| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jd" |
| Date: |
10 Aug 2004 08:37:40 PM |
| Object: |
How to weep with Gaia |
A whale has died on the S. American coast. He was 33 feet long and
weighed about 10 tons.
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=040810&cat=science&st=scienced84chmdg1&src=ap
Surely Mother Earth is weeping.
Jd
.
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
14 Oct 2004 07:46:14 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
"Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks" (Catherine Faber
http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Well put. I will remember that.
--
Midjis
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
14 Oct 2004 12:02:05 PM |
|
|
In article <rdjsm0lmpotm82elrdtevsb9o6gttuehja@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes:
<
<Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
<>>> To me however, it was apparent from the getgo that only an total,
<>>> 100%, complete idiot would bow to the shady ethics and manipulative
<>>> tactics of the ungodly pagans here who've involved themselves in yet
<>>> another futile attempt of character assasination of someone who has
<>>> balls of steel (like me).
<>>
<>>Again - what is an 'ungodly' pagan?
<>
<>Lesbians, for example.
<
<Like these? Are they "pagans", much less "ungodly"?
<http://www.christianlesbians.com/
<If you think they are rare, see how many entries are in the Yahoo
<directory for Christian Lesbians and Gays:
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion_and_Spirituality/Faiths_and_Practices/Christianity/Cultures_and_Groups/Lesbians__Gays__and_Bisexuals/
<
<>And there are many of other examples. Take these leftist catholics
<
<Catholics are "pagan", and "ungodly" to boot?
<
<>and ADL Jews who want Kerry to win the Presidency for example(s).
<
<And Jews are "pagan" and "ungodly" to boot, too?
<
<I think you define "ungodly pagan" to mean "isn't exactly the same as
<JD in religion and politics".
<
<>>As for your balls of steel - you claim this attribute and then pride
<>>yourself on your shiftiness. Which is it to be?
<>
<>Both. I install fear in wannabe infallibles, lesbians, and gender
<>neutral freaks all across the www.
<
<"Fear" is not the emotion you inspire. "Mirth" is more like it, when
<we rise above "disgust".
<
An occasional lurker and still more infrequent poster to this froup
suggested "fond contempt".
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
05 Oct 2004 11:49:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:17:36 -0500, Jd wrote
(in article <6nk6m0tb87336u7oc0gmfjlr862p2sh4u9@4ax.com>):
Midjis wrote:
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
Perhaps you would do better to stick to the point?
Your opening comment that my last post was 'all true' damages your
case, since it implies that you WERE simply back-pedalling in your
refusal to provide a clear answer.
A clear answer to what?
To the question of whether or not you once claimed that amphibians were
invertebrates. I am surprised you have already lost track of this
point.
I haven't. You're simply mistaken.
The judgement of your God is irrelevant to me.
No it isn't. He's your God too. In fact, He is everyone's God.
There are two possible alternatives:
1. Your God does not exist as you describe Him - either because there
is no God, or because your description of Deity is incorrect. In this
case, the judgement of your God is irrelevant to me because He does not
in fact exist.
2. Your God does exist as you have described Him. In this case, the
judgement of your God is irrelevant to me because I have absolutely no
desire to please Him and am entirely unconcerned as to what His opinion
of me might be.
There are no possible alternatives. You are simply mistaken, again.
Look, everyone makes mistakes. Even me. The question is will we who
make mistakes admit our mistakes when we make them. The answer is
"hell no". Not here anyways.
I mean why should I admit any mistakes I may inadvertantly make before
a bunch of ungodly pagans who won't admit their own mistakes before
Yehovah God?
Jd
Not since it was discovered by goodly Pagans that Y. God was
responsible for the Campus Crusade for Cthulhu.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Cthulhu has about the same attitude
as any of the rest of the Elder gods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
09 Oct 2004 11:43:26 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:17:36 -0500, Jd wrote
(in article <6nk6m0tb87336u7oc0gmfjlr862p2sh4u9@4ax.com>):
Midjis wrote:
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
Perhaps you would do better to stick to the point?
Your opening comment that my last post was 'all true' damages your
case, since it implies that you WERE simply back-pedalling in your
refusal to provide a clear answer.
A clear answer to what?
To the question of whether or not you once claimed that amphibians were
invertebrates. I am surprised you have already lost track of this
point.
I haven't. You're simply mistaken.
The judgement of your God is irrelevant to me.
No it isn't. He's your God too. In fact, He is everyone's God.
There are two possible alternatives:
1. Your God does not exist as you describe Him - either because there
is no God, or because your description of Deity is incorrect. In this
case, the judgement of your God is irrelevant to me because He does not
in fact exist.
2. Your God does exist as you have described Him. In this case, the
judgement of your God is irrelevant to me because I have absolutely no
desire to please Him and am entirely unconcerned as to what His opinion
of me might be.
There are no possible alternatives. You are simply mistaken, again.
Look, everyone makes mistakes. Even me. The question is will we who
make mistakes admit our mistakes when we make them. The answer is
"hell no". Not here anyways.
