| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ArWeGod" |
| Date: |
11 Dec 2003 06:28:50 AM |
| Object: |
Coke or Pepsi |
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the LightHouse, tried to
put some imagination into an advertising idea ... (blah blah blah) This
effort upset one of the locals, also a Christian, (blah blah blah) he now
thinks that the church is saying that they are better than any other
church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong" churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are people who
DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and Roman
Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what they mean. Extra
credit: prove Odin is not God.
--
ArWeClueless
.
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
11 Dec 2003 06:58:06 PM |
|
|
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> thought hard and said:
What's the diff between Pentecostal
They speak in tongues.
and Baptist
They hate fags. Especially the Southern ones.
and Protestant
Not Catholic.
and Roman
Catholic?
Not Protestant.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
13 Dec 2003 06:24:07 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 00:58:06 +0000 (UTC), Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> thought hard and said:
What's the diff between Pentecostal
They speak in tongues.
and Baptist
They hate fags. Especially the Southern ones.
They hate the southern fags more than they hate the northern ones?
<puzzled look>
and Protestant
Not Catholic.
and Roman
Catholic?
Not Protestant.
---
Mike atheism: a non-prophet
organization...
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way
when you do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their
shoes.
-------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
11 Dec 2003 11:52:09 AM |
|
|
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:puZBb.37049$zs7.4502@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com:
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the LightHouse,
tried to put some imagination into an advertising idea ... (blah blah
blah) This effort upset one of the locals, also a Christian, (blah
blah blah) he now thinks that the church is saying that they are
better than any other church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong" churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are people
who DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and
Roman Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what they
mean. Extra credit: prove Odin is not God.
Protestant churches in general follow the revised creeds of the
reformation, mainly those of Luther and Calvin. They have generally
abandoned or de-emphasized the sacramental aspect of worship and replaced
Holy Communion (the Eucharist) with a 45-minute lecture as the center-
piece of their liturgy. MOST (though not all) Protestand churches adhere
to some variant of Luther's doctrine of sola scriptura (basing their
doctrines, they say, entirely on what is in the Bible (as defined by
Luther and Calvin).
Catholic rites, on the other hand, are more focused on sacramental
liturgy, including the sacrament of Holy Orders which embodies what they
call the apostolic succession of Christ. The Bible (and theirs is
somewhat larger than the Protestant canon) plays more of a guidance role
than being a hard rule for them. For these rites, the hard rules come
from bishops, often from one "Metropolitan" who is deemed the leader of
the rite. The relationship between bishop and priest is at least
somewhat feudal in nature. By "catholic rite" I mean all Roman Catholic,
Old Catholic, Liberal Catholic and Orthodox rites as well as some
segments of the Anglican tradition...
There are schisms among catholic rites just as there are doctrinal rifts
among protestants. Sometimes these reflect dogma, but more often they
reflect politics.
Pentecostals are protestants (usually) who practice "speaking in
tongues" and other such gifts of the Holy Spirit (or what they deem to be
such gifts).
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
11 Dec 2003 03:58:24 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:puZBb.37049$zs7.4502@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com:
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the LightHouse,
tried to put some imagination into an advertising idea ... (blah blah
blah) This effort upset one of the locals, also a Christian, (blah
blah blah) he now thinks that the church is saying that they are
better than any other church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong" churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are people
who DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and
Roman Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what they
mean. Extra credit: prove Odin is not God.
Protestant churches in general follow the revised creeds of the
reformation, mainly those of Luther and Calvin. They have generally
abandoned or de-emphasized the sacramental aspect of worship and replaced
Holy Communion (the Eucharist) with a 45-minute lecture as the center-
piece of their liturgy. MOST (though not all) Protestand churches adhere
to some variant of Luther's doctrine of sola scriptura (basing their
doctrines, they say, entirely on what is in the Bible (as defined by
Luther and Calvin).
and as interpreted by them as well... also true of catholic exegesis. If
you *really* want to interpret the Bible as the spirit moves you,with
complete freedom, become a rabbi.
Catholic rites, on the other hand, are more focused on sacramental
liturgy, including the sacrament of Holy Orders which embodies what they
call the apostolic succession of Christ. The Bible (and theirs is
somewhat larger than the Protestant canon) plays more of a guidance role
than being a hard rule for them. For these rites, the hard rules come
from bishops, often from one "Metropolitan" who is deemed the leader of
the rite. The relationship between bishop and priest is at least
somewhat feudal in nature. By "catholic rite" I mean all Roman Catholic,
Old Catholic, Liberal Catholic and Orthodox rites as well as some
segments of the Anglican tradition...
There are schisms among catholic rites just as there are doctrinal rifts
among protestants. Sometimes these reflect dogma, but more often they
reflect politics.
Pentecostals are protestants (usually) who practice "speaking in
tongues" and other such gifts of the Holy Spirit (or what they deem to be
such gifts).
