Science > Abortion > Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions?
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"osprey" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2004 12:55:41 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
(Craig Chilton) wrote in message news:<40651edf.63886003@netnews.mchsi.com>...
1. WHY are you a BUSYBODY?
Why are you asking?
2. WHY would you give a flying rat's ***** about ANY
person's *private* sex life?
I don't.
3. WHY in the world would you seek to treat any
person or group of people with less respect based
solely on what they do in private, as consensual
adults? (How could that POSSIBLY be of ANY
importance to you?)
I don't.
4. IF you are opposed to same-sex marriage, WHY?
Because it is a sin. And if I was to support same sex marriage it
would be the same as saying the act of homosexuality is o.k., which it
isn't. So I will never vote for any candidate that supports
homosexual marriage.
Only a VALID, **factual** reason... such as a *way*
that any heterosexual couple's marriage would in
ANY way be threatened, and thus need "protection"
from this impending expansion of liberty... is appro-
priate as a response. (Mindless emotionalism
counts for *nothing*, and is NO excuse for
discrimination.)
Why are you the only one who thinks you can say what is valid or not?
That is a awful lot of power you are giving yourself. Ever occur to
you that some will disagree?
5. ENDA -- the totally-harmless "Employment Non-
Discrimination Act" -- which would have done
nothing more than ensure that people could NOT
be unfairly discriminated against in the workplace,
due to their sexual orientation -- failed by only ONE
(RRR cult-induced) vote in the U.S. Senate last
time, and will almost surely *pass* THIS time. Would
YOU be opposed to this very FAIR measure? If
so -- WHY?
I have no problem with laws that prohibit discrimination. A person is
there to
do a job, and only that job. Not bring in their personal lives. When
they bring in their personal lives, they set themselves up.
[[[ READERS -- if *any* person provides sensible and
intelligent answers to ANY the five above questions,
you'd better be sitting down. I've never seen ANY
person YET provide an intelligent and factual reason
for doing ANY of the above.
Craig Chilton < >
I believe my answers are sensible and intelligent. Your first
question about being a busybody, you kind of contradict yourself by
even asking people these questions. Makes you the busybody.
IMHO
.
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
07 Apr 2004 11:10:41 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 01:18:19 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 6 Apr 2004 21:08:38 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <e23670djlkvegbueg6tmi7c094jbmecmlt@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
But God is a creation of man, a figment of imagination so the
difference is only in your lack of awareness.
That is your claim. You cannot prove it to be
accurate.
You can quite easily win this argument by providing testable,
repeatable, scientific proof of the existence of your deity - proof that
can be used by anyone of any religion, or no religion at all, and yield
the same results. Post that proof here ---->
1) You don't get to require proof, since science isn't
in the business of proving, but rather, disproving. By
your own request, you are bound in a position of
attempting to disprove God, which cannot be done.
For the sake of argument however, what type of proof
would suffice? And remember, it must be proof that
does not violate God being God, otherwise I have not
proven God.
Just as anyone - regardless of chosen religious belief or lack thereof
- who has a thermometer, a container of water and a freezer can prove
for themselves, through testable results which are repeatable and
consistent, that water freezes around 0C [or if you like to use the
'disprove' approach; that water does not freeze above 0C], I seek a
similar, testable, repeatable, religiously neutral, proof for the
existence of your deity. Fairly simple *if* you have such proof.
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
07 Apr 2004 06:31:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:10:41 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 01:18:19 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 6 Apr 2004 21:08:38 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <e23670djlkvegbueg6tmi7c094jbmecmlt@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
But God is a creation of man, a figment of imagination so the
difference is only in your lack of awareness.
That is your claim. You cannot prove it to be
accurate.
You can quite easily win this argument by providing testable,
repeatable, scientific proof of the existence of your deity - proof that
can be used by anyone of any religion, or no religion at all, and yield
the same results. Post that proof here ---->
1) You don't get to require proof, since science isn't
in the business of proving, but rather, disproving. By
your own request, you are bound in a position of
attempting to disprove God, which cannot be done.
For the sake of argument however, what type of proof
would suffice? And remember, it must be proof that
does not violate God being God, otherwise I have not
proven God.
Just as anyone - regardless of chosen religious belief or lack thereof
- who has a thermometer, a container of water and a freezer can prove
for themselves, through testable results which are repeatable and
consistent, that water freezes around 0C [or if you like to use the
'disprove' approach; that water does not freeze above 0C], I seek a
similar, testable, repeatable, religiously neutral, proof for the
existence of your deity. Fairly simple *if* you have such proof.
You are being vague. What EXACT proof would suffice?
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Patience is a virtue which carries a lot of wait.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
07 Apr 2004 10:45:51 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:10:41 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 01:18:19 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 6 Apr 2004 21:08:38 GMT, RobertVB <nospam@4me.com>
spake thusly:
In article <e23670djlkvegbueg6tmi7c094jbmecmlt@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
You can quite easily win this argument by providing testable,
repeatable, scientific proof of the existence of your deity - proof that
can be used by anyone of any religion, or no religion at all, and yield
the same results. Post that proof here ---->
1) You don't get to require proof, since science isn't
in the business of proving, but rather, disproving. By
your own request, you are bound in a position of
attempting to disprove God, which cannot be done.
For the sake of argument however, what type of proof
would suffice? And remember, it must be proof that
does not violate God being God, otherwise I have not
proven God.
Just as anyone - regardless of chosen religious belief or lack thereof
- who has a thermometer, a container of water and a freezer can prove
for themselves, through testable results which are repeatable and
consistent, that water freezes around 0C [or if you like to use the
'disprove' approach; that water does not freeze above 0C], I seek a
similar, testable, repeatable, religiously neutral, proof for the
existence of your deity. Fairly simple *if* you have such proof.
You are being vague. What EXACT proof would suffice?
