are essential to protect the free world. Without you, we’ll be very weak.
    And without our diplomacy, you would be very weak, too. Nice muscles, but it has its limits, like when you’re fighting terrorism. All your firepower was useless in Somalia in 1994.
    And Europe has as much soldiers as the US, but we’re divided.

    You said:
    “If you are not mandated to learn/use German, you can thank the US. Your nation lost and would not have come back were it not for the military and the means of production of the US. You are deluded if you think otherwise.”

    I was SURE we would come to that.
    Then
    1) If you’re not still an english colony, you can thank the French. Without their help during the Independance war, you would still pay excessive tax to the Queen.

    2) The US have been a MAJOR support in the war. But alone, they would have lost. Hitler made the mistake of attacking the USSR, which ended in the fall of the German army. A great part of the nazis best units were fighting the bolchevicks, and they couldn’t be on the west front.
    The D-Day was a success (and nearly a failure) because of the American industry and formidable engineering capacities, as well as medical formation, of the English cunning and intelligence services, of the Russian sacrifice, of the French resistance, etc…
    I don’t think that every part alone would have succeeded.

    Thank you USA, by the way! And it’s sincere.

    You said:
    “History requires the witten word.
    Civilization requires cities. ”

    It’s the DEFINITIONS. History begins with the invention of scripture. But today, a film could be part of History, too.
    I was talking about the COURSE of history.
    Civilization requires cities. It derives from the word. But I meant everything that makes the cities: culture, values, systems of functioning…
    And this city-centered definition is under revision, to take into account the nomad civilizations, like some african ones, and some mongol ones too. More “civilization of the communities”, it seems. But I’m no expert.

    You said:
    “stFU /../..an, i r teh r0xx0rz liek emin3m, u cna go tO EHLL OR ATLE4St help m3 wit hthIS!!111!!!!!!!1~~1!!“!! LOLLOLOLLOLOLlOoLLOlollLLl u n00b”

    And your stupid stuff about noobs. Did you read one us writing like that? So, you can’t even read?

    And noob mean newbie, at the origin. It certainly gets new meanings, I’m french so I don’t have them all, but none of us could be considered one of them.
    Not even you.

    You, you seem to clan with the Trolls, sometimes.

    You said:
    “Tomorrow and tomorrow. Tomorrow never comes as fast as your excuses. Time is up. Your excuses are too late. You failed the exam.”

    Considering all that has been said, considering that I’ve already made some excuses on some points, I rather think that you owe me some, but I would be positively surprised if you made so.

    But if I understood well the end of debate, we’re moving on?

    @Kay.

    Sorry, this was a pretty long post, and it’s late^^
    I was wondering if you could answer to my post in ” a caveman view on abortion” , and to where does the Supreme being comes from?

    I will do so with your latest posts here, if you would like to, too. But maybe not tomorrow.

    It’s a very nice proposition dorian, thank you!

    Good night everyone, stay cool^^

  447. Oh, and Dorian I reread what you responded to of Kay’s:
    Dorian… your (hypocritical) liberal views drive me crazy… your comment .. “as long as we are allowed our freedom to choose what we believe then everyone should be happy. unless someone tries to invalidate what one believes in. now that invites a session in the fight club.”

    I do not believe you meant that in any metaphorical way that excludes justifying violence as a response to words. Of course, it is no difference than Princess fantasizing about me being the victim of a tornado passing through a trailer park.

    She revealed a great deal about what she thinks of people who live in that form of affordable housing as well, I suppose. I was raised in a “mobile home,” but never had to move with the job like most.

    My stepfather came home on weekends and was glad to get there. He came straight home after work on Friday. He would look like a raccoon because the goggles he wore at work deflected the sun and dirt.

    He did not swear and he was raised LDS, even though he did smoke and drink then. He was very patient with me, but I managed to get his goat twice. I count myself as one of the luckiest step children, given what I have heard about the experiences of others.

    Whenever I think about the “Dragon Slayer,” I think I get a picture of how he thought about me. His desire for me was that I would never do manual labor, much less be a heavy equipment operator. That is why he did many things to encourage me to become educated. One thing I did inherit from him, instead of genes, was a willingness to work and a love of being home.

    From my mother, it was all assertiveness AND humor as a story teller. I was telling a true story to my fellow sailors one time about how I had narrowly missed being killed. It suddenly hit me that I could not remember why I had survived. I should have been dead. Thinking about it caused me to pause. Someone said, impatiently, “Then what happened?”

    I just chuckled and said, “I died.”