The cross-denominational variety of pentacostalism is called
"charismatic" faith (from the Greek, of course, "chrism" meaning "to
anoint").
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
11 Dec 2003 10:58:59 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins I read this message from
(John Wilkins):
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:puZBb.37049$zs7.4502@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com:
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the LightHouse,
tried to put some imagination into an advertising idea ... (blah blah
blah) This effort upset one of the locals, also a Christian, (blah
blah blah) he now thinks that the church is saying that they are
better than any other church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong" churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are people
who DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and
Roman Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what they
mean. Extra credit: prove Odin is not God.
Protestant churches in general follow the revised creeds of the
reformation, mainly those of Luther and Calvin. They have generally
abandoned or de-emphasized the sacramental aspect of worship and replaced
Holy Communion (the Eucharist) with a 45-minute lecture as the center-
piece of their liturgy. MOST (though not all) Protestand churches adhere
to some variant of Luther's doctrine of sola scriptura (basing their
doctrines, they say, entirely on what is in the Bible (as defined by
Luther and Calvin).
and as interpreted by them as well... also true of catholic exegesis. If
you *really* want to interpret the Bible as the spirit moves you,with
complete freedom, become a rabbi.
Huh?
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
11 Dec 2003 11:30:39 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <matts.2nopam@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
In talk.origins I read this message from
(John Wilkins):
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:puZBb.37049$zs7.4502@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com:
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the LightHouse,
tried to put some imagination into an advertising idea ... (blah blah
blah) This effort upset one of the locals, also a Christian, (blah
blah blah) he now thinks that the church is saying that they are
better than any other church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong" churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are people
who DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and
Roman Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what they
mean. Extra credit: prove Odin is not God.
Protestant churches in general follow the revised creeds of the
reformation, mainly those of Luther and Calvin. They have generally
abandoned or de-emphasized the sacramental aspect of worship and replaced
Holy Communion (the Eucharist) with a 45-minute lecture as the center-
piece of their liturgy. MOST (though not all) Protestand churches adhere
to some variant of Luther's doctrine of sola scriptura (basing their
doctrines, they say, entirely on what is in the Bible (as defined by
Luther and Calvin).
and as interpreted by them as well... also true of catholic exegesis. If
you *really* want to interpret the Bible as the spirit moves you,with
complete freedom, become a rabbi.
Huh?
As in the old joke - 12 rabbis in a room equals 13 opinions. Moreover,
rabbinic interpretation while bound by tradition is not bound by
authoritative political structures. Sorry for the opacity of the
allusion.
[snip]
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
12 Dec 2003 07:41:07 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins I read this message from
(John Wilkins):
Matt Silberstein <matts.2nopam@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
In talk.origins I read this message from
(John Wilkins):
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:puZBb.37049$zs7.4502@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com:
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the LightHouse,
tried to put some imagination into an advertising idea ... (blah blah
blah) This effort upset one of the locals, also a Christian, (blah
blah blah) he now thinks that the church is saying that they are
better than any other church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong" churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are people
who DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and
Roman Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what they
mean. Extra credit: prove Odin is not God.
Protestant churches in general follow the revised creeds of the
reformation, mainly those of Luther and Calvin. They have generally
abandoned or de-emphasized the sacramental aspect of worship and replaced
Holy Communion (the Eucharist) with a 45-minute lecture as the center-
piece of their liturgy. MOST (though not all) Protestand churches adhere
to some variant of Luther's doctrine of sola scriptura (basing their
doctrines, they say, entirely on what is in the Bible (as defined by
Luther and Calvin).
and as interpreted by them as well... also true of catholic exegesis. If
you *really* want to interpret the Bible as the spirit moves you,with
complete freedom, become a rabbi.
Huh?
As in the old joke - 12 rabbis in a room equals 13 opinions. Moreover,
rabbinic interpretation while bound by tradition is not bound by
authoritative political structures. Sorry for the opacity of the
allusion.
Not so much opaque as misguided. 12 rabbis gives you 13 opinions,
but one rabbi gives you two or three. That does not mean that, in
any way, they just interpret the way the spirit (or even Spirit)
moves them. They give multiple answers because they see (and are
taught to see) the inherent complexity in the questions they
face. They don't get the "simply" science kinds of questions that
lead to single answers (albeit with error bars), they get
unanswerable difficult questions. And they help guide people to
answers rather than tell them what to do. No, rabbis are not
bound by an authoritative political structure (from above), but
that does not mean they have no bounds. Judaism is an inherent
communal religion (it makes no sense to think of practicing
Judaism alone, it makes sense to practice Christianity or
Buddhism alone), a rabbi is embedded (to use the newly popular
term) in his community and his tradition. The congregants are
also learned people, they are commanded to study. A rabbi who
starts to go off the deep end is judged by, and ultimately
answerable to, his congregation.