I thought that I was being quite specific as to the type of proof that
I was seeking. Since you would prefer I be exact and specific then an
appearance by your deity on national TV, with a spectrum of well known,
respected and independent members of the media, would be quite
convincing. Otherwise verifiable photographs of your deity which were
taken under circumstances where multiple, independent, reliable, non
religious wittinesses were present would be suitable
Pretty much anything that could be backed up by multiple, independent,
reliable sources who are not all of the same religious beliefs and were
some are preferably atheists - or former atheists anyway as the
appearance of your deity in the flesh directly and personally to them is
bound to cause conversion.
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
08 Apr 2004 06:41:24 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:45:51 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
You can quite easily win this argument by providing testable,
repeatable, scientific proof of the existence of your deity - proof that
can be used by anyone of any religion, or no religion at all, and yield
the same results. Post that proof here ---->
1) You don't get to require proof, since science isn't
in the business of proving, but rather, disproving. By
your own request, you are bound in a position of
attempting to disprove God, which cannot be done.
For the sake of argument however, what type of proof
would suffice? And remember, it must be proof that
does not violate God being God, otherwise I have not
proven God.
Just as anyone - regardless of chosen religious belief or lack thereof
- who has a thermometer, a container of water and a freezer can prove
for themselves, through testable results which are repeatable and
consistent, that water freezes around 0C [or if you like to use the
'disprove' approach; that water does not freeze above 0C], I seek a
similar, testable, repeatable, religiously neutral, proof for the
existence of your deity. Fairly simple *if* you have such proof.
You are being vague. What EXACT proof would suffice?
I thought that I was being quite specific as to the type of proof that
I was seeking. Since you would prefer I be exact and specific then an
appearance by your deity on national TV, with a spectrum of well known,
respected and independent members of the media, would be quite
convincing. Otherwise verifiable photographs of your deity which were
taken under circumstances where multiple, independent, reliable, non
religious wittinesses were present would be suitable
How would these suffice? Trickery can be used in both
cases.
Those who did not wish to believe, would call it a
conspiracy to pull off the greatest hoax of all time
and we both know it. The evidence is with those, for
example, who do not believe we landed on the Moon.
Anyone who does not wish to believe, would not be
convinced by anything on television, so that would be
of no use.
How would photographs be, "otherwise verifiable",
specifically? What would lead all people to conclude
that it is absolutely God in the photograph? Once
again, it would be considered a great hoax, regardless
of who was there. Once again, look at the lunar
landing.
Those who do not wish to believe, would not believe
either of the scenarios you presented.
Pretty much anything that could be backed up by multiple, independent,
reliable sources who are not all of the same religious beliefs and were
some are preferably atheists - or former atheists anyway as the
appearance of your deity in the flesh directly and personally to them is
bound to cause conversion.
That's not true. If one atheist saw something, he/she
would claim it was a hallucination. If more than one
saw it, they would claim that it was a mass
hallucination, even though in reality, there is no such
thing. But they would claim that they have proved that
mass hallucination has now been proved.
Besides this, God did appear here on Earth and yet,
most still did not believe. You forget the one all
important factor in this equation... the human heart.
I do appreciate you responding more specifically. I
really do. But if you are honest with yourself, you
have to admit, that what I said is true. Those who do
not want to believe, will not believe, no matter what
you put in front of them.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Sleep peacefully, God is awake.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
08 Apr 2004 07:24:30 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:45:51 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
<snip>
Just as anyone - regardless of chosen religious belief or lack thereof
- who has a thermometer, a container of water and a freezer can prove
for themselves, through testable results which are repeatable and
consistent, that water freezes around 0C [or if you like to use the
'disprove' approach; that water does not freeze above 0C], I seek a
similar, testable, repeatable, religiously neutral, proof for the
existence of your deity. Fairly simple *if* you have such proof.
You are being vague. What EXACT proof would suffice?
I thought that I was being quite specific as to the type of proof that
I was seeking. Since you would prefer I be exact and specific then an
appearance by your deity on national TV, with a spectrum of well known,
respected and independent members of the media, would be quite
convincing. Otherwise verifiable photographs of your deity which were
taken under circumstances where multiple, independent, reliable, non
religious wittinesses were present would be suitable
How would these suffice? Trickery can be used in both
cases.
Those who did not wish to believe, would call it a
conspiracy to pull off the greatest hoax of all time
and we both know it.
Not if representatives of those who do not wish to believe and other
noted skeptics, scientists and people of known character were invited to
the televised event to meet your deity in person.
The evidence is with those, for
example, who do not believe we landed on the Moon.
It is quite easy to prove that men have landed on the moon. [a] point
the Hubble telescope at the sea of tranquility and publish the photos of
the LEM base sitting there; or [b] wait for the ESA lunar mapping
satellite to go into orbit around the moon in 2005-6 and publish the
photos of the sea of tranquility; or [c] point a laser at the sea of
tranquility through an astronomical telescope and measure the
reflections from the retroflectors that were placed there by the astronauts.
Anyone who does not wish to believe, would not be
convinced by anything on television, so that would be
of no use.
But they would be convinced if noted skeptics, scientists and atheists
were in attendance and verified that it was your deity.
How would photographs be, "otherwise verifiable",
specifically? What would lead all people to conclude
that it is absolutely God in the photograph?
If your deity were photographed at a photo opportunity with well known
scientists, reporters and others of unimpeachable character on actual
negatives which can be verified us unretouched, and if a sufficient
number of independent observers were to witness the taking of the
photograph, then I think you would have no problems.
<snip>
Pretty much anything that could be backed up by multiple, independent,
reliable sources who are not all of the same religious beliefs and were
some are preferably atheists - or former atheists anyway as the
appearance of your deity in the flesh directly and personally to them is
bound to cause conversion.
That's not true. If one atheist saw something, he/she
would claim it was a hallucination. If more than one
saw it, they would claim that it was a mass
hallucination, even though in reality, there is no such
thing. But they would claim that they have proved that
mass hallucination has now been proved.