  448. dorian said

    your compulsive need to attack, john, is that what makes you happy?

    is your intention to denigrate and deride every comment made by everyone then make judgments on their character based on their statements? i don’t think that’s kind of you, if that’s the case.

    my previous comment did not contain a “slightly veiled threat” to ban you. if i felt like banning you, i will ask the others for their opinion and if they concur, there’s no need to threat; i or one of the others will just tell you directly that you’re banned.

    i’m tired of the ‘you said’ ‘i said’ game; it’s reminiscent of kay’s style but kay speaks from the heart, and frankly, i trust that her intentions are purely driven by her christian beliefs and less by her ego.

  449. kay~ms said

    Well, I am not feeling well today and just now read all of these comments.
    Now I can’t remember what I wanted to respond to… so I’m just going to write as it comes to me.

    A thought that came to mind in reading all of these philisophical theories…

    Remember as kids, we used to say… what if our world is just a tiny molecule on the toe of a giant. could be…. right? We could go on forever in analyzing all of the ideas and theories, possibilities and concepts. If any of these theories are correct, where would that leave the people who couldn’t figure it out? I don’t believe it is that complicated. And Christianity just happens to not be complicated… seek with an open mind and heart, that’s all that is required. The rest will take care of itself I believe.

    Betty, you said: “If there is no creator, let’s say, as a ‘thought experiment’, and there is life, as there is, then its improbability is irrelevant, because it has happened.”

    It’s not irrelevant if we want to know our purpose and meaning. Everything you post seems to say… “I don’t want to believe”.

    What else…

    If we put this into effect: “Well said Enkill.Why not ban anyone who says ANYTHING insulting for a week? Courtesy isn’t so hard.
    Insult could include sarcasm, condescension, and speaking scornfully of others’ expression or intellectual wherewithal.Princess will just have to pull her head in: or she can have a dispensation as court jester”

    We would all be banned… there would be no one left to post anything!
    And I guess you would have to start with Dorian… under her own admission:
    comment 432 “hey john, i was only half sarcastic there.”

    I don’t mind the sarcasm… it keeps things spicey… as long as everyone can take as well as they give, it should be ok.

    My tone… well, yes, all of my capital letters and exclamation marks are maybe overly expressive to some but I’m just trying to get my points across… points that I’ve presented many (I resisted caps) many times before (exclamation marks omitted). But see, this is no fun, you guys will just read my words and forget about them. There is nothing wrong with being emotional!!!! ;o) And my humor IS here! I promise. I’m Scottish, there’s no getting around my emotions.

    What else… well, I hope I didn’t chase Hors away… I’m sure he’ll be back, I’m pretty sure he’s got some of that Scottish blood in him the way he argues and all… he’ll be back.

    John, I think you’re too uptight…intelligent but uptight… everyone is reaching out to you and you keep responding back with insults. Sorry.

    oh yes, B.K. … John is right..under Mosaic law, one false prophecy gets you the boot. But we forget… we are not under Mosaic law anymore… I don’t think that Bill’s “false prophecy” means he is fake… he stated that he misread God…and he apologized. Why would he put himself out there and make a prediction if he was a fake? He just got it wrong… he’s not perfect just because he is a Christian.. no one is perfect!!

    I have done this since I was a teenager… I still do it… when I read my Bible I am always looking for punctuation or other errors… I childishly believed ( and it is still in my head sometimes) that anything of God will have no mistakes. If there are mistakes then it must not be of God. I found my first error last night!! The word “it’s” was missing the apostraphy… unless I’m mistaken… the word was a possesive word… there should have been an apostrophy. So now I’m not going to be a Christian anymore? I think we all are subject to these child like beliefs to one degree or another.

    Dorian, these are all great questions…

    who do you think is the best band ever and why?

    what do you think is the best movie ever made and why?

    do ghosts exist? if yes, provide evidence. if no, provide debunking evidence.

    nostradamus, the ‘bible code’, edgar cayce, aleistair(sic) crowley, houdini,

    etc., etc….

    everybody has an expertise, so give.

    But I have to tell you, the one about ghosts will lead right back to religion… eventually all of these questions could… this is where the interest is… philosophy and theories…. what is right and wrong… are we doing it right, could we do it better?

  450. I was SURE we would come to that.
    Then
    1) If you’re not still an english colony, you can thank the French. Without their help during the Independance war, you would still pay excessive tax to the Queen.

    You are correct, “Out of Order”, we did receive some help from the French.

    FIRST, if you actually knew your history, we almost lost that war because the French made commitments they were late in meeting.