I mean why should I admit any mistakes I may inadvertantly make before
a bunch of ungodly pagans who won't admit their own mistakes before
Yehovah God?
Jd
Not since it was discovered by goodly Pagans that Y. God was
responsible for the Campus Crusade for Cthulhu.
Gray Shockley
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for fixing your
intro. It may now be possible for us to have a civil discussion.
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
10 Oct 2004 10:04:44 AM |
|
|
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for fixing your
intro. It may now be possible for us to have a civil discussion.
Possibly. Unless, of course, you intend to reply to each and every one of
Gray's posts with this message - in which case there would not seem to be
much scope for conversation between you.
--
Midjis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
13 Oct 2004 10:44:24 PM |
|
|
Midjis wrote:
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for fixing your
intro. It may now be possible for us to have a civil discussion.
Possibly. Unless, of course, you intend to reply to each and every one of
Gray's posts with this message - in which case there would not seem to be
much scope for conversation between you.
Nope. You can see by the lack of responses to Grays mimick postings of
my subjects... that my messages are more popular.
Gray shall remain "second fiddle".
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
14 Oct 2004 11:51:58 AM |
|
|
In article <6d1sm0dsafqhnil8gdjpdutes8f62r11d0@4ax.com> Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> writes:
<
<Midjis wrote:
<
<>Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
<>
<>> I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for fixing your
<>> intro. It may now be possible for us to have a civil discussion.
<>
<>
<>Possibly. Unless, of course, you intend to reply to each and every one of
<>Gray's posts with this message - in which case there would not seem to be
<>much scope for conversation between you.
<
<Nope. You can see by the lack of responses to Grays mimick postings of
<my subjects... that my messages are more popular.
<
<Gray shall remain "second fiddle".
Which is a whole lot better than first viola. You know what
they say about viola players...
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
14 Oct 2004 05:10:48 PM |
|
|
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
Which is a whole lot better than first viola. You know what
they say about viola players...
??
(That is as near a quizzical look as I can do here. Forgive my ignorance,
but I am no musical expert.)
--
Midjis
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
14 Oct 2004 05:34:31 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9582EBD16DFC8TEMPERANTIALIBERTASE¸.32.252.50> Midjis < @ . > writes:
<l
<
<cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
<
<> Which is a whole lot better than first viola. You know what
<> they say about viola players...
<
<
<??
<
<(That is as near a quizzical look as I can do here. Forgive my ignorance,
<but I am no musical expert.)
Oh, the poor viola section, sitting back there behind the violists who get
all the glory, have long been the butt of many many jokes (e.g: What
can an old trumpet do when he loses his teeth? Take up the viola)
Tons of these, and jokes about other instruments as well at:
http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/jokes/viola.html
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia & accordion players/REALLY Weep/ |
14 Oct 2004 01:13:27 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:51:58 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in message <ckmare$5k8$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
In article <6d1sm0dsafqhnil8gdjpdutes8f62r11d0@4ax.com> Jd
<Jd.wuzhere@att.net> writes:
<
<Midjis wrote:
<
<>Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
<>
<>> I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for fixing your
<>> intro. It may now be possible for us to have a civil discussion.
<>
<>
<>Possibly. Unless, of course, you intend to reply to each and every one of
<>Gray's posts with this message - in which case there would not seem to be
<>much scope for conversation between you.
<
<Nope. You can see by the lack of responses to Grays mimick postings of
<my subjects... that my messages are more popular.
<
<Gray shall remain "second fiddle".
Which is a whole lot better than first viola. You know what
they say about viola players...
-- cary
Unless it's a viola player speaking in which case they can slap oboeists
around to the beat.
However, it appears that Jday has the morality of an accordion player who
plays it simply because s/he/it can.
Gray Shockley
----------------------------------------
Of course, it's just hot air.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia & accordion players/REALLY Weep/ |
14 Oct 2004 02:35:39 PM |
|
|
In article <0001HW.BD942BF7004947111622CDA0@news.giganews.com> writes:
<On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:51:58 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote
<(in message <ckmare$5k8$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>):
<
<> In article <6d1sm0dsafqhnil8gdjpdutes8f62r11d0@4ax.com> Jd
<> <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> writes:
<> <
<> <Midjis wrote:
<> <
<> <>Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
<> <>
<> <>> I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for fixing your
<> <>> intro. It may now be possible for us to have a civil discussion.
<> <>
<> <>
<> <>Possibly. Unless, of course, you intend to reply to each and every one of
<> <>Gray's posts with this message - in which case there would not seem to be
<> <>much scope for conversation between you.
<> <
<> <Nope. You can see by the lack of responses to Grays mimick postings of
<> <my subjects... that my messages are more popular.
<> <
<> <Gray shall remain "second fiddle".
<>
<> Which is a whole lot better than first viola. You know what
<> they say about viola players...
<>
<>
<> -- cary
<>
<>
<
<Unless it's a viola player speaking in which case they can slap oboeists
<around to the beat.