You bluster and equivocate. There are ways that things can be proved
to have happened... especially when multiple, independent, wittiness and
journalists of good character have see it for themselves. I am not
talking a select few hand picked witnesses, but hundreds or even 1,000
invited to the event. Yes there will be some skeptics remaining but by
and large, the vast majority of people would be willing to believe if
your deity were able to appear and prove he/she/it is the one and only
deity.
Besides this, God did appear here on Earth and yet,
most still did not believe.
Unfortunately that claimed appearance was some centuries ago and the
witnesses present were few in number and their claims are not able to be
independently verified by a large body of both supporters and skeptics
since the source material all goes back to the same fragmentary scrolls
in an ancient dead language subject to translation errors.
You forget the one all
important factor in this equation... the human heart.
Which is designed for pumping blood... your point?
I do appreciate you responding more specifically. I
really do. But if you are honest with yourself, you
have to admit, that what I said is true. Those who do
not want to believe, will not believe, no matter what
you put in front of them.
Agreed. However, the larger the body of verifiable physical evidence,
preferably from the largest number of independent and unimpeachable
sources, the better your chances that the vast majority [other then the
lunatic fringe] will believe. Almost nobody disputes 9-11 happened due
to the large body of independent coverage by all types of media and the
physical evidence.
<sig snip>
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
08 Apr 2004 10:49:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:24:30 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:45:51 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
<snip>
Just as anyone - regardless of chosen religious belief or lack thereof
- who has a thermometer, a container of water and a freezer can prove
for themselves, through testable results which are repeatable and
consistent, that water freezes around 0C [or if you like to use the
'disprove' approach; that water does not freeze above 0C], I seek a
similar, testable, repeatable, religiously neutral, proof for the
existence of your deity. Fairly simple *if* you have such proof.
You are being vague. What EXACT proof would suffice?
I thought that I was being quite specific as to the type of proof that
I was seeking. Since you would prefer I be exact and specific then an
appearance by your deity on national TV, with a spectrum of well known,
respected and independent members of the media, would be quite
convincing. Otherwise verifiable photographs of your deity which were
taken under circumstances where multiple, independent, reliable, non
religious wittinesses were present would be suitable
How would these suffice? Trickery can be used in both
cases.
Those who did not wish to believe, would call it a
conspiracy to pull off the greatest hoax of all time
and we both know it.
Not if representatives of those who do not wish to believe and other
noted skeptics, scientists and people of known character were invited to
the televised event to meet your deity in person.
How does that rule out a hoax? Even if they met Him in
person, why would they believe? They've seen David
Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear.
The evidence is with those, for
example, who do not believe we landed on the Moon.
It is quite easy to prove that men have landed on the moon. [a] point
the Hubble telescope at the sea of tranquility and publish the photos of
the LEM base sitting there; or [b] wait for the ESA lunar mapping
satellite to go into orbit around the moon in 2005-6 and publish the
photos of the sea of tranquility; or [c] point a laser at the sea of
tranquility through an astronomical telescope and measure the
reflections from the retroflectors that were placed there by the astronauts.
I am not disagreeing with you. I am only saying that
even with this, there ARE those who do NOT believe that
it happened. In fact, a friend of mine emailed me a
web link that is supposed to prove that we never landed
on the Moon. I have not reviewed it all yet. I myself
have no problem believing we landed on the Moon. I'm
just making a point.
Anyone who does not wish to believe, would not be
convinced by anything on television, so that would be
of no use.
But they would be convinced if noted skeptics, scientists and atheists
were in attendance and verified that it was your deity.
That is your claim. But you assume that the "skeptics,
scientists and atheists" would be convinced.
If the skeptics were, they wouldn't be called skeptics.
The scientists would still demand further tests.
The atheists would not be atheists, if they believed.
Therefore, your panel would consist of two types of
people that wouldn't be those types of people, if they
were convinced and then you would have to find a way to
prove that they used to be. Therein lies the flaw in
your logic. You assume everyone watching would believe
the people making the claim on TV. You would also be
left with a third group that, since they are
scientists, would need further testing, so they would
not make the statement that they are convinced
scientifically. They haven't attempted to disprove it
yet. Can you not see this?
How would photographs be, "otherwise verifiable",
specifically? What would lead all people to conclude
that it is absolutely God in the photograph?
If your deity were photographed at a photo opportunity with well known
scientists, reporters and others of unimpeachable character on actual
negatives which can be verified us unretouched, and if a sufficient
number of independent observers were to witness the taking of the
photograph, then I think you would have no problems.
See above. And you would still have to prove it was
God. After all, what would God look like, that I
should recognize Him in a photo?
<snip>
Pretty much anything that could be backed up by multiple, independent,
reliable sources who are not all of the same religious beliefs and were
some are preferably atheists - or former atheists anyway as the
appearance of your deity in the flesh directly and personally to them is
bound to cause conversion.
That's not true. If one atheist saw something, he/she
would claim it was a hallucination. If more than one
saw it, they would claim that it was a mass
hallucination, even though in reality, there is no such
thing. But they would claim that they have proved that
mass hallucination has now been proved.
You bluster and equivocate. There are ways that things can be proved
to have happened... especially when multiple, independent, wittiness and
journalists of good character have see it for themselves. I am not
talking a select few hand picked witnesses, but hundreds or even 1,000
invited to the event. Yes there will be some skeptics remaining but by
and large, the vast majority of people would be willing to believe if
your deity were able to appear and prove he/she/it is the one and only
deity.
Is that why there are people who still don't believe in
the lunar landing, even though we have film and photos?
Besides this, God did appear here on Earth and yet,
most still did not believe.
Unfortunately that claimed appearance was some centuries ago and the
witnesses present were few in number and their claims are not able to be
independently verified by a large body of both supporters and skeptics
since the source material all goes back to the same fragmentary scrolls
in an ancient dead language subject to translation errors.
That is your claim, but let's look at it. If God
appeared now and people wrote about it, what would they
say 2,000 years from now? And you forget, over 500
people saw Him after the Resurrection and were still
alive to verify with, when the text making the claim
was written. And it was skeptics that needed to be
convinced and were, which is why it spread within the
lifetime of those who witnessed it.