(No, I am not saying this is anything like a perfect systems,
there are no perfect human systems. The above is an idealized
presentation, of course real situations lead to messy results.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
12 Dec 2003 04:56:59 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <matts.2nopam@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
In talk.origins I read this message from
(John Wilkins):
Matt Silberstein <matts.2nopam@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
In talk.origins I read this message from
(John Wilkins):
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:puZBb.37049$zs7.4502@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com:
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the
LightHouse, tried to put some imagination into an advertising idea
... (blah blah blah) This effort upset one of the locals, also a
Christian, (blah blah blah) he now thinks that the church is
saying that they are better than any other church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong"
churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are
people who DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and
Roman Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what
they mean. Extra credit: prove Odin is not God.
Protestant churches in general follow the revised creeds of the
reformation, mainly those of Luther and Calvin. They have generally
abandoned or de-emphasized the sacramental aspect of worship and
replaced Holy Communion (the Eucharist) with a 45-minute lecture as
the center- piece of their liturgy. MOST (though not all)
Protestand churches adhere to some variant of Luther's doctrine of
sola scriptura (basing their doctrines, they say, entirely on what
is in the Bible (as defined by Luther and Calvin).
and as interpreted by them as well... also true of catholic exegesis. If
you *really* want to interpret the Bible as the spirit moves you,with
complete freedom, become a rabbi.
Huh?
As in the old joke - 12 rabbis in a room equals 13 opinions. Moreover,
rabbinic interpretation while bound by tradition is not bound by
authoritative political structures. Sorry for the opacity of the
allusion.
Not so much opaque as misguided. 12 rabbis gives you 13 opinions,
but one rabbi gives you two or three. That does not mean that, in
any way, they just interpret the way the spirit (or even Spirit)
moves them. They give multiple answers because they see (and are
taught to see) the inherent complexity in the questions they
face. They don't get the "simply" science kinds of questions that
lead to single answers (albeit with error bars), they get
unanswerable difficult questions. And they help guide people to
answers rather than tell them what to do. No, rabbis are not
bound by an authoritative political structure (from above), but
that does not mean they have no bounds. Judaism is an inherent
communal religion (it makes no sense to think of practicing
Judaism alone, it makes sense to practice Christianity or
Buddhism alone), a rabbi is embedded (to use the newly popular
term) in his community and his tradition. The congregants are
also learned people, they are commanded to study. A rabbi who
starts to go off the deep end is judged by, and ultimately
answerable to, his congregation.
(No, I am not saying this is anything like a perfect systems,
there are no perfect human systems. The above is an idealized
presentation, of course real situations lead to messy results.)
Sigh.
I didn't mean that rabbis were not guided, or even constrained, by their
traditions. I simply meant that a rabbi was not bound by anything other
than his learning, his knowledge and his conscience, in interpreting the
scriptures he treats as important.
Of course, it's a bad analogy, because history shows that neither are
scholars in the Christian tradition (Bultmann, Robinson) and in any case
both religions have cultural constraints laid on anyone within them.
And you are wrong about Christianity being not a communal religion - no
version of it has ever allowed that the individual is isolated from the
Church - at most that the individual is in direct communion with God
(since Augustine's Confessions).
Anyway, the passing analogy was imperfect, OK?
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
12 Dec 2003 11:30:22 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins I read this message from
(John Wilkins):
[snip]
And you are wrong about Christianity being not a communal religion - no
version of it has ever allowed that the individual is isolated from the
Church - at most that the individual is in direct communion with God
(since Augustine's Confessions).
I was not wrong so much as I made my point poorly. It is possible
to be Christian alone. It is even possible to be Catholic alone
if one is a priest (though having two makes things much better).
It is much more difficult to be a Jew alone. A major portion of
the worship service, for example, can only be performed with a
mynyan, a group of 10. The religious practice (not the
surrounding culture, with that there is little difference) is
much more geared to community events.
Anyway, the passing analogy was imperfect, OK?
Ok.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
13 Dec 2003 07:55:34 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <matts.2nopam@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
In talk.origins I read this message from
(John Wilkins):
[snip]
And you are wrong about Christianity being not a communal religion - no
version of it has ever allowed that the individual is isolated from the
Church - at most that the individual is in direct communion with God
(since Augustine's Confessions).
I was not wrong so much as I made my point poorly. It is possible
to be Christian alone. It is even possible to be Catholic alone
if one is a priest (though having two makes things much better).
It is much more difficult to be a Jew alone. A major portion of
the worship service, for example, can only be performed with a
mynyan, a group of 10. The religious practice (not the
surrounding culture, with that there is little difference) is
much more geared to community events.
Ah, liturgy... well it is hard to use liturgical forms alone in
Christianity as well - the keyword here being "sacrament".
Anyway, the passing analogy was imperfect, OK?
Ok.