<
Ah, but the poor violoists always seem to end up being the brunt of
all the instrumental Polish jokes:
http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/jokes/viola.html
(if you poke around a bit, however, you can find the instrumentalist of
your choice being disparaged)
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
14 Oct 2004 07:22:26 AM |
|
|
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
Nope. You can see by the lack of responses to Grays mimick postings of
my subjects... that my messages are more popular.
Gray shall remain "second fiddle".
Popularity seems to be very important to you. Would that be a fair
comment?
--
Midjis
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
29 Sep 2004 11:46:16 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:29:11 -0500 wrote
:
Midjis wrote:
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
I agree with nothing. I tell you nothing about what I'm thinking at
the moment, on the matter.
However, if you prove beyond any doubt that I said something that was
in error, I'll readily admit it.
JD, I am puzzled. In a post addressed to me, you stated that if you had
made a mistake you would readily admit it. I wonder why you replied in
those terms instead of simply denying that you had made the error?
I notice here that, rather than answer the question, you attempt to hide
behind Bible verses. JD, if you did not make the error then the most
effective answer would be "I did not say that". If you did, then by your
own standards you must admit it. After all, this is not a courtroom, and
we are perfectly entitled to draw conclusions from your refusal to answer
directly.
Besides, there is no great mystery to anyone as to why your posts do not
appear in Google. You use X-No-Archive - as do I. Yet what I say stays
said, whether Google archive it or not.
All true.
But this is a court and I know the Judge. He's the one no one here
will repent too.
Jd
And, in English, your reply means?
Here, feel free to use this space:
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
30 Sep 2004 07:20:28 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:29:11 -0500 wrote
:
Midjis wrote:
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
I agree with nothing. I tell you nothing about what I'm thinking at
the moment, on the matter.
However, if you prove beyond any doubt that I said something that was
in error, I'll readily admit it.
JD, I am puzzled. In a post addressed to me, you stated that if you had
made a mistake you would readily admit it. I wonder why you replied in
those terms instead of simply denying that you had made the error?
I notice here that, rather than answer the question, you attempt to hide
behind Bible verses. JD, if you did not make the error then the most
effective answer would be "I did not say that". If you did, then by your
own standards you must admit it. After all, this is not a courtroom, and
we are perfectly entitled to draw conclusions from your refusal to answer
directly.
Besides, there is no great mystery to anyone as to why your posts do not
appear in Google. You use X-No-Archive - as do I. Yet what I say stays
said, whether Google archive it or not.
All true.
But this is a court and I know the Judge. He's the one no one here
will repent too.
Jd
And, in English, your reply means?
Here, feel free to use this space:
Thanks.
Jesus.
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
28 Sep 2004 01:31:58 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:10:10 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote
(in article <cj9s32$pl$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu>):
Jeff, jeff, jeff... I don't know WHY you are wasting your time
with this silly Gaia stuff, when what you really should be
doing is warning us about how NASA is trying to revive
worship of the Sun God with this `Genesis' project of theirs.
It is /not/ the project of NASA
but a project by the Federation.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
The budget is out of this world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
28 Sep 2004 10:39:55 AM |
|
|
In article <0001HW.BD7E6F8E00129CFC15A7E130@news.giganews.com> writes:
<On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:10:10 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote
<(in article <cj9s32$pl$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu>):
<
<> Jeff, jeff, jeff... I don't know WHY you are wasting your time
<> with this silly Gaia stuff, when what you really should be
<> doing is warning us about how NASA is trying to revive
<> worship of the Sun God with this `Genesis' project of theirs.
<
<
<It is /not/ the project of NASA
<but a project by the Federation.
But that's what they WANT you to think. There is
undeniable proof out there that the Genesis Project
is covertly run by the Trilateral/CFR/Microsoft/Illuminati/
Budweiser/Reticulan/Fox Hegemony. And grill.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
28 Sep 2004 07:48:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:39:55 -0500 wrote
:
In article <0001HW.BD7E6F8E00129CFC15A7E130@news.giganews.com>
gray@cybercoffee.org writes:
<On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:10:10 -0500, Cary Kittrell wrote
<(in article <cj9s32$pl$1@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu>):
<
<> Jeff, jeff, jeff... I don't know WHY you are wasting your time
<> with this silly Gaia stuff, when what you really should be
<> doing is warning us about how NASA is trying to revive
<> worship of the Sun God with this `Genesis' project of theirs.
<
<
<It is /not/ the project of NASA
<but a project by the Federation.
But that's what they WANT you to think. There is
undeniable proof out there that the Genesis Project
is covertly run by the Trilateral/CFR/Microsoft/Illuminati/
Budweiser/Reticulan/Fox Hegemony. And grill.
-- cary
You're not trying to intimate that Ensign (that boy do have his
problems) James Tiberius Kirk, late of the Federation of the Federated
Federations and Affiliated Bar Owners, would stiff a tip just because
he is drunk.
Are you?