You forget the one all
important factor in this equation... the human heart.
Which is designed for pumping blood... your point?
You know what my point is.
I do appreciate you responding more specifically. I
really do. But if you are honest with yourself, you
have to admit, that what I said is true. Those who do
not want to believe, will not believe, no matter what
you put in front of them.
Agreed. However, the larger the body of verifiable physical evidence,
preferably from the largest number of independent and unimpeachable
sources, the better your chances that the vast majority [other then the
lunatic fringe] will believe. Almost nobody disputes 9-11 happened due
to the large body of independent coverage by all types of media and the
physical evidence.
And even if the "vast majority" believed, there would
still be those who saw the same evidence and yet, did
not believe, so your point is moot and mine is proved,
by your own words that note that not all did.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Christians are the light of the world, but the switch
has to be turned on.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 12:34:12 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:24:30 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:45:51 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
<snip>
Those who did not wish to believe, would call it a
conspiracy to pull off the greatest hoax of all time
and we both know it.
Not if representatives of those who do not wish to believe and other
noted skeptics, scientists and people of known character were invited to
the televised event to meet your deity in person.
How does that rule out a hoax? Even if they met Him in
person, why would they believe? They've seen David
Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear.
Surely an omnipotent deity can provide more convincing proof that David
Copperfield. For example, a truly omnipotent deity has only to will
that all believe and all WILL believe!
<snip comments on hown one proves the moon landing>
I am not disagreeing with you. I am only saying that
even with this, there ARE those who do NOT believe that
it happened. In fact, a friend of mine emailed me a
web link that is supposed to prove that we never landed
on the Moon. I have not reviewed it all yet. I myself
have no problem believing we landed on the Moon. I'm
just making a point.
I understood your point and I believe I countered it with cogent points
that show only the tinfoil hat crowd is likely to claim the moon landing
never took place.
Anyone who does not wish to believe, would not be
convinced by anything on television, so that would be
of no use.
But they would be convinced if noted skeptics, scientists and atheists
were in attendance and verified that it was your deity.
That is your claim. But you assume that the "skeptics,
scientists and atheists" would be convinced.
As I pointed out above, a truly omnipotent and all powerful deity would
have no problem making people believe.
If the skeptics were, they wouldn't be called skeptics.
Apparently you have never heard of former skeptics who have changed
their ways after being provided enough proof to overcome their skepticism.
The scientists would still demand further tests.
An entirely reasonable position. However, an omnipotent and all
powerful deity should be able to provide any and all scientific evidence
required. Now if you deity could not provide that, one might presume
that they are not omnipotent.
The atheists would not be atheists, if they believed.
I am quite certain that I could locate some former atheists... and once
again, an omnipotent deity would have no problem making people believe
he/she/it is who they claim to be.
Therefore, your panel would consist of two types of
people that wouldn't be those types of people, if they
were convinced and then you would have to find a way to
prove that they used to be. Therein lies the flaw in
your logic. You assume everyone watching would believe
the people making the claim on TV. You would also be
left with a third group that, since they are
scientists, would need further testing, so they would
not make the statement that they are convinced
scientifically. They haven't attempted to disprove it
yet. Can you not see this?
See my comments about omnipotent deities above.
<lack of time snip>
I do appreciate you responding more specifically. I
really do. But if you are honest with yourself, you
have to admit, that what I said is true. Those who do
not want to believe, will not believe, no matter what
you put in front of them.
Agreed. However, the larger the body of verifiable physical evidence,
preferably from the largest number of independent and unimpeachable
sources, the better your chances that the vast majority [other then the
lunatic fringe] will believe. Almost nobody disputes 9-11 happened due
to the large body of independent coverage by all types of media and the
physical evidence.
And even if the "vast majority" believed, there would
still be those who saw the same evidence and yet, did
not believe, so your point is moot and mine is proved,
by your own words that note that not all did.
Once again, if your deity is omnipotent and all-powerful as you and
other religionists claim, then said deity would have no problem turning
any and all people into believers. If your deity was unable to do that,
then they would not be the omnipotent and all-powerful deity you claim
them to be.
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 08:13:15 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:34:12 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:24:30 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:45:51 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
<snip>
Those who did not wish to believe, would call it a
conspiracy to pull off the greatest hoax of all time
and we both know it.
Not if representatives of those who do not wish to believe and other
noted skeptics, scientists and people of known character were invited to
the televised event to meet your deity in person.
How does that rule out a hoax? Even if they met Him in
person, why would they believe? They've seen David
Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear.
Surely an omnipotent deity can provide more convincing proof that David
Copperfield. For example, a truly omnipotent deity has only to will
that all believe and all WILL believe!
And then we wouldn't know it, because we have no choice
in the matter. You couldn't even think about why you
believe, since you wouldn't have a reason of your own.
I am not disagreeing with you. I am only saying that
even with this, there ARE those who do NOT believe that
it happened. In fact, a friend of mine emailed me a
web link that is supposed to prove that we never landed
on the Moon. I have not reviewed it all yet. I myself
have no problem believing we landed on the Moon. I'm
just making a point.
I understood your point and I believe I countered it with cogent points
that show only the tinfoil hat crowd is likely to claim the moon landing
never took place.
I disagree. There are some very intelligent people who
make the same claim. The friend who sent me the web
link is no a stupid man, nor does he wear a tin foil
hat. :)
Anyone who does not wish to believe, would not be
convinced by anything on television, so that would be
of no use.
But they would be convinced if noted skeptics, scientists and atheists
were in attendance and verified that it was your deity.
That is your claim. But you assume that the "skeptics,
scientists and atheists" would be convinced.
As I pointed out above, a truly omnipotent and all powerful deity would
have no problem making people believe.
See above.
<snip>
And even if the "vast majority" believed, there would
still be those who saw the same evidence and yet, did
not believe, so your point is moot and mine is proved,
by your own words that note that not all did.