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
12 Dec 2003 09:16:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:41:07 +0000 (UTC), Matt Silberstein
<matts.2nopam@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
In talk.origins I read this message from
(John Wilkins):
Matt Silberstein <matts.2nopam@ix.netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
In talk.origins I read this message from
(John Wilkins):
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:puZBb.37049$zs7.4502@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com:
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the LightHouse,
tried to put some imagination into an advertising idea ... (blah blah
blah) This effort upset one of the locals, also a Christian, (blah
blah blah) he now thinks that the church is saying that they are
better than any other church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong" churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are people
who DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and
Roman Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what they
mean. Extra credit: prove Odin is not God.
Protestant churches in general follow the revised creeds of the
reformation, mainly those of Luther and Calvin. They have generally
abandoned or de-emphasized the sacramental aspect of worship and replaced
Holy Communion (the Eucharist) with a 45-minute lecture as the center-
piece of their liturgy. MOST (though not all) Protestand churches adhere
to some variant of Luther's doctrine of sola scriptura (basing their
doctrines, they say, entirely on what is in the Bible (as defined by
Luther and Calvin).
and as interpreted by them as well... also true of catholic exegesis. If
you *really* want to interpret the Bible as the spirit moves you,with
complete freedom, become a rabbi.
Huh?
As in the old joke - 12 rabbis in a room equals 13 opinions. Moreover,
rabbinic interpretation while bound by tradition is not bound by
authoritative political structures. Sorry for the opacity of the
allusion.
Not so much opaque as misguided. 12 rabbis gives you 13 opinions,
but one rabbi gives you two or three. That does not mean that, in
any way, they just interpret the way the spirit (or even Spirit)
moves them. They give multiple answers because they see (and are
taught to see) the inherent complexity in the questions they
face. They don't get the "simply" science kinds of questions that
lead to single answers (albeit with error bars), they get
unanswerable difficult questions. And they help guide people to
answers rather than tell them what to do. No, rabbis are not
bound by an authoritative political structure (from above), but
that does not mean they have no bounds. Judaism is an inherent
communal religion (it makes no sense to think of practicing
Judaism alone, it makes sense to practice Christianity or
Buddhism alone), a rabbi is embedded (to use the newly popular
term) in his community and his tradition. The congregants are
also learned people, they are commanded to study. A rabbi who
starts to go off the deep end is judged by, and ultimately
answerable to, his congregation.
(No, I am not saying this is anything like a perfect systems,
there are no perfect human systems. The above is an idealized
presentation, of course real situations lead to messy results.)
<joke time>
Once upon a time, in the middle of the ocean, there was the Island of
Trid.
It seems that most of the Island of Trid was covered by a large
mountain. On this mountain lived a Giant. The Giant did not allow
Trids on his mountain. If a Trid dared to climb onto the mountain, the
Giant would kick him into the ocean. Trids are notoriously bad
swimmers, and frequently drowned when kicked into the ocean.
The Trids were a very sexual people, and the population had grown
quite large. Every square inch of the island, except the mountain, was
crowded with Trids.
The Trids spent their days crowded together, dreaming of the open
space available on the ever visible mountain. Every few days, a Trid
would decide he couldn't stand the crowds any more. He would start to
climb the mountain, and the Giant would kick the Trid into the ocean.
The Trids were a very depressed people.
One day a traveling Rabbi visited the Island of Trid. Despite their
overcrowded conditions, the Trids were extremely generous to this man
of God.
The Rabbi decided to return the favor, and to go plead the Trid's case
to the Giant. "Surely the Giant can be convinced to share some of the
mountain with you," the Rabbi explained.
The Trids were horrified. "Please don't go, Rabbi", the Trids
implored. "The Giant will kick you into the ocean, and you will surely
drown."
The Rabbi was stubborn, and insisted that he talk to the Giant. The
Trids sent out every boat they had. They formed a ring around the
island, so that they would be able to rescue the Rabbi.
The Rabbi started walking towards the mountain. No sign of the Giant.
He walked through the foothills, and there was no sign of the Giant.
He started up the slopes of the mountain, further than any Trid had
ever been. Still no sign of the Giant.
Finally he reached the summit of the mountain. There the Giant was
waiting for him. The Rabbi asked "Tell me Giant, why have you allowed
me to climb to the top of the mountain, without kicking me off the
moment I started climbing?"
And the Giant replied, "Silly Rabbi, kicks are for Trids!"
---
Mike atheism: a non-prophet
organization...
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way
when you do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their
shoes.
-------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
11 Dec 2003 10:48:27 AM |
|
|
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:puZBb.37049$zs7.4502@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the LightHouse, tried
to
put some imagination into an advertising idea ... (blah blah blah) This
effort upset one of the locals, also a Christian, (blah blah blah) he now
thinks that the church is saying that they are better than any other
church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong" churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are people who
DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and Roman
Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what they mean.
Extra
credit: prove Odin is not God.
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better than the
others.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "sharon" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
11 Dec 2003 11:23:45 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:09SdnXJH7MpyPUWiRVn-vw@io.com...
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:puZBb.37049$zs7.4502@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the LightHouse,
tried
to
put some imagination into an advertising idea ... (blah blah blah) This
effort upset one of the locals, also a Christian, (blah blah blah) he
now
thinks that the church is saying that they are better than any other
church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong" churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are people
who
DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and Roman
Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what they mean.