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
29 Sep 2004 09:29:11 PM |
|
|
Gray Shockley wrote:
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:39:55 -0500 wrote
who???
Now fess up.
Jd
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
27 Sep 2004 05:05:29 PM |
|
|
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
No. Without one, am I somehow forced to agree with every word Darwin
might or might not have said? Some of the other posters here have
claimed that you once said that amphibians are invertebrates. Did
you?
I might have. Why?
Because if you did so, it indicates that the mere claim to possession of
a degree does not - apparently - guarantee that the possessor knows all
there is to know. Therefore, you are ill-placed to try to use your
possession of a degree in biology, or my lack thereof, as a deciding
factor in this discussion.
Good. Then you don't mind all this stuff I'm saying about GAIA and the
wizards of science who are promoting her do you?
Given that the majority of what you are saying about 'GAIA' and the
'wizards' of science is simply your own weak pro-literalist propaganda,
it does not worry me in itself. What IS a cause for concern is that you
may - albeit unwittingly - make an argument convincing enough to sway a
waverer into accepting your notions about Darwin, amphibians, Gaia,
Wiccans, six-toed cats, and so on and so forth. You are clearly content
to live in proud and determined ignorance, and that is fine as far as it
goes. The risk, though, is like that run by a drunk driver: you may take
others with you.
But these NewAgers need to realize that the way they are worshipping
is an old way, and outdated.
The *New Agers* need to realise that their ways are outdated? JD, it is
YOU who is insisting that the Bible is literal truth, that Creation
happened in six days, and that those who do not believe you are witches.
That provides an alternative suggestion as to who holds the outdated
views.
They are trying to re-form ancient
Greece here is the US.... and using the Constitution to boot. Back
then, they had a god for almost everything and everyone. Even had an
alter for any god they might have inadvertantly left out.
Whereas you would prefer that everyone live under the oppressive will of
the God of the Bible - as opposed to the Christian God...
Muslims also. The Moon god they call Allah goes way back. Artifacts
prove it.
I am not familiar with the history of Allah prior to the establishment of
a distinct Muslim faith, which I believe occurred about 1500 years ago.
However, it is commonly contended on these groups that the God of the
Hebrews, whom you claim to worship, is Himself rooted in deities older
still - and certainly Jesus Christ has his parallels in far older faiths
than Christianity. Does this render either Jehovah or Jesus invalid as
the foci of their respective religions? Of course not. No more than an
early history of Allah would do for Him.
You, of course, will fail to understand this argument, because you have
conditioned yourself or have been conditioned to believe that any god not
your own is simply the Devil in disguise, or a 'false god'. Whereas many
philosophies have managed to grasp the idea that divinity is beyond human
definition, and therefore different humans will have different beliefs
about what they think it is.
--
Midjis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
27 Sep 2004 06:03:37 PM |
|
|
Midjis wrote:
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
No. Without one, am I somehow forced to agree with every word Darwin
might or might not have said? Some of the other posters here have
claimed that you once said that amphibians are invertebrates. Did
you?
I might have. Why?
Because if you did so, it indicates that the mere claim to possession of
a degree does not - apparently - guarantee that the possessor knows all
there is to know. Therefore, you are ill-placed to try to use your
possession of a degree in biology, or my lack thereof, as a deciding
factor in this discussion.
Hey, if I've made a mistake I'll readily admit it. Just ask Gray if
you don't believe me. He once proved (about 8 months or a year ago)
that I was wrong in saying that white folks didn't have an NAACP to
take up for them, when actually white folks do have an NAAWP. Having
dicovered my error, I readily admitted it.
However, Cary is being quite shady and mis-representative of the
facts in this case... and should be ashamed of himself.
But BTW, I place no particualr importance on my degree. In fact I
threw all my college books away after I became saved by God. I mean
literally. I actually tossed them in a dumpster.
But for some mysterious reason I've found that x-Christians hate the
thoughts of true Christians making acheivements in society, and even
advancing, while still retaining faith in the God of Israel.
Good. Then you don't mind all this stuff I'm saying about GAIA and the
wizards of science who are promoting her do you?
Given that the majority of what you are saying about 'GAIA' and the
'wizards' of science is simply your own weak pro-literalist propaganda,
it does not worry me in itself. What IS a cause for concern is that you
may - albeit unwittingly - make an argument convincing enough to sway a
waverer into accepting your notions about Darwin, amphibians, Gaia,
Wiccans, six-toed cats, and so on and so forth. You are clearly content
to live in proud and determined ignorance, and that is fine as far as it
goes. The risk, though, is like that run by a drunk driver: you may take
others with you.
You might have HIV-aids.
But these NewAgers need to realize that the way they are worshipping
is an old way, and outdated.
The *New Agers* need to realise that their ways are outdated? JD, it is
YOU who is insisting that the Bible is literal truth, that Creation
happened in six days, and that those who do not believe you are witches.
That provides an alternative suggestion as to who holds the outdated
views.
Do you deny the fact that witchraft is older than Christianity?