Once again, if your deity is omnipotent and all-powerful as you and
other religionists claim, then said deity would have no problem turning
any and all people into believers. If your deity was unable to do that,
then they would not be the omnipotent and all-powerful deity you claim
them to be.
See earlier in message. You're dodging the issue here.
The issue is you defining the parameters that would
convince all people and you obviously made claims about
scientific proof (which doesn't really exist, since
science isn't in the business of proof). I have
demonstrated that people still may not believe.
There have been many skeptics that now believe.
There are many scientists that state that this universe
couldn't be, without an Intelligent Designer.
There have been many former atheists who now believe.
These things don't mean anything to you, or you would
believe now.
As for TV, that could be a hoax.
As for a photograph, what does God look like, that I
should recognize Him?
Saying, "Well, if God is all powerful, then He
shouldn't have any problem making everyone believe",
is, no offense, disingenuous, since it doesn't address
what would make them believe and you're making requests
to see something that can be verified. All I did is
ask what would convince you and the rest of the world.
As I have demonstrated, it doesn't matter what you show
people, if they don't want to believe, they won't.
Jesus appeared and had witnesses of His Resurrection.
You don't believe, even though He convinced people who
were skeptics. So what would an appearance now do?
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
When Christianity becomes religion,
it leaves the heart hungry.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 09:35:31 PM |
|
|
In article <9b8d709p9u0k16im7j70f1fivc9c7vq96l@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Once again, if your deity is omnipotent and all-powerful as you and
other religionists claim, then said deity would have no problem turning
any and all people into believers. If your deity was unable to do that,
then they would not be the omnipotent and all-powerful deity you claim
them to be.
See earlier in message. You're dodging the issue here.
The issue is you defining the parameters that would
convince all people and you obviously made claims about
scientific proof (which doesn't really exist, since
science isn't in the business of proof). I have
demonstrated that people still may not believe.
Why don't you explain how one decides what to believe without proof vs.
what cases to require proof? That is, if I say I am Jesus Christ, do
you believe me? If not, why not? Why require more from me than you do
the bible, for instance?
There have been many skeptics that now believe.
But even more "believers" who realized they were wrong.
There are many scientists that state that this universe
couldn't be, without an Intelligent Designer.
The idea that the universe needs an intelligent designer is silly. It
doesn't. It is illogical to say it does.
There have been many former atheists who now believe.
But, as above, more believers who become atheist.
These things don't mean anything to you, or you would
believe now.
PLEASE. Explain to me why anyone would simply "believe" without proof.
As for TV, that could be a hoax.
As for a photograph, what does God look like, that I
should recognize Him?
So maybe it is me. Or you, right?
Saying, "Well, if God is all powerful, then He
shouldn't have any problem making everyone believe",
is, no offense, disingenuous, since it doesn't address
what would make them believe and you're making requests
to see something that can be verified. All I did is
ask what would convince you and the rest of the world.
Speaking for myself, I can think of one thing that might make me
believe. If it were discovered, somehow, that we were the only living
creatures in the universe. That would, at the very least, make me
suspicious.
As I have demonstrated, it doesn't matter what you show
people, if they don't want to believe, they won't.
Some people are logical and sensible. They don't understand why they
have one set of rules for EVERYTHING (except God) and another set of
rules for God. Maybe you can explain.
Jesus appeared and had witnesses of His Resurrection.
You have no reason to think that.
You don't believe, even though He convinced people who
were skeptics. So what would an appearance now do?
Why is the standard of proof so different for God? Why must we
"believe?" Is God so weak that he can offer nothing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 07:43:54 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 19:35:31 -0700, David Barnes
<pass@dbarnes.com> spake thusly:
There have been many skeptics that now believe.
But even more "believers" who realized they were wrong.
That's your claim. However, labeling oneself as a
believer, does not mean that one is.
There are many scientists that state that this universe
couldn't be, without an Intelligent Designer.
The idea that the universe needs an intelligent designer is silly. It
doesn't. It is illogical to say it does.
The idea that it doesn't, is silly. You believe that
something this complex came from nothing. Nothing made
something, all by itself, even though there was nothing
there to make the something and it exploded and then
life came from non-living matter, all by itself,
regardless of how complex that is, contrary to the fact
that abiogenesis has been disproved and then you call
my beliefs silly? Please.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
http://www.delusionresistance.org/creation/christ_scientific_creation.html
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 10:05:08 AM |
|
|
In article <dsqf70d5eq8o0qdpvr2jehlh5i8eve3re0@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 19:35:31 -0700, David Barnes
<pass@dbarnes.com> spake thusly:
There have been many skeptics that now believe.
But even more "believers" who realized they were wrong.
That's your claim. However, labeling oneself as a
believer, does not mean that one is.
And you are the one who determines who is a believer?
There are many scientists that state that this universe
couldn't be, without an Intelligent Designer.
The idea that the universe needs an intelligent designer is silly. It
doesn't. It is illogical to say it does.
The idea that it doesn't, is silly. You believe that
something this complex came from nothing. Nothing made
something, all by itself, even though there was nothing
there to make the something and it exploded and then
life came from non-living matter, all by itself,
regardless of how complex that is, contrary to the fact
that abiogenesis has been disproved and then you call
my beliefs silly? Please.
There is just one really HUGE problem with your argument. If the
universe had to have an intelligent designer, where did the intelligent
designer come from?
You hope to argue that anything as complex as the universe and
everything in it obviously needs an even more complex designer. Great.
Who created him? How can you possibly apply one standard, that complex
things need a designer, and then ignore that standard when applied to
your argument. That is called silly.
There is no evidence whatsoever that God exists, other than your
inability to comprehend the complexities of evolution. Scientists
accept that evolution is factual. Every day we have more and more
evidence. Religious fundamentalism lacks the scientific support of
evolution. I understand that you live in a world where you pick and
choose what you believe. The question I have, and that you have never
answered, is "How do you pick one thing to "believe" and reject another
if you don't apply science?" How do you decide what to have "faith"
in?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RobertVB" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 12:29:03 PM |
|
|
In article <dsqf70d5eq8o0qdpvr2jehlh5i8eve3re0@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
There are many scientists that state that this universe
couldn't be, without an Intelligent Designer.