Extra
credit: prove Odin is not God.
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better than the
others.
Oh but it is!
I saw a documentary on the Learning Channel, how "only a Catholic exorcism
would do" for one fellow who was demon-obssessed. The Protestant attempts
failed to remove the spook failed. "My faith is stronger than your faith"
may be what makes the difference in spiritual warfare.
Sort of like a divine Energizer battery vs. the generic brands.
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
11 Dec 2003 03:58:17 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:puZBb.37049$zs7.4502@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the LightHouse, tried
to
put some imagination into an advertising idea ... (blah blah blah) This
effort upset one of the locals, also a Christian, (blah blah blah) he now
thinks that the church is saying that they are better than any other
church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong" churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are people who
DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and Roman
Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what they mean.
Extra
credit: prove Odin is not God.
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better than the
others.
So must each rational thinker. As Hilary Putnam once noted, I should use
somebody *else's* belief system?
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
11 Dec 2003 01:21:40 PM |
|
|
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Denis Loubet:
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:puZBb.37049$zs7.4502@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the LightHouse,
tried
to
put some imagination into an advertising idea ... (blah blah blah)
This effort upset one of the locals, also a Christian, (blah blah
blah) he now thinks that the church is saying that they are better
than any other church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong" churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are people
who DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and
Roman Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what they
mean.
Extra
credit: prove Odin is not God.
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better than the
others.
Which is a paradox, one that led me to atheism.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
______________
The fool says in his heart "there is no God".
The wise man says it to the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Toby Sharp" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
12 Dec 2003 05:26:58 AM |
|
|
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:944E74258blastfemur@127.0.0.1...
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Denis Loubet:
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:puZBb.37049$zs7.4502@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the LightHouse,
tried
to
put some imagination into an advertising idea ... (blah blah blah)
This effort upset one of the locals, also a Christian, (blah blah
blah) he now thinks that the church is saying that they are better
than any other church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong" churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are people
who DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and
Roman Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what they
mean.
Extra
credit: prove Odin is not God.
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better than the
others.
Which is a paradox, one that led me to atheism.
Do you think that atheism is excluded from this statement then?
It's not so much about being 'better'. It's about what people believe to be
true. Nobody can believe that 'p' is true and 'not p' is true. That would be
inconsistent. And so if they believe 'p' is true, they will belive that 'not
p' is false. This is, I think, what the original poster is referring to.
Logically, there's no distinction between Christians, atheists, or other
groups in this reasoning.
Toby.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pious Paul" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
12 Dec 2003 10:08:41 AM |
|
|
"Toby Sharp" <tsharp@serif.com> wrote in message
news:HFhCb.2821$l3.1727136@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:944E74258blastfemur@127.0.0.1...
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Denis Loubet:
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:puZBb.37049$zs7.4502@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the LightHouse,
tried
to
put some imagination into an advertising idea ... (blah blah blah)
This effort upset one of the locals, also a Christian, (blah blah
blah) he now thinks that the church is saying that they are better
than any other church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong"
churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are people
who DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and
Roman Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what
they
mean.
Extra
credit: prove Odin is not God.
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better than
the
others.
Which is a paradox, one that led me to atheism.
Do you think that atheism is excluded from this statement then?
It's not so much about being 'better'. It's about what people believe to
be
true. Nobody can believe that 'p' is true and 'not p' is true. That would
be
inconsistent. And so if they believe 'p' is true, they will belive that
'not
p' is false. This is, I think, what the original poster is referring to.
Logically, there's no distinction between Christians, atheists, or other
groups in this reasoning.
Toby.
Good point.
Pious
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
12 Dec 2003 01:44:17 PM |
|
|
"Toby Sharp" <tsharp@serif.com> wrote in message
news:HFhCb.2821$l3.1727136@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:944E74258blastfemur@127.0.0.1...
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Denis Loubet:
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:puZBb.37049$zs7.4502@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the LightHouse,
tried
to
put some imagination into an advertising idea ... (blah blah blah)
This effort upset one of the locals, also a Christian, (blah blah
blah) he now thinks that the church is saying that they are better
than any other church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong"
churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are people
who DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and
Roman Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what
they
mean.
Extra
credit: prove Odin is not God.
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better than
the
others.
Which is a paradox, one that led me to atheism.
Do you think that atheism is excluded from this statement then?
Absolutely.
I only think my current beliefs are the best I am aware of.
It's not so much about being 'better'. It's about what people believe to
be
true. Nobody can believe that 'p' is true and 'not p' is true. That would
be
inconsistent. And so if they believe 'p' is true, they will belive that
'not
p' is false. This is, I think, what the original poster is referring to.