They are trying to re-form ancient
Greece here is the US.... and using the Constitution to boot. Back
then, they had a god for almost everything and everyone. Even had an
alter for any god they might have inadvertantly left out.
Whereas you would prefer that everyone live under the oppressive will of
the God of the Bible - as opposed to the Christian God...
Muslims also. The Moon god they call Allah goes way back. Artifacts
prove it.
I am not familiar with the history of Allah prior to the establishment of
a distinct Muslim faith, which I believe occurred about 1500 years ago.
However, it is commonly contended on these groups that the God of the
Hebrews, whom you claim to worship, is Himself rooted in deities older
still - and certainly Jesus Christ has his parallels in far older faiths
than Christianity. Does this render either Jehovah or Jesus invalid as
the foci of their respective religions? Of course not. No more than an
early history of Allah would do for Him.
You, of course, will fail to understand this argument, because you have
conditioned yourself or have been conditioned to believe that any god not
your own is simply the Devil in disguise, or a 'false god'. Whereas many
philosophies have managed to grasp the idea that divinity is beyond human
definition, and therefore different humans will have different beliefs
about what they think it is.
You're right. I've failed to get the last part of your above argument.
But it seems as though you're saying that if I don't agree with you
that I must be under the spell of some demonic force... which is
exactly what you've chided me about WRT your views not being aligned
with mine... on several earlier occaisions.
Look, as long as I think you're being honest and unmanipulative and
hypocritical (like Cary and Bob are) I really don't care what you
think as long as you agree that I have the right to say my piece.
Because lookie here... you can't really have Constitutional freedom of
religion if you don't have Constitutional freedom speech.
None of the hippocrates here can tolerate me speaking when you get
right down to it, so why should I tolerated their personal behavioral
practices?
Jd
And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, "Cry
aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he
is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked". And
they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives
and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them. (1Kings 18:27-28)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
06 Oct 2004 07:08:49 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns957AEDBD344C4TEMPERANTIALIBERTASE¸.32.252.50> Midjis < @ . > writes:
<Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
<
<> Irrelevant. By the same logic you could say Jesus didn't walk on water
<> or raise the dead because both are against physics and "natural
<> law"... but we as Christians know he did.
<
<Whereas others know full well that he did not, and that accounts claiming
<he did can reasonably safely be attributed either to overenthusiastic
<propaganda or to misinterpretation of symbolic acts.
<
<
<
<> On saturday nights, the sodomized each other. They even wanted to
<> sodomize the guests which came to take Lot out of the city before it
<> was destroyed.
<
<Why on Saturday nights alone?
<
<
<
<> Do you have any comprehension whatsover about sodomy laws which are on
<> the books here in the U.S.?
<
<Speaking personally, I do not - however, the laws relating to this
<activity in Britain are being relaxed and gradually removed.
Oh, in this country too. But what JD's really getting at is
"if they call it `sodomy', that must have been what they
did in Sodom".
(of course if they call it Eve's Apple, then that must have been
what Eve ate, right? and if they call it Jonah and the Whale, then it must
have been a whale. Even JDay has made that former unBiblical
mistake, here in this very group)
You might want to have a bit of fun asking JDay to explain why God
long before this little incident discusses nuking Sodom
with Abraham -- and never even mentions sex. See if you can
get him to deal with that one; I've never been able to.
While you're at it, see if you can get him to discuss why God didn't
protest Lot's offering to give up his virginal little girls for a
good, old-fashioned heterosexual gang-bang.
<I believe
<it is no longer an offence provided the participants are of a certain
<age, are not in public, and both give consent.
<
<Now, there are two ways to interpret this change: 1. Britain is
<deteriorating into godforsaken decadence and depravity; 2. Britain is
<adapting to the fact that there is and has been no real reason for the
<activity to be illegal, save the opinions of certain sections of the
<religious community. Clearly you will select the first of these - but
<then you are of those sections of the religious community.
I doubt JDay has much of a conception Britian's far greater tolerance
in this arena, historically speaking.
-- cary
p.s: JDay's very own state of Alabama does have a statute against
sodomy -- but it doesn't apply if you're married.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
28 Sep 2004 05:28:14 AM |
|
|
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
Hey, if I've made a mistake I'll readily admit it.
That is good. But the point remains that the possession of a degree - as
I believe you claim to have a degree in biology - did not prevent you
from making a serious error in this very basic area. Therefore, it is a
little disingenuous of you to imply that the possession or lack of a
degree has any real bearing on this discussion.
Just ask Gray if
you don't believe me. He once proved (about 8 months or a year ago)
that I was wrong in saying that white folks didn't have an NAACP to
take up for them, when actually white folks do have an NAAWP. Having
dicovered my error, I readily admitted it.
Interesting. I had not heard of the 'NAACP' until now. In Britain,
current parameters of political correctness dictate that 'coloured' is an
unacceptable term. However, since these parameters change from week to
week it may simply be that the new acceptability of the term has yet to
reach our shores. For the moment, however, I will refrain from using it.