The idea that the universe needs an intelligent designer is silly. It
doesn't. It is illogical to say it does.
The idea that it doesn't, is silly.
Actually no. I think every biology class runs the 'Life' program
these days. Did you ever see it?
http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html
This is an excellent and simple demonstration that any system that has
rules will develop patterns, complex patterns.
something this complex came from nothing.
That's just what you would expect from any system with rules.
Nothing made
something, all by itself, even though there was nothing
there to make the something and it exploded
Actually no - current theory is that our universe is just one of many
in a hyperdimensional foam with each universe a bubble. Our universe
probably sprang from the remnants of a previous one.
and then
life came from non-living matter, all by itself,
regardless of how complex that is, contrary to the fact
that abiogenesis has been disproved
No only the old middle ages believes have been 'disproven. And as
theorists have pointed out, if the universe DIDN'T have the rules
necessary for complex reactions needed for life to exist, then no one
would be asking the question. Who knows there might be one 'living
universe' out of a google of ones created, but only the living one is
going to have beings asking 'how and why'.
Actually there are some very useful theories on the origins of life
that involve subsea vents and the complex layered chemical reactions
that occur on the rocks near them. The original basis for the cells
came from the rocks, it bubbles off, and all it would take is after a
billiion years or so is ONE to be able to come off and be
self-replicating and there you have it - life and it developed from
there.
and then you call my beliefs silly? Please.
Hey saying you've read the end of the book before you've even gotten to
it is cheating. Again, where is there any indication that there has
been 'intelligent design'? Intelligent design depends on you saying
something 'couldn't' happen and science can't prove anything, even
that. That's an unprovable assumption and you know it.
Personally if there was 'intelligent design' the designer should be
sued - slipshod work, useless vestigal processes, massive quality
control issues. Where's my lawyer? :)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 01:32:51 PM |
|
|
Pharisee Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
There have been many skeptics that now believe.
But even more "believers" who realized they were wrong.
That's your claim. However, labeling oneself as a
believer, does not mean that one is.
That must be why so few people regard you to be a true believer.
There are many scientists that state that this universe
couldn't be, without an Intelligent Designer.
The idea that the universe needs an intelligent designer is silly. It
doesn't. It is illogical to say it does.
The idea that it doesn't, is silly. You believe that
something this complex came from nothing.
You think that because YOU cannot understand then it must be "silly".
Arrogance. Pride. You even place yourself above your god.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 10:58:36 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 09:13:15 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Saying, "Well, if God is all powerful, then He
shouldn't have any problem making everyone believe",
is, no offense, disingenuous, since it doesn't address
what would make them believe and you're making requests
to see something that can be verified. All I did is
ask what would convince you and the rest of the world.
As I have demonstrated, it doesn't matter what you show
people, if they don't want to believe, they won't.
Jesus appeared and had witnesses of His Resurrection.
You don't believe, even though He convinced people who
were skeptics. So what would an appearance now do?
You're such a believer, then I'm SURE you believe all the followers when they see a miracle... an
Image of Jesus on the back side of a highway sign or in the pattern on the side of a cow... over the
years, millions of true believers have flocked to see such miracles. Obviously these things are
PROOF that got exists, are they not?
I suspect you're more intelligent than that. Cudos to you.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 11:41:45 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 08:58:36 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 09:13:15 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Saying, "Well, if God is all powerful, then He
shouldn't have any problem making everyone believe",
is, no offense, disingenuous, since it doesn't address
what would make them believe and you're making requests
to see something that can be verified. All I did is
ask what would convince you and the rest of the world.
As I have demonstrated, it doesn't matter what you show
people, if they don't want to believe, they won't.
Jesus appeared and had witnesses of His Resurrection.
You don't believe, even though He convinced people who
were skeptics. So what would an appearance now do?
You're such a believer, then I'm SURE you believe all the followers when they see a miracle... an
Image of Jesus on the back side of a highway sign or in the pattern on the side of a cow... over the
years, millions of true believers have flocked to see such miracles. Obviously these things are
PROOF that got exists, are they not?
You're avoiding the issue, but that does not surprise
me at all.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous)
for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of
death. Mostly they cheat. ...If any event in life's
history resembles man's creation myths, it is this
sudden diversification of marine life when
multicellular organisms took over as the dominant
actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and
embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us
and stands as a major biological revolution on a par
with the invention of self-replication
and the origin of the eukaryotic cell." (Bengtson,
Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol.
345 (June 28, 1990), pp. 765-766)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 12:38:20 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:41:45 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 08:58:36 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 09:13:15 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Saying, "Well, if God is all powerful, then He
shouldn't have any problem making everyone believe",
is, no offense, disingenuous, since it doesn't address
what would make them believe and you're making requests
to see something that can be verified. All I did is
ask what would convince you and the rest of the world.
As I have demonstrated, it doesn't matter what you show
people, if they don't want to believe, they won't.
Jesus appeared and had witnesses of His Resurrection.
You don't believe, even though He convinced people who
were skeptics. So what would an appearance now do?
You're such a believer, then I'm SURE you believe all the followers when they see a miracle... an
Image of Jesus on the back side of a highway sign or in the pattern on the side of a cow... over the
years, millions of true believers have flocked to see such miracles. Obviously these things are
PROOF that got exists, are they not?
You're avoiding the issue, but that does not surprise
me at all.
I'm not avoiding any issues, at least not intentionally. You're right... if someone DOES NOT want
to believe, no amount of 'evidence' will convince them. For instance, the religion right will never
believe evolution, or that homosexuals are not the huge threat to morality they think.