But what if you believe 'p' is true, then find compelling evidence that 'p'
is not true? The atheist most likely will now abandon 'p', as any rational
person would, and also understand that the 'not p' position can change given
new data. The theist, however, is for the most part unable to abandon 'p'
for any reason what so ever. The insistence on faith prevents even
contemplating it.
Logically, there's no distinction between Christians, atheists, or other
groups in this reasoning.
Atheists are free to change their beliefs to match the best available data,
the theist is not. That is a significant distinction.
The theist possesses unjustified certainty, while the atheist possesses
justified uncertainty.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
12 Dec 2003 02:06:20 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:wpKdnXaJ2t4thkeiRVn-uw@io.com...
"Toby Sharp" <tsharp@serif.com> wrote in message
news:HFhCb.2821$l3.1727136@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:944E74258blastfemur@127.0.0.1...
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Denis Loubet:
"ArWeGod" <ArWeGod?@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:puZBb.37049$zs7.4502@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
"A Christian church in Winnipeg, which calls itself the LightHouse,
tried
to
put some imagination into an advertising idea ... (blah blah blah)
This effort upset one of the locals, also a Christian, (blah blah
blah) he now thinks that the church is saying that they are better
than any other church."
I love the fact that there are "right" churches and "wrong"
churches.
I'm not familiar with the distinctions, but I'm SURE there are
people
who DO.
What's the diff between Pentecostal and Baptist and Protestant and
Roman Catholic? I've only heard the terms and I have no idea what
they
mean.
Extra
credit: prove Odin is not God.
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better than
the
others.
Which is a paradox, one that led me to atheism.
Do you think that atheism is excluded from this statement then?
Absolutely.
I only think my current beliefs are the best I am aware of.
It's not so much about being 'better'. It's about what people believe to
be
true. Nobody can believe that 'p' is true and 'not p' is true. That
would
be
inconsistent. And so if they believe 'p' is true, they will belive that
'not
p' is false. This is, I think, what the original poster is referring to.
But what if you believe 'p' is true, then find compelling evidence that
'p'
is not true? The atheist most likely will now abandon 'p', as any rational
person would, and also understand that the 'not p' position can change
given
new data. The theist, however, is for the most part unable to abandon 'p'
for any reason what so ever. The insistence on faith prevents even
contemplating it.
Logically, there's no distinction between Christians, atheists, or other
groups in this reasoning.
Atheists are free to change their beliefs to match the best available
data,
the theist is not. That is a significant distinction.
That is the main tenet of both AiG and ICR. If *any* science contradicts
what is in the bible, you must follow the bible. Of course what they mean
is, their idea of what the bible says.
The theist possesses unjustified certainty, while the atheist possesses
justified uncertainty.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
12 Dec 2003 11:56:18 AM |
|
|
"Toby Sharp" <tsharp@serif.com> wrote in message
news:HFhCb.2821$l3.1727136@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better than
the
others.
Which is a paradox, one that led me to atheism.
Do you think that atheism is excluded from this statement then?
It's not so much about being 'better'. It's about what people believe to
be
true. Nobody can believe that 'p' is true and 'not p' is true. That would
be
inconsistent. And so if they believe 'p' is true, they will belive that
'not
p' is false. This is, I think, what the original poster is referring to.
Anyone who believes the bible inerrant will claim that p and not p are
true.
There are many places in the bible where one story has a time sequence of A,
B, C and a second story of the same event has B, C, A. The two creation
myths are examples of this and the fundamental says they are both true and
do not contradict.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Toby Sharp" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
12 Dec 2003 12:14:29 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message
news:znnCb.184182$Ec1.6928127@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Toby Sharp" <tsharp@serif.com> wrote in message
news:HFhCb.2821$l3.1727136@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better than
the
others.
Which is a paradox, one that led me to atheism.
Do you think that atheism is excluded from this statement then?
It's not so much about being 'better'. It's about what people believe to
be
true. Nobody can believe that 'p' is true and 'not p' is true. That
would
be
inconsistent. And so if they believe 'p' is true, they will belive that
'not
p' is false. This is, I think, what the original poster is referring to.
Anyone who believes the bible inerrant will claim that p and not p are
true.
There are many places in the bible where one story has a time sequence of
A,
B, C and a second story of the same event has B, C, A. The two creation
myths are examples of this and the fundamental says they are both true and
do not contradict.
Might depend on the wording of the doctrine of inerrancy. i.e. Whether it is
the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law. But if by the letter, I
agree with you - the position would be untenable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pious Paul" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
14 Dec 2003 07:35:00 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message
news:znnCb.184182$Ec1.6928127@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Toby Sharp" <tsharp@serif.com> wrote in message
news:HFhCb.2821$l3.1727136@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better than
the
others.
Which is a paradox, one that led me to atheism.
Do you think that atheism is excluded from this statement then?
It's not so much about being 'better'. It's about what people believe to
be
true. Nobody can believe that 'p' is true and 'not p' is true. That
would
be
inconsistent. And so if they believe 'p' is true, they will belive that
'not
p' is false. This is, I think, what the original poster is referring to.
Anyone who believes the bible inerrant will claim that p and not p are
true.
There are many places in the bible where one story has a time sequence of
A,
B, C and a second story of the same event has B, C, A. The two creation
myths are examples of this and the fundamental says they are both true and
do not contradict.
Mike Painter? Are you any relation to Bike Painter?
Pious
Sucking festering, blistered *****, for Christ.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
14 Dec 2003 09:28:24 PM |
|
|
"Pious Paul" <piousboy@unclewebster.com> wrote in message
news:0i8Db.4220$0s2.2317@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message
news:znnCb.184182$Ec1.6928127@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Toby Sharp" <tsharp@serif.com> wrote in message
news:HFhCb.2821$l3.1727136@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better
than
the
others.
Which is a paradox, one that led me to atheism.
Do you think that atheism is excluded from this statement then?
It's not so much about being 'better'. It's about what people believe
to
be
true. Nobody can believe that 'p' is true and 'not p' is true. That
would
be
inconsistent. And so if they believe 'p' is true, they will belive
that
'not
p' is false. This is, I think, what the original poster is referring
to.
Anyone who believes the bible inerrant will claim that p and not p are
true.
There are many places in the bible where one story has a time sequence
of
A,
B, C and a second story of the same event has B, C, A. The two creation
myths are examples of this and the fundamental says they are both true
and
do not contradict.
Mike Painter? Are you any relation to Bike Painter?
No, and I don't do walls either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uv" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
14 Dec 2003 09:37:16 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message
news:fY9Db.458076$0v4.21037960@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Pious Paul" <piousboy@unclewebster.com> wrote in message
news:0i8Db.4220$0s2.2317@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message
news:znnCb.184182$Ec1.6928127@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Toby Sharp" <tsharp@serif.com> wrote in message
news:HFhCb.2821$l3.1727136@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better
than
the
others.
Which is a paradox, one that led me to atheism.
Do you think that atheism is excluded from this statement then?
It's not so much about being 'better'. It's about what people
believe
to
be
true. Nobody can believe that 'p' is true and 'not p' is true. That
would
be
inconsistent. And so if they believe 'p' is true, they will belive
that
'not
p' is false. This is, I think, what the original poster is referring
to.
Anyone who believes the bible inerrant will claim that p and not p
are
true.
There are many places in the bible where one story has a time sequence
of
A,
B, C and a second story of the same event has B, C, A. The two
creation
myths are examples of this and the fundamental says they are both true
and
do not contradict.
Mike Painter? Are you any relation to Bike Painter?
No, and I don't do walls either.
Do you do windows?
.
|
|
|
| User: "newBjorn" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
15 Dec 2003 07:18:58 PM |
|
|
"Uv" <uvygirl@nunneryabidnit.com> wrote in message news:<q8SdnRem4Lg9sECiRVn-jA@comcast.com>...
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message
news:fY9Db.458076$0v4.21037960@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Pious Paul" <piousboy@unclewebster.com> wrote in message
news:0i8Db.4220$0s2.2317@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message
news:znnCb.184182$Ec1.6928127@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Toby Sharp" <tsharp@serif.com> wrote in message
news:HFhCb.2821$l3.1727136@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better
than
the
others.
Which is a paradox, one that led me to atheism.
Do you think that atheism is excluded from this statement then?
It's not so much about being 'better'. It's about what people
believe
to
be
true. Nobody can believe that 'p' is true and 'not p' is true. That
would
be
inconsistent. And so if they believe 'p' is true, they will belive
that
'not
p' is false. This is, I think, what the original poster is referring
to.
Anyone who believes the bible inerrant will claim that p and not p
are
true.
There are many places in the bible where one story has a time sequence
of
A,
B, C and a second story of the same event has B, C, A. The two
creation
myths are examples of this and the fundamental says they are both true
and
do not contradict.
Mike Painter? Are you any relation to Bike Painter?
No, and I don't do walls either.
Do you do windows?
Widows?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uv" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
15 Dec 2003 07:29:10 PM |
|
|
"newBjorn" <newbjorn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddb1575a.0312151724.7f8efbc4@posting.google.com...
"Uv" <uvygirl@nunneryabidnit.com> wrote in message
news:<q8SdnRem4Lg9sECiRVn-jA@comcast.com>...
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message
news:fY9Db.458076$0v4.21037960@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Pious Paul" <piousboy@unclewebster.com> wrote in message
news:0i8Db.4220$0s2.2317@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message
news:znnCb.184182$Ec1.6928127@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Toby Sharp" <tsharp@serif.com> wrote in message
news:HFhCb.2821$l3.1727136@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow
better
than
the
others.
Which is a paradox, one that led me to atheism.
Do you think that atheism is excluded from this statement then?
It's not so much about being 'better'. It's about what people
believe
to
be
true. Nobody can believe that 'p' is true and 'not p' is true.