To digress from the subject for a time, I personally look forward to the
day when the race relations industry - for such it is - can truly be said
to be a thing of the past. We all have different needs, different
desires and aspirations. 'Culture' - however you define it - is hugely
varied and diverse even between those who might share certain physical
racial characteristics. We are all different in many ways, yet we are
all human.
But BTW, I place no particualr importance on my degree. In fact I
threw all my college books away after I became saved by God. I mean
literally. I actually tossed them in a dumpster.
Fine. But in that case you have no need to ask me whether I have one.
If they are not important then they are not important.
But for some mysterious reason I've found that x-Christians hate the
thoughts of true Christians making acheivements in society
Irrelevant. I was Christian for six months, for the sole reason that my
partner at the time attended church and convinced me I should give it a
try. I left when my true nature reasserted itself.
In short, I bear Christians no ill-will. I am fully aware that the
majority of believers in God see the world, the universe, as the work of
their God, and that they treat its complexity as evidence of His
proficiency. There are some who call themselves Christians, though, who
reject the evidence of their senses, who reject the universe as God
reveals it to them, and return to a book written by the hand of man
thousands of years ago; a book that says everything was hammered together
- a bodge job - in six days and that God has spent the rest of history
trying to patch up His mistakes.
You might have HIV-aids.
For what relevance it might have to this discussion - which is of course
none at all - I have neither. Would you like to explain your thinking
here?
Do you deny the fact that witchraft is older than Christianity?
That would depend. If we are talking about the use of magic to drive
change in accordance with the will, then certainly it is older than
Christianity. If, however, we are talking about Wicca, or a structured
RELIGION of witchcraft, then yes, I would deny it. Wicca, for example,
came into being in the early- to mid-1900s.
You're right. I've failed to get the last part of your above argument.
But it seems as though you're saying that if I don't agree with you
that I must be under the spell of some demonic force...
Quite how you read THAT from the comments I made is entirely beyond me.
Rather, that is what I am saying of YOUR statements.
Look, as long as I think you're being honest and unmanipulative and
hypocritical (like Cary and Bob are) I really don't care what you
think as long as you agree that I have the right to say my piece.
Yes, you do have the right to say your piece. And others have the right
to criticise what you say if they think that what you are saying is
damaging to themselves, you, or others. As I have said, it is no concern
of mine if you wish to reject the wonder of discovery - however, it is a
shame if you manage to persuade others to reject it as well. Especially
if, but for your claims, they would not have done so.
Because lookie here... you can't really have Constitutional freedom of
religion if you don't have Constitutional freedom speech.
I have neither.
None of the hippocrates here can tolerate me speaking when you get
right down to it, so why should I tolerated their personal behavioral
practices?
That is for you to decide.
--
Midjis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
28 Sep 2004 01:02:30 PM |
|
|
Midjis < @ . > wrote:
Interesting. I had not heard of the 'NAACP' until now. In Britain,
current parameters of political correctness dictate that 'coloured' is an
unacceptable term. However, since these parameters change from week to
week it may simply be that the new acceptability of the term has yet to
reach our shores. For the moment, however, I will refrain from using it.
NAACP is a very old organization, founded in 1909 when "colored
people" was starting to become the politically correct term in place
of "negro". Since it is known more by the initials than by the full
name, I suspect it was deemed wiser not to change the name with each
passing fad in politically-correct wording.
http://www.naacp.org/past_future/naacptimeline.shtml
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
28 Sep 2004 01:27:57 PM |
|
|
In article <kh9jl09upig2h01tcrvik02p9k633oc9hm@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes:
<2.50> <822hl0pjrdn0e61d8pj3tcucdelj198fvm@4ax.com> <Xns9571EAE9F5715TEMPERANTIALIBERTASE¸.32.252.50> <o1dhl0d8pgbd4599kshdmj9rvrdk6d0ovo@4ax.com> <Xns957274B7CDC11TEMPERANTIALIBERTASE¸.32.252.50>
<X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
<MIME-Version: 1.0
<Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
<Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<Lines: 21
<Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:02:30 -0400
<NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.228.12.146
<X-Complaints-To:
<X-Trace: lakeread04 1096395345 68.228.12.146 (Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:15:45 EDT)
<NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:15:45 EDT
<Organization: Cox Communications
<Xref: oldnews.ccit.arizona.edu alt.atheism:2752673 alt.education:116466 alt.religion:128153 alt.politics.usa:485107 alt.religion.christian:1303447
<
<Midjis < @ . > wrote:
<>Interesting. I had not heard of the 'NAACP' until now. In Britain,
<>current parameters of political correctness dictate that 'coloured' is an
<>unacceptable term. However, since these parameters change from week to
<>week it may simply be that the new acceptability of the term has yet to
<>reach our shores. For the moment, however, I will refrain from using it.
<
<NAACP is a very old organization, founded in 1909 when "colored
<people" was starting to become the politically correct term in place
<of "negro". Since it is known more by the initials than by the full
<name, I suspect it was deemed wiser not to change the name with each
<passing fad in politically-correct wording.