If the Christian God wanted to show Himself, He would, and could convince us. How about waking up
tomorrow and having the World Trade Center back up and untouched? I'd be the first to believe in
God if that happened. Of course... I would need proof that it was the Christian God, and not
another god, but I would most definately BELIEVE in a GOD.
James, Seattle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 01:31:53 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 10:38:20 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:41:45 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 08:58:36 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 09:13:15 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
Saying, "Well, if God is all powerful, then He
shouldn't have any problem making everyone believe",
is, no offense, disingenuous, since it doesn't address
what would make them believe and you're making requests
to see something that can be verified. All I did is
ask what would convince you and the rest of the world.
As I have demonstrated, it doesn't matter what you show
people, if they don't want to believe, they won't.
Jesus appeared and had witnesses of His Resurrection.
You don't believe, even though He convinced people who
were skeptics. So what would an appearance now do?
You're such a believer, then I'm SURE you believe all the followers when they see a miracle... an
Image of Jesus on the back side of a highway sign or in the pattern on the side of a cow... over the
years, millions of true believers have flocked to see such miracles. Obviously these things are
PROOF that got exists, are they not?
You're avoiding the issue, but that does not surprise
me at all.
I'm not avoiding any issues, at least not intentionally. You're right... if someone DOES NOT want
to believe, no amount of 'evidence' will convince them. For instance, the religion right will never
believe evolution, or that homosexuals are not the huge threat to morality they think.
If the Christian God wanted to show Himself, He would, and could convince us. How about waking up
tomorrow and having the World Trade Center back up and untouched? I'd be the first to believe in
God if that happened. Of course... I would need proof that it was the Christian God, and not
another god, but I would most definately BELIEVE in a GOD.
Or you would believe that we were all part of some
experiment by aliens, to mess with our memories, as
many others would. Remember, admitting God means
admitting that many other things you believe are wrong
and means that you may have to face your own sin.
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that
fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the
conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination
of the work of those paleontologists who have been
particularly concerned with the relationship between
paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that
of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness
of the fact that the record of evolution, like any
other historical record, must be construed within a
complex of particular and general preconceptions not
the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has
occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any
evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the
weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with
it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary
theories, and revolutionary theories and special
creationist theories and even historical theories."
(Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation,"
review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P.
Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
10 Apr 2004 12:32:13 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 14:31:53 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
You're avoiding the issue, but that does not surprise
me at all.
I'm not avoiding any issues, at least not intentionally. You're right... if someone DOES NOT want
to believe, no amount of 'evidence' will convince them. For instance, the religion right will never
believe evolution, or that homosexuals are not the huge threat to morality they think.
If the Christian God wanted to show Himself, He would, and could convince us. How about waking up
tomorrow and having the World Trade Center back up and untouched? I'd be the first to believe in
God if that happened. Of course... I would need proof that it was the Christian God, and not
another god, but I would most definately BELIEVE in a GOD.
Or you would believe that we were all part of some
experiment by aliens, to mess with our memories, as
many others would. Remember, admitting God means
admitting that many other things you believe are wrong
and means that you may have to face your own sin.
Unless alien ships came with the Trade-Center-Miracle, No... I don't think I'd believe that it was
an alien experiment. But since we're talking so hypothetically, if the miracle DID involve alien
ships, you'd have to dismiss you're entire religion.
I know what admitting God means. I was a Christian for 23 years and was involved in the youth
ministry of my church. I would have absolutely no problems accepting God if He could only show us
He exists. I'm an athiest, not stupid. (although I'm sure you'd disagree with THAT statement.) :-)
hehe
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Michael Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
09 Apr 2004 11:45:34 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:34:12 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:24:30 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 23:45:51 -0400, "L. Michael
Roberts" <L_Michael_Roberts@NoSpamThanks.net> spake
thusly:
<snip 2 end>
I tire of your endless obfuscations, and avoidance of the issues...
especially in the part of this thread where I have asked you, as a
Christian, to demonstrate that you speak the truth and are not lying, by
backing up your statement with facts. You have failed to do so [despite
many opportunities] and have continued to evade and avoid thus
demonstrating, as far as I am concerned, that you are a false Christian
and an unrepentant liar [sinner]. You have brought the good name of
Christians and the clergy into disrepute.
My time is limited [after all it is holy week] and thus I will be
participating less in this thread so have cut your response and will not
indulge you with the opportunity to dance around further avoiding the
truth and continuing to spread lies.
Now back up your assertion which you made in another section of this
thread or it will be revealed for all who read these exchanges that you
are unrepentant in you lies and will spend eternity in the lake of fire
- repent hell-bound sinner!!
--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 08:40:48 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:39:41 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
You support banning/preventing same-sex marriage thereby denying a
small group of citizens EQUAL rights.
You liberals like to pretend that things are the way
that you want them. The fact is, they are already
banned. You support changing the law to support
sinful, deviant behaviour.
"Sinful" is a Christian construct. It's a SIN to work on Sundays, but Christians ignore THAT
one.... and it's one of the 10 Commandments from GOD. In the USA citizens do not have to follow
christian religious laws; we're not a theocracy.
As for "deviant" behaviour. Where do YOU decide to draw the line?
Punk Rockers are "deviant".
Hetrosexual adults into kinky sex are "deviant".
Christians would call anyone who masterbates "deviant".
What about men with sexual fantasies of two women at once? Deviant!!!
All of the above is Legal and should stay so for as long as the USA exists, you'd probably agree.
Just because YOU determine that homosexuality is "deviant" means nothing at all to anyone but you.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 08:49:53 AM |
|
|
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:ddc570dhisegfljgb0su4gemf0d1igp8p7@4ax.com...
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:39:41 -0400, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
You support banning/preventing same-sex marriage thereby denying a
small group of citizens EQUAL rights.
You liberals like to pretend that things are the way
that you want them. The fact is, they are already
banned. You support changing the law to support
sinful, deviant behaviour.
"Sinful" is a Christian construct. It's a SIN to work on Sundays, but
Christians ignore THAT
one.... and it's one of the 10 Commandments from GOD. In the USA citizens
do not have to follow
christian religious laws; we're not a theocracy.