That
would
be
inconsistent. And so if they believe 'p' is true, they will
belive
that
'not
p' is false. This is, I think, what the original poster is
referring
to.
Anyone who believes the bible inerrant will claim that p and not
p
are
true.
There are many places in the bible where one story has a time
sequence
of
A,
B, C and a second story of the same event has B, C, A. The two
creation
myths are examples of this and the fundamental says they are both
true
and
do not contradict.
Mike Painter? Are you any relation to Bike Painter?
No, and I don't do walls either.
Do you do windows?
Widows?
well, I'd kill him if I could, but then who would I ***** about?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
15 Dec 2003 05:28:22 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 03:37:16 +0000 (UTC), "Uv"
<uvygirl@nunneryabidnit.com> wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message
news:fY9Db.458076$0v4.21037960@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Pious Paul" <piousboy@unclewebster.com> wrote in message
news:0i8Db.4220$0s2.2317@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message
news:znnCb.184182$Ec1.6928127@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Toby Sharp" <tsharp@serif.com> wrote in message
news:HFhCb.2821$l3.1727136@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better
than
the
others.
Which is a paradox, one that led me to atheism.
Do you think that atheism is excluded from this statement then?
It's not so much about being 'better'. It's about what people
believe
to
be
true. Nobody can believe that 'p' is true and 'not p' is true. That
would
be
inconsistent. And so if they believe 'p' is true, they will belive
that
'not
p' is false. This is, I think, what the original poster is referring
to.
Anyone who believes the bible inerrant will claim that p and not p
are
true.
There are many places in the bible where one story has a time sequence
of
A,
B, C and a second story of the same event has B, C, A. The two
creation
myths are examples of this and the fundamental says they are both true
and
do not contradict.
Mike Painter? Are you any relation to Bike Painter?
No, and I don't do walls either.
Do you do windows?
Apparently he does do win-doze, since he's posting via Outlook Express
6.
---
Mike atheism: a non-prophet
organization...
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way
when you do criticize them, you're a mile away, and you have their
shoes.
-------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
14 Dec 2003 10:03:22 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 03:37:16 +0000 (UTC), "Uv"
<uvygirl@nunneryabidnit.com> wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message
news:fY9Db.458076$0v4.21037960@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Pious Paul" <piousboy@unclewebster.com> wrote in message
news:0i8Db.4220$0s2.2317@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net> wrote in message
news:znnCb.184182$Ec1.6928127@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Toby Sharp" <tsharp@serif.com> wrote in message
news:HFhCb.2821$l3.1727136@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Each theist MUST think their religion or sect is somehow better
than
the
others.
Which is a paradox, one that led me to atheism.
Do you think that atheism is excluded from this statement then?
It's not so much about being 'better'. It's about what people
believe
to
be
true. Nobody can believe that 'p' is true and 'not p' is true. That
would
be
inconsistent. And so if they believe 'p' is true, they will belive
that
'not
p' is false. This is, I think, what the original poster is referring
to.
Anyone who believes the bible inerrant will claim that p and not p
are
true.
There are many places in the bible where one story has a time sequence
of
A,
B, C and a second story of the same event has B, C, A. The two
creation
myths are examples of this and the fundamental says they are both true
and
do not contradict.
Mike Painter? Are you any relation to Bike Painter?
No, and I don't do walls either.
Do you do windows?
How many Mike's do you have to paint to make a decent living?
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
14 Dec 2003 11:24:26 PM |
|
|
"AngryJohn" <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pjcqtv8vbengqpo73biraddjq2qhkg4nkv@4ax.com...
<snip
How many Mike's do you have to paint to make a decent living?
Depends. Painting guitar mikes makes good money but there are few takers.
The wireless ones cost less unless the transmitter is being worn at the
time.
Stereo mikes are good but a lot of the musicians I listen to are going to
single mikes these days. (As opposed to me a single Mike.)
It's fun to watch and they can do a lot more with harmonies and solos just
by moving a bit.
The trouble with those is missing all the little holes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AngryJohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Coke or Pepsi |
14 Dec 2003 11:36:41 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 05:24:26 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mdotpainter@att.net>
wrote:
"AngryJohn" <KuoshuJohnBelief@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pjcqtv8vbengqpo73biraddjq2qhkg4nkv@4ax.com...
<snip
How many Mike's do you have to paint to make a decent living?
Depends. Painting guitar mikes makes good money but there are few takers.
The wireless ones cost less unless the transmitter is being worn at the
time.
Stereo mikes are good but a lot of the musicians I listen to are going to
single mikes these days. (As opposed to me a single Mike.)
It's fun to watch and they can do a lot more with harmonies and solos just
by moving a bit.
The trouble with those is missing all the little holes.
Small brush, use a really small brush....... but, don't they cover the
whole thing up to keep out the spittle thereby hiding your great
artwork?
------------------------------
aa#2106
Remove Belief to reply
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