<
<http://www.naacp.org/past_future/naacptimeline.shtml
And "colored" is definitely unPC, but "people of color"
is now the most accepted generic term. Of course "people
of color" embraces more than African-Americans.
Too bad, I always thought "colored person" was a beautiful
(and respectful) phrase.
For what it's worth, "African-American" appears to have
just way too many damn syllables to make it as an everyday
term of reference. I notice to my amusement that even
on the most liberal and proper panel discussions, most
participants will use "African-Americans" the first
time they need an adjective, then resort to "blacks"
thereafter. My impression is that black speakers do
this even more readily than do whites.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
28 Sep 2004 08:51:13 PM |
|
|
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
And "colored" is definitely unPC, but "people of color"
is now the most accepted generic term. Of course "people
of color" embraces more than African-Americans.
Too bad, I always thought "colored person" was a beautiful
(and respectful) phrase.
I admit the term always puzzled me, bearing in mind that all of us are
'coloured' (or 'colored'!) people.
For what it's worth, "African-American" appears to have
just way too many damn syllables to make it as an everyday
term of reference.
In Britain we are told (this week) that 'African-Caribbean' is
acceptable, but 'Afro-Caribbean' is not. However, it should be noted
that 'Anglo-American' is apparently not offensive to the English.
I notice to my amusement that even
on the most liberal and proper panel discussions, most
participants will use "African-Americans" the first
time they need an adjective, then resort to "blacks"
thereafter. My impression is that black speakers do
this even more readily than do whites.
Personally - and I do mean that this is simply my preference - I usually
say 'black people' rather than 'blacks'. In the same way, I refer to
white people rather than whites. This is simply because I tend to think
that 'blacks' and 'whites' as appellations reduce people to their colour
alone, rather than whole people. However, I may be being over-cautious
here.
What I think IS clear is that there are a lot of people enjoying a good
skive in the name of "race relations", and that it is a shame they do not
have anything more productive with which to occupy their time. I very
firmly believe, as I say, that the majority of problems that arise
between racial groups these days are fuelled, if not initially ignited,
by those who claim to be fighting to reduce racial tension. Groups such
as this NAACP (or indeed, their 'white' counterpart), that focus on the
advancement of one group to the exclusion of others, are the greater part
of the problem, and make no realistic contribution to its ultimate
resolution.
--
Midjis
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
29 Sep 2004 09:29:16 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <kh9jl09upig2h01tcrvik02p9k633oc9hm@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes:
<2.50> <822hl0pjrdn0e61d8pj3tcucdelj198fvm@4ax.com> <Xns9571EAE9F5715TEMPERANTIALIBERTASE?.32.252.50> <o1dhl0d8pgbd4599kshdmj9rvrdk6d0ovo@4ax.com> <Xns957274B7CDC11TEMPERANTIALIBERTASE?.32.252.50>
<X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
<MIME-Version: 1.0
<Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
<Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<Lines: 21
<Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:02:30 -0400
<NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.228.12.146
<X-Complaints-To:
<X-Trace: lakeread04 1096395345 68.228.12.146 (Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:15:45 EDT)
<NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:15:45 EDT
<Organization: Cox Communications
<Xref: oldnews.ccit.arizona.edu alt.atheism:2752673 alt.education:116466 alt.religion:128153 alt.politics.usa:485107 alt.religion.christian:1303447
<
<Midjis < @ . > wrote:
<>Interesting. I had not heard of the 'NAACP' until now. In Britain,
<>current parameters of political correctness dictate that 'coloured' is an
<>unacceptable term. However, since these parameters change from week to
<>week it may simply be that the new acceptability of the term has yet to
<>reach our shores. For the moment, however, I will refrain from using it.
<
<NAACP is a very old organization, founded in 1909 when "colored
<people" was starting to become the politically correct term in place
<of "negro". Since it is known more by the initials than by the full
<name, I suspect it was deemed wiser not to change the name with each
<passing fad in politically-correct wording.
<
<http://www.naacp.org/past_future/naacptimeline.shtml
And "colored" is definitely unPC, but "people of color"
is now the most accepted generic term. Of course "people
of color" embraces more than African-Americans.
You idjut. The niggas named themselves the NAACP, not the NAAPoC.
Too bad, I always thought "colored person" was a beautiful
(and respectful) phrase.
For what it's worth, "African-American" appears to have
just way too many damn syllables to make it as an everyday
term of reference. I notice to my amusement that even
on the most liberal and proper panel discussions, most
participants will use "African-Americans" the first
time they need an adjective, then resort to "blacks"
thereafter. My impression is that black speakers do
this even more readily than do whites.
-- cary
And real Africans don't understand why. They ask "are their parents
from Africa?".
Niggas really ain't African-Americans when you get right down to it.