    SECOND, in point of fact, France was at war with England at the time. Our navy and militia provided a some relief from the navy/military of England. Had they not provided that small investment, YOU would be paying a tax to the Queen…. AND speak English.

    At the time, that “excessive tax” was 3% and that “Queen” was King George III. My ancestor fought in that war and it was NOT the tax that he would have died for. It was the issue of piracy by England, just as it was for you. They took captive our ships and the American citizens on them. They impressed them into the British navy.

    THIRD, we forgave, under the Marshal Plan, war debts by Europe, including both Britain and France. I think if we owed France anything for that, we have paid it back.. In full… With interest.

  451. Kay claimed:
    oh yes, B.K. … John is right..under Mosaic law, one false prophecy gets you the boot. But we forget… we are not under Mosaic law anymore…

    Where do you get the doctrine we are not under Mosaic Law?

    “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5:18-20)

    When did heaven and earth pass away?
    When were all the prophesies fulfilled?
    When did you even see the “Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven?”

  452. DORIAN HYPOCRISY:
    my previous comment did not contain a “slightly veiled threat” to ban you. if i felt like banning you, i will ask the others for their opinion and if they concur, there’s no need to threat; i or one of the others will just tell you directly that you’re banned.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    You said that before and your threat is less vailed than it was before.

    MORE HYPOCRISY:
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    is your intention to denigrate and deride every comment made by everyone then make judgments on their character based on their statements?

    As if you did not denigrate and deride comments made by others, but I love that “every” you added. For people who do not believe in absolutes you seem to have no problem using them. So I denigrated and derided EVERY comment made by EVERYONE?

    If you are accusing me of making judgements of people’s character based on their statement, GUILTY AS CHARGED. I had to chuckle at that one. Should I make judgements based on fonts? Pictures left at your posts?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    THEN ANOTHER DORIAN:
    i’m tired of the ‘you said’ ‘i said’ game; it’s reminiscent of kay’s style but kay speaks from the heart, and frankly, i trust that her intentions are purely driven by her christian beliefs and less by her ego.

    Interesting. I am wondering why you want to associate me with her. Were I driven by Christian beliefs, I would certainly not be dealing with you. Why waste your time on hard ground with people who have no regard for or respect of your beliefs.

    In my first reading of YOU, your said of Kay:

    “your cup runneth over with resentment, sister. keep the bile in, we’ve seen it before and it’s not a pleasant sight, thank you. i haven’t had coffee yet and i have to read some bellicose christian bellwether yelling ‘poison!!’ to the world. mercy me.”

    I have naught but reflected back to you that robust level of graciousness you have given her.

  453. Out of Order:
    I said:
    “This is the same group that was “rebellious” in junior high/middle school so they would fit in with everyone else. They despise those with a post-secondary education because they never had a real one of their own.”

    YOU RESPONDED:
    1) It’s false. At that age, I was cruel, agressive, self-centered (as practically all kids of that age are), but I always felt that trying to show “rebellion” by wearing this or that clothe was stupid and hypocrital, as were the people who were smoking to act “older”.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I think I made that point and that you have not changed.

  454. KAY SAID:

    John, I think you’re too uptight…intelligent but uptight… everyone is reaching out to you and you keep responding back with insults. Sorry.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    They began with insults. They took what I said about my education out of context and tried to use it against me. You seem a bit naieve if you think they are “reaching out” to me. I see the very little that could be construed as that to be an attempt at manipulation. In fact, that was the origina of the junkyard dog comment.

    Do not come into close association with unbelievers, like oxen yoked with asses. For what is there in common between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what partnership has light with darkness?

    I will not post at their discretion or direction just to gain their favor.

    Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?

    Their expectation is that you should stop saying they are wrong. They do not care so much what you are saying as that you know that they are wrong.

    If you cannot confront profanity and vulgarity, your salt has lost its savor. Do you know that the Pharasees argued constantly over whether a gnat would make you unclean by accidently breathing it in. There is some doubt as to whether they are kosher. On the other hand, there is no doubt, that the Pharasees were being supported by the wicked Herod. Herod, like a camel, was certainly not kosher. So, on the steps of the Temple, the Anointed Savior said they gagged at a gnat and swollowed a camel.

    I am not a Pharasee, but I suspect the Anointed Savior was. Many doctrines taught by him were the same as the Pharasees. I think he rebuked them because he cared about them. A hint at this is who gave up his own tomb to put the Anointed Savior in – a Pharasee.

    Of course, I am not a Pharasee, Herod, or a camel. I think the gnat in the Anointed Savior’s statement was himself.

    Sometimes, though, a gnat is just a gnat. Pehaps I am not a gnat either. It is not for lack of trying, don’t you think????HA!HA!HA!