So are you going to take care of the people who are essential employees and
are required to report to work on a Sunday?
Example: Police, Medical, Military, Fireman, Corrections, ect...
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 06:01:55 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 09:49:53 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:ddc570dhisegfljgb0su4gemf0d1igp8p7@4ax.com...
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:39:41 -0400, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
You support banning/preventing same-sex marriage thereby denying a
small group of citizens EQUAL rights.
You liberals like to pretend that things are the way
that you want them. The fact is, they are already
banned. You support changing the law to support
sinful, deviant behaviour.
"Sinful" is a Christian construct. It's a SIN to work on Sundays, but
Christians ignore THAT
one.... and it's one of the 10 Commandments from GOD. In the USA citizens
do not have to follow
christian religious laws; we're not a theocracy.
So are you going to take care of the people who are essential employees and
are required to report to work on a Sunday?
Example: Police, Medical, Military, Fireman, Corrections, ect...
Hey there... I don't agree with most Christian Dogma, I was just making a point that GOD says to
keep the Sabbath Holy. Christians ignore that commandment all the time. And I'm not talking about
essential services... I'm talking about shopping, drinking, baseball-watching, having sex...
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 08:15:32 PM |
|
|
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:ejd6705pg9qs3briv6ku5p5e8jk4ba928a@4ax.com...
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 09:49:53 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:ddc570dhisegfljgb0su4gemf0d1igp8p7@4ax.com...
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:39:41 -0400, Pastor Dave
<nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
You support banning/preventing same-sex marriage thereby denying a
small group of citizens EQUAL rights.
You liberals like to pretend that things are the way
that you want them. The fact is, they are already
banned. You support changing the law to support
sinful, deviant behaviour.
"Sinful" is a Christian construct. It's a SIN to work on Sundays, but
Christians ignore THAT
one.... and it's one of the 10 Commandments from GOD. In the USA
citizens
do not have to follow
christian religious laws; we're not a theocracy.
So are you going to take care of the people who are essential employees
and
are required to report to work on a Sunday?
Example: Police, Medical, Military, Fireman, Corrections, ect...
Hey there... I don't agree with most Christian Dogma,
I was just making a point that GOD says to
keep the Sabbath Holy. Christians ignore that commandment all the time.
And I'm not talking about
essential services... I'm talking about shopping, drinking,
baseball-watching, having sex...
James, Seattle
You said it's a sin to "work" on Sundays
essential or not...they are working.
I am essential, I work on Sunday.
I don't like it, but I have too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
07 Apr 2004 07:43:30 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 21:15:32 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
You said it's a sin to "work" on Sundays
essential or not...they are working.
I am essential, I work on Sunday.
I don't like it, but I have too.
Hey, *I* didn't say anything. GOD commanded "Keep the Sabbath Holy" If you think breaking a Godly
commandment is a 'sin' then it is.
James, Seattle.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 03:09:14 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:40:48 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:39:41 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
You support banning/preventing same-sex marriage thereby denying a
small group of citizens EQUAL rights.
You liberals like to pretend that things are the way
that you want them. The fact is, they are already
banned. You support changing the law to support
sinful, deviant behaviour.
"Sinful" is a Christian construct.
No, it is a statement by God.
It's a SIN to work on Sundays, but Christians ignore THAT
one.... and it's one of the 10 Commandments from GOD. In the USA citizens do not have to follow
christian religious laws; we're not a theocracy.
Where does the Ten Commandments say that it is a sin to
work on Sunday?
As for "deviant" behaviour. Where do YOU decide to draw the line?
Punk Rockers are "deviant".
Hetrosexual adults into kinky sex are "deviant".
Christians would call anyone who masterbates "deviant".
What about men with sexual fantasies of two women at once? Deviant!!!
With the exception of the masturbation issue, which is
debatable, that would be correct.
All of the above is Legal and should stay so for as long as the USA exists, you'd probably agree.
No, I wouldn't. The fact is, that they used to be
illegal. All you're saying is that you support laws
staying the same, only when they agree with what you
want to see happen. If they don't, then you want them
to change and accuse those who support the existing
laws of being the one who are trying to change the
country.
Just because YOU determine that homosexuality is "deviant" means nothing at all to anyone but you.
Is that why so many people are against it?
--
± Pastor Dave Raymond ±
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Theistic evolutionists are out to please men,
rather than God. They claim to believe in a
virgin birth, people rising from the dead, water
turned into wine and yet, they don't believe that
God created the heaven and the earth in six literal
days, thereby making hypocrites of themselves. Why?
Because man says it isn't so and they would rather
try to please men, instead of choosing to believe
God and stand up for Him. Preachers who claim
theistic evolution are the biggest hypocrites of all
and are in the most danger. Why? Read Isaiah 9:16;
Jeremiah 23:1, 50:6. What do YOU stand for?
"...choose this day whom you will serve. ...as for
me and my house, we will serve the Lord." - Jos 24:15
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Are YOU a Homophobe? If so, can you answer THESE Questions? |
06 Apr 2004 06:12:43 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 16:09:14 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 06:40:48 -0700, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> spake thusly:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 08:39:41 -0400, Pastor Dave <nospam*-*pastordave38@yahoo.com> wrote:
You support banning/preventing same-sex marriage thereby denying a
small group of citizens EQUAL rights.
You liberals like to pretend that things are the way
that you want them. The fact is, they are already
banned. You support changing the law to support
sinful, deviant behaviour.
"Sinful" is a Christian construct.
No, it is a statement by God.
Your God is a Christian God... hense, Your Christian God's use of the word/concept of "sin" to
Christians is a Christian construct.
Buddhists, Indiginous peoples, taoists, athiests, and many other religions (and non-religions) don't
believe in "Sin".
It's a SIN to work on Sundays, but Christians ignore THAT
one.... and it's one of the 10 Commandments from GOD. In the USA citizens do not have to follow
christian re | | | |