Jd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
30 Sep 2004 10:49:30 AM |
|
|
In article <p22nl01u8lhfhcrjmggme73d7lkdbr799m@4ax.com> Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> writes:
<Cary Kittrell wrote:
<><
<><Midjis < @ . > wrote:
<><>Interesting. I had not heard of the 'NAACP' until now. In Britain,
<><>current parameters of political correctness dictate that 'coloured' is an
<><>unacceptable term. However, since these parameters change from week to
<><>week it may simply be that the new acceptability of the term has yet to
<><>reach our shores. For the moment, however, I will refrain from using it.
<><
<><NAACP is a very old organization, founded in 1909 when "colored
<><people" was starting to become the politically correct term in place
<><of "negro". Since it is known more by the initials than by the full
<><name, I suspect it was deemed wiser not to change the name with each
<><passing fad in politically-correct wording.
<><
<><http://www.naacp.org/past_future/naacptimeline.shtml
<>
<>
<>And "colored" is definitely unPC, but "people of color"
<>is now the most accepted generic term. Of course "people
<>of color" embraces more than African-Americans.
<
<You idjut. The niggas named themselves the NAACP, not the NAAPoC.
Quite true. And how does that contradict what I said? "People
of color" includes Asians and Amerinds and Indian Indians
and Pacific Islanders and just about everybody except
us bland vanilla types.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Midjis" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
30 Sep 2004 10:23:39 AM |
|
|
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
You idjut. The niggas named themselves the NAACP, not the NAAPoC.
Do I detect a flash of your own true colours here, JD?
And real Africans don't understand why. They ask "are their parents
from Africa?".
How do YOU know what 'real Africans' do, JD? Africa is a troubled
continent. Do you think it likely that the population there will have
too much time to spend worrying about what is happening on the richest?
Besides, are you in a position to dictate that ancestry stops with the
parents?
Niggas really ain't African-Americans when you get right down to it.
Are they citizens of America? Then they are American. Are they of
African racial descent? Then they are rightly called African Americans.
Similarly, Irish Americans trace their ancestry to Ireland, but may well
not have come from Ireland themselves. People described as African
Caribbean in Britain might well have come from neither region - it is a
straightforward practical description of their physical characteristics.
So far in this thread, you have demonstrated incompetence, dishonesty,
hypocrisy and ignorance. Do you really want to add racism and mindless
stupidity to an already unsavoury picture?
--
Midjis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jd" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
30 Sep 2004 07:20:31 PM |
|
|
Midjis wrote:
Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
You idjut. The niggas named themselves the NAACP, not the NAAPoC.
Do I detect a flash of your own true colours here, JD?
No. Stick around. You ain't seen nothin yet [honey].
BTW, I've been wondering why all your replies and even your screen
name are gender neutral. Like when you used the phrase "partner" when
talking about the person who talked you into going to church.
I'm guessing you're a female who doesn't want anyone to know so you
can play the role of a male. Am I right? Do you go both ways?
You're hiding something.
And real Africans don't understand why. They ask "are their parents
from Africa?".
How do YOU know what 'real Africans' do, JD? Africa is a troubled
continent. Do you think it likely that the population there will have
too much time to spend worrying about what is happening on the richest?
Besides, are you in a position to dictate that ancestry stops with the
parents?
I have co-workers who've been to Africa on business. That's how I
know.
Niggas really ain't African-Americans when you get right down to it.
Are they citizens of America? Then they are American. Are they of
African racial descent? Then they are rightly called African Americans.
Similarly, Irish Americans trace their ancestry to Ireland, but may well
not have come from Ireland themselves. People described as African
Caribbean in Britain might well have come from neither region - it is a
straightforward practical description of their physical characteristics.
So far in this thread, you have demonstrated incompetence, dishonesty,
hypocrisy and ignorance. Do you really want to add racism and mindless
stupidity to an already unsavoury picture?
Good. I see you're finally getting off the fence. That's great! Who
knows, perhaps someday you might decide to move to the U.S and
experience all this freedom first hand and in person... every single
day of your life!!!
sleep well,
Jd
"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that
breaketh the rock in pieces?" (Jeremiah 23:29)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: How to weep with Gaia |
30 Sep 2004 07:37:21 PM |
|
|
In article <dbdpl01d5cq0fhgaah1o2574s7t9l1srl2@4ax.com> Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> writes:
<Midjis wrote:
<
<>Jd <Jd.wuzhere@att.net> wrote:
<>
<>> You idjut. The niggas named themselves the NAACP, not the NAAPoC.
<>
<>Do I detect a flash of your own true colours here, JD?
<
<No. Stick around. You ain't seen nothin yet [honey].
<
<BTW, I've been wondering why all your replies and even your screen
<name are gender neutral. Like when you used the phrase "partner" when
<talking about the person who talked you into going to church.
<
<I'm guessing you're a female who doesn't want anyone to know so you
<can play the role of a male. Am I right? Do you go both ways?
<
Naw. Purely from stylistic considerations, I'll give you five-to-one
odds that Midjis is a guy.
Midjis, you should be aware that references to lesbians have peppered
JD's posts since I first started reading him. I think the boy's
strangely fascinated.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