  455. dorian said

    john, i just checked the spam bucket and your comments 452,453 and 454 were there. worpdress doesn’t like the multiple +++ symbols.

    i accept your finger pointing, those are your opinions. i feel i’m walking on thin ice every time i respond to you. each word can be used as ammo. for attack, e.g. :

    ‘As if you did not denigrate and deride comments made by others, but I love that “every” you added. For people who do not believe in absolutes you seem to have no problem using them. So I denigrated and derided EVERY comment made by EVERYONE?’

    of course i did not mean EVERY comment. i don’t need to defend my words anymore, as i feel nothing can stop you from attacking any of my words, whether they be nouns, adjectives, etc..
    i feel you have the natural propensity for negative thought and it’s really not pleasant to read and the essence is toxic to the reader’s spiritual well-being.

    i can’t help but think that you really delight in making people feel bad; and not just the one you’re attacking at a particular moment, but also dragging in somebody else into the mix; making sure they see whatever it is again:

    In my first reading of YOU, your said of Kay:

    “your cup runneth over with resentment, sister. keep the bile in, we’ve seen it before and it’s not a pleasant sight, thank you. i haven’t had coffee yet and i have to read some bellicose christian bellwether yelling ‘poison!!’ to the world. mercy me.”

    there is always a chance of kay getting angry all over again, of course, and you want to feed that anger in her. well this i will tell you: i think you really are manipulative and you want to spread out unhappiness and discord. you, being intelligent, must know that there are different dynamics in relationships. kay, myself and others here have a history of friendship. we can throw fireballs at each other but we always come back and have fun and chuckle. this is not hypothesis. this is our history here.

    maybe you’re just a gnat. and oh, imo, the Anointed One was probably Essenes.

    until tomorrow and another page,

    john’s repeatedly anointed hypocrite.

  456. MY NAME IS DORIAN AND I JUST APPROVED THIS COMMENT. I NEED HELP FROM THE OTHER ADMINS IN APPROVING COMMENTS THAT ALWAYS SEEM TO BE RESCUED FROM THE BUCKET.

    I SAID:

    As if you did not denigrate and deride comments made by others, but I love that “every” you added. For people who do not believe in absolutes you seem to have no problem using them. So I denigrated and derided EVERY comment made by EVERYONE?’

    YOU SAID:

    of course i did not mean EVERY comment. i don’t need to defend my words anymore, as i feel nothing can stop you from attacking any of my words, whether they be nouns, adjectives, etc..

    Why do you think you have no responsibility for your words when you attack me?

    YOU SAID:
    i think you really are manipulative ….

    That is my impression of you. What you cannot stand is when you cross the line with me that I will hold you accountable. I just mentioned this garbage against Kay:

    “your cup runneth over with resentment, sister. keep the bile in, we’ve seen it before and it’s not a pleasant sight, thank you. i haven’t had coffee yet and i have to read some bellicose christian bellwether yelling ‘poison!!’ to the world. mercy me”

    BECAUSE it is not just me you do this to.

    You say this:
    i can’t help but think that you really delight in making people feel bad..

    Read your own words… How often do you think people who self-identify as “Christian” are made to feel ignorant and responsable for the insecurities you have about your own imperfections in morality. Christians are not your whipping boy.

    I do not expect Kay to get angry. I expect her to be assertive. I expect her to set limits and confront irresponsible behavior. As in your case, anger is the responsibility of the person who allows it. Each person must accept personal responsibility for that.

    Do not get on your high horse with me about making people feel bad and expect me not to challenge it. Some folks NEED to feel “bad” about their antisocial behavior. In this case, it is that comment you made. You continue to justify and minimize your comment instead of admitting it was wrong.

  457. dorian said

    Team – i’m out of town for two days, pls. take care of ADKOB.
    Ciao, tutti

    D9

  458. dorian said

    oh john , one last thing:

    i still think that you delight in making people feel bad and i still say you’re a manipulative sort. you don’t make me feel bad, just sad for you. ‘sorry!
    XO anyway…

  459. Okay I am sorry folks I am making an executive descision. 460 comments is enough. Two people said thier piece on this and for the good of the site I am going to have to close the comments on this article. I have one very good reason for doing so.

    Here is my one very good reason for doing so, this article has a script somewhere that is no longer working and is actually making the blog slower. This article was written in December and bumped take these conversations to the debate page please. I dont know what is causing the problem but everytime I come to this post I get a script error. Those are my reasons for closing the comments on this page. You are welcome to continue your discussions at:

    http://tothewire.wordpress.com/like-to-debate/

    bitch, hollar, and moan all you want but even though I do not post often I do read the comments and discussions chime in once and a while and make sure there are no problems with the site. There is a problem and it must be fixed move your conversations to the above url please. That is what that page is for. That is all.

  460. Obviously where there is a “problem,” freedom of expression stops. It has ever been so. Obviously, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution do not apply here. Freedom of the press is limited to those who own the press.

  461. kay~ms said

    Amen… sorry EE

  462. Enkill_Eridos said

    no you can continue this discussion on another thread I am not trying to censor younor am I trying to stop things. What I am just trying to keep things going and since we have whole unused page that is designed just for the off topic debate these comments has become. Imean seriously 463 comments is a lot to scroll through. I haveto think of the other people that like to visit and I am just saying there is a page made for these debates. Do not stop the discussion I dont want that it entertains me. Just somewhere else. I never said this discussion is over there is just too much i you want to keep posting comments on this one little post then you should have said something when I asked for a vote. I gave 24 hours. Betty was the only one that acknowledged that. I can try to archive the comments but no promises. Just migrate the discussion it is really not that hard it is the tab labled a debate page.

  463. Enkill_Eridos, where did you say anything in 460 about 24 hours? No. You did NOT give 24 hours.

    As far as the “script error” goes, I am not getting it. Why are you getting it and I am not?

  464. Why are you guys still here?

  465. We followed you.

  466. hhandy said

    Hi, must confess that after reading many of the 466 coments I am prompted to follow up on my one comment of last January. Your referral to my own blog made me realize that this forum helped further my own computer program on the market, for which I am grateful.

    Though inappropriate to choose favorites, it struck me that John Lloyd Scharf appealed to me because of his inclusion of the “new” science of chaos in these religious-scientific discussions. Very important to me because that new science affects one’s interpretation of whether any market is truly “predictable,” a lifeling quest of mine to find out.

    Also, John’s references to Taoism, Ursula K. Laguin, and the “Tao Te Ching” struck me as particularly appropriate, as I think these are worthy of futher investigation.

    Geting back to my prime interest, predictability in the stock market, I think that that problem relates to the heart of whether all the “evil” people in the world like “mass murderers” like Hitler were all that bad without our participation.

    For example, if a hurricane begins off the coast of Africa as a chaotic event of no causation, how can the resulting destruction be “blamed” on God or anyone. Maybe John would say the molecules there combined as a chaotic event to “cause” the hurricane. Would be interested in responses to that physical and moral question.

    Let’s consider Hitler as a group of molecules gathered togerher before WW2. Who is to say that his occurrence was any more to blame for what followed than the group of molecules presumably causing the hurricane.

    It is an old idea proclaimed or hinted at in Alan Watt’s books that to have “good” in the world there must be a counterpart, “evil.” Much like Harry Truman’s decision to drop the nuclear bomb, I believe we are all responsible, which was maybe one of Christ’s messages.

    For follow up I would like to address the question of causation in the market, if that is not too far afield. It deals with a linear Newtonian momentum like causation, “determinism”, a statistical quantum-like probability prediction (probability), a calculus-like rate of change through differencing (rates of change), and chaos theory (who knows?)…all too much to handle at this time!

    Thanks for considering comments, Herb

  467. martyfink said

    It is the Sineurabia code of those who want to benight us with global feudalism, who yearn to whitewash and canonize the nazi pope, who see business, especially finance, as evil, who hate books and the Yehuds, Yovans and Parsis who write them. They could not even countenance a Kenyan pope or a Mormon president, but keep promoting Islamic candidates for public office and call theirs a religion of peace. On September 16, 1920, Italian terrorists blew up Wall Street. They set the precedent for 9/11 and they like it.It is the Sineurabia code of those who want to benight us with global feudalism, who yearn to whitewash and canonize the nazi pope, who see business, especially finance, as evil, who hate books and the Yehuds, Yovans and Parsis who write them. They could not even countenance a Kenyan pope or a Mormon president, but keep promoting Islamic candidates for public office and call theirs a religion of peace. On September 16, 1920, Italian terrorists blew up Wall Street. They set the precedent for 9/11 and they like it.

  468. We are a group of volunteers and starting a new initiative in a community. Your blog provided us valuable information to work on. You have done a marvellous job!

  469. your site is very use full because give me a good information in your site

  470. The World Political landscape has deteriorated over the past couple decades due to media bias. We need to stand up in arms and take back our country from Big Pharma, Big Tobbacco, Big Insurance and really just big companies. It’s time for our elections to stop being bought out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: