| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dana" |
| Date: |
17 Jun 2005 07:50:51 PM |
| Object: |
Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments
By Doug Patton (08/27/03)
Do not expect Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore to surrender in his fight to
keep the Ten Commandments on display in the rotunda of the state's Supreme
Court building. Moore, a principled man whose judicial temperament is guided
and molded by his belief that there is a God and He is watching, is not
motivated by what may happen to his career as a judge. He is not moved by
the whims of other judges whose rulings are based not in law, but rather in
the blowing, drifting opinions of contemporary societal mores.
Most Americans have no idea of the gravity of the drama unfolding at the
Supreme Court building in Montgomery. Jaded and numbed by fifty years of
abuse by an out-of-control judiciary that usurps the will of the people and
their elected representatives by making law from the bench, it seems we no
longer have any collective memory of what our precious founding documents
say, let alone what they mean.
Just what is it that engenders such hatred by liberals toward The Ten
Commandments? Which of these laws of nature and of nature's God strikes such
fear and loathing in the hearts of the Left?
Is it Commandment number six ("Thou shalt not kill" - or, more accurately
translated, "Thou shalt not commit murder")?
Perhaps it is number eight ("Thou shalt not steal").
Or maybe they just can't stand number nine, ("Thou shalt not bear false
witness).
Is there any thinking person who could look at those three rules and say
that society would be better off if they were disregarded?
How about number ten ("Thou shalt not covet")?
The truth is that it is the first few commandments that cause apoplectic
fits on the Left. Number one especially drives them crazy: "Thou shalt have
no other gods before me." This is followed by, "Thou shalt not make unto
thee any graven image," "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in
vain" and the ever-popular "Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy."
Add to those the admonition to "Honor thy father and mother" and to hear the
Left talk you would think that Ayatollah Roy had set up shop in the Alabama
Supreme Court building.
John Adams once said that the American Constitution was written for a moral
and a religious people, and that it is wholly inadequate for the governing
of any other.
Today's liberals would scoff at such a sentiment. They would claim that
Adams wanted to limit American citizenship exclusively to Christians. Quite
the contrary. Adams understood that free people cannot be coerced into
believing anything against their will. But he also understood that a free
people can recognize the truth when they see it, and that it was only the
self-governing man or woman who can truly be free.
Adams and the other Founders possessed a wisdom that comes only to people
who know that their rights are granted by their Creator, not by other men,
and that government is instituted among men to acknowledge and defend those
rights.
The Founders recognized that lawlessness breeds anarchy, which brings the
terrible power of tyranny down upon the people. They knew that those who
fled to these shores seeking religious and economic freedom did so not for
the right simply to do what they wanted to do, but rather for the right to
do what they ought to do.
In a perfect America, where the Constitution was revered and God was
exalted, we would all know such freedom. Instead, we have traded our
birthright for a society filled with self-indulgence and a debate over
whether it is appropriate to acknowledge God in public.
May God give us a million more Roy Moores.
--
I read the Prize Cases to stand for the proposition
that the President has independent authority to repel
aggressive acts by third parties even without specific
congressional authorization, and courts may not review
the level of force selected.
Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 27 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Silberman,
J., concurring)
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
18 Jul 2005 12:33:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:21:58 -0400, "CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:q5dnd113r836u930qge0k7li6upfn7jsup@4ax.com...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:54:13 -0400, "CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:ubbnd1dgl817at3ptq1bld3nad7046suhh@4ax.com...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:12:31 -0400, "CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote:
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be
one
dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief
system
to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be
allowed
in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic
intent
of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.
lots more for the Left to deny -
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
The only people who are denying anything, are the historical revisist
Christians who lie about the founders.
If they intended this to be "a Christian Nation" then why did they not
say so in the Constitution?
In fact they went out of their way to prevent this. And clarified it
in the BOR.
And has it occurred to you that 70% of those you dismiss as "the Left"
are some kind of Christian?
80% of the signers of the DOI were Christians, once again YOU are in the
minority
What has that got to do with anything?
They, like today, represent the majority
They weren't today's fundamentalists. They neither established a
Christian nation nor allowed any religion to take control.
Take control? Secular Humanism is in control of Education. Control that and
A paranoid lie.
you control the future! One only has to look what madrosas have done to
The madrassahs are Muslim, and were funded and encouraged by the USA
to produce the religious terrorists who kicked the soviets out of
Afghanistan. Were Carter, Reagan and daddy-Bush "secular humanists"?
create suicide murders. Let's see one example of a Christian school that
teaches murder in the name of a god. What's more likely is Abortion doctors
have been raised to think God is dead and theres no spiritual bagage
associated with Abortion on demand. Thank God that's a minority view.
You are either incredibly stupid, or a deliberate liar. Possibly both.
It is the Secular extremist to think Christianity changes over time. In
fact...
What "Secular extremist", liar?
But Christianity does change over time. It adapts to survive .
Sometimes it turns virulent and produces fundamentalists.
"For I am the Lord, I change not" (Malachi 3:6a). "Jesus Christ the same
yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Hebrews 13:8).
What a remarkably stupid and deliberately rude thing to say to
atheists.
http://www.bible.com/answers/agift.html
Like strict Constitutional Constructionists who believe in following the law
as written (not Mosaic Law because we live under grace), mainstream
Chritians too hold to the teachings of the Bible as their guide.
Only Christians I know who's 'progressed' outside the mainstream believe God
forgives Homosexuals who continue to live a life of sin even though they
know in their heart it's wrong. Other Christians who take a life, such in
the case of Abortion doctors are outside mainstream Christianity.
Nobody wold give a ***** what Christians think if you were
ordinarydecent human beings.
It was all about the freedom of the individual. Nobody stops
Christians practising their religion, then or now.
Try saying that in a classroom
They wrote the
constitution to give people freedom of religious conscience. Even the
Christian founders did that.
Where is that choice afforded Christians who teach in public schools?
The horrors of the reformation were too recent. They knew, some of
them first hand, what happens when the government supports religion so
they made it religiously neutral.
Look where taking God out of Education has lead. Two generations of children
have grown up who haven't the patriotic allegiance to country. The result
has been to bastardize Immigration, giving no thought to existing American
culture. Multiculturalism is destroying America and it shows within the
Democrat Party
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lone Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
03 Aug 2005 05:47:28 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:07:38 -0400, "CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote:
"Lone Ranger" wrote in message:
Maybe you wanna try to explain to us what the *original meaning* of
'Separation' means?
Nope, you'll not get that either.
I would, if you would drop the Christian fundamentalist propaganda.
Remember, you are dealing with educated people here. Don't insult
their intelligence. They won't be fooled by propaganda or outright
lies.
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state"
was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of
which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the
state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground
with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the
Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the
garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke
down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a
wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to
restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in
peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)
The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the
church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the
church was free to teach the people Biblical values.
The American people knew what would happen if the State established the
Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they
knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and
sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates.
They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that
were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and
mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the
Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and
torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of
religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would
be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our
founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to
stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this
foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways
and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used
the Bible as a source to form our government.
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one
dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to
another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in
government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the
founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.
lots more for the Left to deny -
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
That's an opinion, not facts. Here's another view:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_sep_danbury.htm?rd=1
Myth:
Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is not important.
Response:
Although the idea of a 'wall of separation' originated with Roger
Williams and not Thomas Jefferson, it is Jefferson's phrasing which
has been most used by judges, lawyers and politicians when it comes to
interpreting the First Amendment. This is unsurprising because of
Jefferson's role in the development of our nation and our political
system.
The phrase itself stems from a letter which Jefferson wrote to the
Danbury Baptist Church in Connecticut. Jefferson was president at the
time and the Danbury Baptist Association had written to him on October
7, 1801, expressing their concern about their religious freedoms. At
the time, they were being persecuted because they did not belong to
the Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut. Jefferson
responded to reassure them that he also believed in religious liberty
and said, in part:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government
reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign
reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that
their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a
wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this
expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights
of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of
those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural
rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social
duties."
Jefferson realized that a full separation of church and state did
*not* exist yet, but he hoped that society would make *progress*
towards that goal. Was this just a political ploy, however? It
certainly can't be considered an off-hand comment, because Jefferson
had it reviewed by Levi Lincoln, his attorney general, before he sent
it. Jefferson is recorded as having told Lincoln that he considered
this letter to be a means of "sowing useful truths and principles
among the people, which might germinate and become rooted among their
political tenets."
This was, by the way, not the only time he used this phrase. It
appears again in a letter he wrote to Virginia Baptists in 1808:
"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of
every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual.
State churches that use government power to support themselves and
force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil
rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy
unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion.
Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore,
is absolutely essential in a free society."
Some have argued that his letter to the Danbury Baptists had no
connection to the First Amendment at all, yet that is clearly false
because Jefferson precedes his 'wall of separation' phrase with an
obvious quote of the First Amendment. Others have tried to argue that
it was written to appease opponents who had labeled him an "atheist"
and that the letter was not meant to have any larger political
meaning.
But this would not be consistent with Jefferson's past political
history. An excellent example of why would be his tireless efforts to
eliminate the compulsory funding of established churches in his native
Virginia. The final 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom read
in part that:
"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious
worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced,
restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall
otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions of belief..."
This is exactly what the Danbury Baptists wanted for themselves - an
end to repression on account of their religious beliefs. It is also
what is accomplished when religious beliefs are not promoted or
supported by the government. If anything, his letter could be viewed
as a *mild* expression of his views, because an FBI analysis of
portions scratched out from the original draft show that Jefferson had
originally written about a 'wall of *eternal* separation' [emphasis
added].
Finally, it has also been argued that Jefferson's opinion about
separating church and state have no relevance because he wasn't around
when the Constitution was written. This ignores the fact that
Jefferson was in constant contact with Madison, who is largely
responsible for the development of the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights, and that the two of them had long worked together to create
greater religious liberty in Virginia.
It also ignores the fact that Madison himself referred more than once
to the concept of a wall of separation. In a letter from 1819, he
wrote that "the number, the industry and the morality of the
priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly
increased by the total separation of the church and state." In an even
earlier and undated essay (probably early 1800s), Madison wrote,
"Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government
in the Constitution of the United States."
Jefferson believed in the principle of separation of church and state
so much that he created political problems for himself. Unlike
Presidents Washington and Adams, and unlike nearly all following
presidents, Jefferson refused to issue proclamations calling for days
of prayer and thanksgiving. It is not, as some charged, because he was
an atheist or because he wanted others to abandon religion.
Instead, it was for the simple reason that he was president of the
American people, not their pastor, priest or minister. He realized
that he had absolutely no authority to lead other citizens in
religious services or expressions of religious faith and worship. Why
is it, then, that other presidents have assumed that authority over
the rest of us?
It is little wonder then that successive Supreme Court decisions
through the past two centuries keep referring to Thomas Jefferson's
writings as instructive in how to interpret all facets of the
Constitution, not merely with regards to First Amendment issues. But
those issues do receive particular attention, considering Jefferson's
principle interests. In the 1879 decision Reynolds v. U.S., for
example, the court observed that Jefferson's writings "may be accepted
as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First]
Amendment."
No, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists was not just a simple
courtesy, and it is not unimportant when it comes to understanding the
nature of the First Amendment.
--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--
The Curse of Tecumseh
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
03 Aug 2005 01:15:24 PM |
|
|
Lone Ranger <snowball2002@bigfoot.com.spamalamadingdong> wrote:
:|That's an opinion, not facts. Here's another view:
:|
:|http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_sep_danbury.htm?rd=1
:|
:|
:|Myth:
:|Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is not important.
:|
:|Response:
:|Although the idea of a 'wall of separation' originated with Roger
:|Williams
Actually there is solid evidence that Roger Williams wasn't the source for
the phrase.
Secondly and far more important, Jefferson didn't separate church and state
in Virginia or on the national level
James Madison os far more responsible for that than Jefferson is
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "1738 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
28 Jun 2005 02:42:44 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:29:43 -0400, "CB" <CB@prayforme.com> wrote:
This is the only argument needed...
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the
stateat the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
--Charles W Moore
Deny God as Thee Highest Ruling Moral Authority then Liberals courts are
free to deny all inalienable rights bestowed to man.
So we're supposed to depend on people who derive their morality from
and invisible and silent sky muffin?
No thank you.
Of course you'll not understand what I mean due to your own denial of what
the original meaning of 'Separation' means.
Which was to protect the church from the state, the state from the
church, and the people from both.
CB
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
28 Jun 2005 02:51:13 PM |
|
|
"1738 Dead" <zepp#22111738dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com>
wrote in message
news:rv93c1tlo15jfm63oskoj4lkebi5i42p0s@4ax.com...
So we're supposed to depend on people who derive their
morality from
and invisible and silent sky muffin?
No thank you.
Well, the "sky muffin" is permanently in evidence
in creation itself, pork stock. But let's say
you're not convinced. You don't actually believe
that *any* morality whatsoever could be derived
from a foul low-life thing like you, or anything
like you?
The world would be safer governed by a pack of
wild dogs before it took a word of counsel from
you. After all, you glory in the killing of
American soldiers and innocent Iraqis at the
hands of murderers, because it furthers your
political agenda, or so you hallucinate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
28 Jun 2005 07:47:00 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RShwe.13290$jU5.3763665@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"1738 Dead" <zepp#22111738dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com>
wrote in message
news:rv93c1tlo15jfm63oskoj4lkebi5i42p0s@4ax.com...
So we're supposed to depend on people who derive their
morality from
and invisible and silent sky muffin?
No thank you.
Well, the "sky muffin" is permanently in evidence
in creation itself, pork stock.
How so?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
29 Jun 2005 08:53:31 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9sr1t$3hf$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RShwe.13290$jU5.3763665@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"1738 Dead" <zepp#22111738dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com>
wrote in message
news:rv93c1tlo15jfm63oskoj4lkebi5i42p0s@4ax.com...
So we're supposed to depend on people who derive their
morality from
and invisible and silent sky muffin?
No thank you.
Well, the "sky muffin" is permanently in evidence
in creation itself, pork stock.
How so?
Open your eyes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
29 Jun 2005 09:51:02 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vJxwe.16284$XB2.4099504@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9sr1t$3hf$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RShwe.13290$jU5.3763665@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"1738 Dead" <zepp#22111738dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com>
wrote in message
news:rv93c1tlo15jfm63oskoj4lkebi5i42p0s@4ax.com...
So we're supposed to depend on people who derive their
morality from
and invisible and silent sky muffin?
No thank you.
Well, the "sky muffin" is permanently in evidence
in creation itself, pork stock.
How so?
Open your eyes.
Huh? Whatever.
<open eyes>
OK, done.
Now answer my question: "How so?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
30 Jun 2005 06:05:52 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9vmmm$an4$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vJxwe.16284$XB2.4099504@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9sr1t$3hf$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message
news:RShwe.13290$jU5.3763665@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"1738 Dead"
<zepp#22111738dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com>
wrote in message
news:rv93c1tlo15jfm63oskoj4lkebi5i42p0s@4ax.com...
So we're supposed to depend on people who derive
their
morality from
and invisible and silent sky muffin?
No thank you.
Well, the "sky muffin" is permanently in evidence
in creation itself, pork stock.
How so?
Open your eyes.
Huh? Whatever.
<open eyes>
OK, done.
Now answer my question: "How so?"
Observe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
30 Jun 2005 08:02:55 AM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kmQwe.16339$XB2.4192620@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9vmmm$an4$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vJxwe.16284$XB2.4099504@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9sr1t$3hf$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message
news:RShwe.13290$jU5.3763665@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"1738 Dead"
<zepp#22111738dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com>
wrote in message
news:rv93c1tlo15jfm63oskoj4lkebi5i42p0s@4ax.com...
So we're supposed to depend on people who derive
their
morality from
and invisible and silent sky muffin?
No thank you.
Well, the "sky muffin" is permanently in evidence
in creation itself, pork stock.
How so?
Open your eyes.
Huh? Whatever.
<open eyes>
OK, done.
Now answer my question: "How so?"
Observe.
<looks around>
OK. Still no god.
Now what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
30 Jun 2005 08:32:33 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da0qhu$opi$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kmQwe.16339$XB2.4192620@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9vmmm$an4$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message
news:vJxwe.16284$XB2.4099504@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:d9sr1t$3hf$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message
news:RShwe.13290$jU5.3763665@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"1738 Dead"
<zepp#22111738dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com>
wrote in message
news:rv93c1tlo15jfm63oskoj4lkebi5i42p0s@4ax.com...
So we're supposed to depend on people who derive
their
morality from
and invisible and silent sky muffin?
No thank you.
Well, the "sky muffin" is permanently in evidence
in creation itself, pork stock.
How so?
Open your eyes.
Huh? Whatever.
<open eyes>
OK, done.
Now answer my question: "How so?"
Observe.
<looks around>
OK. Still no god.
Now what?
Why is there existence rather than nothing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
30 Jun 2005 10:13:42 AM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RvSwe.16346$XB2.4210801@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da0qhu$opi$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kmQwe.16339$XB2.4192620@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9vmmm$an4$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
Well, the "sky muffin" is permanently in evidence
in creation itself, pork stock.
How so?
Open your eyes.
Huh? Whatever.
<open eyes>
OK, done.
Now answer my question: "How so?"
Observe.
<looks around>
OK. Still no god.
Now what?
Why is there existence rather than nothing?
I don't know.
You're not very good at thid god-proving business, are you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
30 Jun 2005 10:16:56 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da1276$rhh$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RvSwe.16346$XB2.4210801@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da0qhu$opi$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message
news:kmQwe.16339$XB2.4192620@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:d9vmmm$an4$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
Well, the "sky muffin" is permanently in
evidence
in creation itself, pork stock.
How so?
Open your eyes.
Huh? Whatever.
<open eyes>
OK, done.
Now answer my question: "How so?"
Observe.
<looks around>
OK. Still no god.
Now what?
Why is there existence rather than nothing?
I don't know.
So you're an agnostic now, as opposed to an
atheist. That's some small progress.
But I would further suggest to you that you
*do* know the answer. You'll just be some more
years in getting to the outer edges of it.
You're not very good at thid god-proving business, are
you?
With you? Time will tell. I would have
to say that I'm a lot better at it than
you are at the atheistic blackout.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
30 Jun 2005 12:13:33 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:I1Uwe.16357$XB2.4216530@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da1276$rhh$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RvSwe.16346$XB2.4210801@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da0qhu$opi$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message
news:kmQwe.16339$XB2.4192620@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:d9vmmm$an4$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
Well, the "sky muffin" is permanently in
evidence
in creation itself, pork stock.
How so?
Open your eyes.
Huh? Whatever.
<open eyes>
OK, done.
Now answer my question: "How so?"
Observe.
<looks around>
OK. Still no god.
Now what?
Why is there existence rather than nothing?
I don't know.
So you're an agnostic now, as opposed to an
atheist.
What ARE you babbling about?
Talk about non-sequitur....
I'm an atheist - I lack belief in gods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
30 Jun 2005 08:16:09 PM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da197t$150$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:I1Uwe.16357$XB2.4216530@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da1276$rhh$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RvSwe.16346$XB2.4210801@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da0qhu$opi$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message
news:kmQwe.16339$XB2.4192620@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:d9vmmm$an4$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
Well, the "sky muffin" is permanently in
evidence
in creation itself, pork stock.
How so?
Open your eyes.
Huh? Whatever.
<open eyes>
OK, done.
Now answer my question: "How so?"
Observe.
<looks around>
OK. Still no god.
Now what?
Why is there existence rather than nothing?
I don't know.
So you're an agnostic now, as opposed to an
atheist.
What ARE you babbling about?
It is obvious that you are ignorant of what an agnostic is.
I'm an atheist - I lack belief in gods.
No, you yourself have an active belief about God.
If you had a lack of belief in God or gods, you would not even engage in
talks about religion or God, as you would have nothing to say on the
subject. That you take an active role, and have been known to post that "God
does not exist" only shows that in fact you do have a belief about God. Your
belief is the same as quite a few other atheists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "human" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
01 Jul 2005 12:48:35 PM |
|
|
"Dana Raffaniello" <dpr...@gci.net> (probably) copied and pasted:
<< ...
Just what is it that engenders such hatred by liberals toward The
Ten Commandments? Which of these laws of nature and of nature's God
strikes such fear and loathing in the hearts of the Left
? ...>>
What is there to fear or loath about "the ten commandments"?
The only place in scripture where the phrase "the ten commandments"
appears is Exodus 35:28. Please read them.
N O O N E K E E P S T H E 1 0 C O M M A N D M E N T S ! ! !
You don't follow them, do you?
Do you keep Exodus 34:26 -- the one about firstfuits of "thy" land and
seething a kid in its mother's milk? I must admit that due to an
uncontrolable weakness for seethed kid, I regular seethe a kid in its
mother's milk.
What about leaving the sacrifice of the feast of the passover unto the
morning. Do you do that? Since I am always and forever leaving the
sacrifice of the feast of the passover unto the morning, I break
Exodus 34:25 all the time.
I break 34:21 all the time, too, cause I just can't get in the habit
of resting in the earing time. Do you make it a habit of resting in
the earing time?
Do you have a fondness for unleavened bread? Well, I break 34:18 all
the time, because I just cannot tolerate eating unleavened bread.
34:19 is really, really hard for me because I refuse to give up all
that openeth the matrix. What about you?
If you claim to keep 34:20, you are the first person I have ever heard
of who does. For myself, I must admit that from time to time I have
met asses whose necks I am sorely tempted to break. But it makes me
sick to my stomach when it actually comes down to really breaking the
neck of a an *****.
Do you keep 34:22? It's one I have _NEVER_ kept because I don't even
know what the feast of weeks is! Since I buy my food at a supermarket,
I don't celebrate the feast of the ingathering at the year's end. I
just don't ingather--never plan to, either--gives me blisters.
If you claim to keep "the ten," including 34:23, and you have kids, my
heart goes out to you. I only have one man child, and he is too
precious to stone, even though he is one of those unruly ones subject
to stoning by the village elders. He never did appear before the Lord
God. He claimed he tried a couple times, but just couldn't find "H"im.
So, I don't know about you, but I have failed miserably at keeping
what the Bible identifies as "the ten commandments," I guess I am just
hopeless!!!
As you must know, there are many more than just 10 commandments in the
Bible. But again, I must confess to weakness with regard to most of
the miscellaneous "commandments" (which come after "the ten"), such
as: 35:3, "Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon
the sabbath day." I break it every damned Thursday* all winter long
because sometimes in WI it is below zero!! (*Thursday being the holy
day named after Thor, and all)
S'pose now Thor is going to strike me down with a bolt of lightening?
http://www.cafepress.com/pansy12
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
01 Jul 2005 08:09:49 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11c966kqec0usab@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da197t$150$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:I1Uwe.16357$XB2.4216530@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da1276$rhh$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RvSwe.16346$XB2.4210801@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Why is there existence rather than nothing?
I don't know.
So you're an agnostic now, as opposed to an
atheist.
What ARE you babbling about?
It is obvious that you are ignorant of what an agnostic is.
I told you what one is; you chose to ignore it.
I'm an atheist - I lack belief in gods.
No, you yourself have an active belief about God.
No, I lack belief in gods.
If you had a lack of belief in God or gods, you would not even engage in
talks about religion or God, as you would have nothing to say on the
subject.
Yes, that would be true if others didn't keep bringing up the subject. I
only engage in these talk because others bring them up. And when people try
to make others obey laws that are based in religions they don't practice, I
cry foul.
That you take an active role, and have been known to post that "God
does not exist" only shows that in fact you do have a belief about God.
No, I do that to tease people.
I have no belief in god. I have a strong suspicion that there is no god
based on the total lack of evidence for one and the sheer absurdity of the
idea (for the same reasons I have a strong suspicion, but I can't prove
there is no god.
Your
belief is the same as quite a few other atheists.
There are many different atheistic viewpoints, and oviously I do agree with
the thoughts of quite a few other atheists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
01 Jul 2005 05:50:11 PM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da3far$s6e$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote in message
news:11c966kqec0usab@corp.supernews.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da197t$150$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:I1Uwe.16357$XB2.4216530@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da1276$rhh$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RvSwe.16346$XB2.4210801@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Why is there existence rather than nothing?
I don't know.
So you're an agnostic now, as opposed to an
atheist.
What ARE you babbling about?
It is obvious that you are ignorant of what an agnostic is.
I told you what one is; you chose to ignore it.
No, what you posted shows that you do not understand what an agnostic
believes.
I'm an atheist - I lack belief in gods.
No, you yourself have an active belief about God.
No, I lack belief in gods.
Your posts prove that you are lying.
Your previous posts indicate that you have an active belief about God, not
that you are absent a belief.
If you had a lack of belief in God or gods, you would not even engage in
talks about religion or God, as you would have nothing to say on the
subject.
Yes, that would be true if others didn't keep bringing up the subject.
But it is a subject you would not care to enter if you actually had an
absence of belief in God or gods. That you have a belief is proven by your
posts on the matter, where you post your belief about God.
That you take an active role, and have been known to post that "God
does not exist" only shows that in fact you do have a belief about God.
I have no belief in god. I have a strong suspicion that there is no god
You just contridicted yourself in one sentence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "human" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
01 Jul 2005 12:47:05 PM |
|
|
1715 Dead <zepp#22111715d...@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
<<There's only two and a half commandments that even have corollaries in
US law: those banning murder and stealing, and (under oath) lying.
Only ignorant morons try to claim the 10C is a basis for America's
secular law. >>
Those two and a half "commandments" are not original to the 10K. Nor are
they exclusive to the 10K.
We don't need the 10K.
Period.
http://www.cafepress.com/pansy12
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "1743 Dead zepp1743#2211finestplanet.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
30 Jun 2005 11:54:37 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:16:09 -0800, "Dana" <whoya@whoya.com> wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da197t$150$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:I1Uwe.16357$XB2.4216530@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da1276$rhh$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RvSwe.16346$XB2.4210801@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da0qhu$opi$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
message
news:kmQwe.16339$XB2.4192620@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:d9vmmm$an4$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
Well, the "sky muffin" is permanently in
evidence
in creation itself, pork stock.
How so?
Open your eyes.
Huh? Whatever.
<open eyes>
OK, done.
Now answer my question: "How so?"
Observe.
<looks around>
OK. Still no god.
Now what?
Why is there existence rather than nothing?
I don't know.
So you're an agnostic now, as opposed to an
atheist.
What ARE you babbling about?
It is obvious that you are ignorant of what an agnostic is.
I'm an atheist - I lack belief in gods.
No, you yourself have an active belief about God.
If you had a lack of belief in God or gods, you would not even engage in
talks about religion or God, as you would have nothing to say on the
subject. That you take an active role, and have been known to post that "God
does not exist" only shows that in fact you do have a belief about God. Your
belief is the same as quite a few other atheists.
It's more of an opinion than a belief. Granted, if you are talking
about the sky muffin in the Bible, that opinion might well approach
certitude, but that's me, not Peacenik.
And if not being something means you can't discuss it, then you would
have no business discussing gays, since you are not one. Right?
"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope
the use of force will not become necessary.
Hopefully this can be done peacefully.
Hopefully we can do this without any
military action."
--Putsch, three months after telling Blair he planned
to attack as soon as he had the phony intelligence
and propaganda all in place.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
01 Jul 2005 08:18:35 AM |
|
|
"1743 Dead" <zepp1743#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:g0j9c15kqa69m1i4e9hd3rvhvlbnn2lsop@4ax.com...
It's more of an opinion than a belief. Granted, if you are talking
about the sky muffin in the Bible, that opinion might well approach
certitude, but that's me, not Peacenik.
Actually, it's easy to disprove the *Biblical* god.
According to the Bible...
The Biblical god is omniscient and omnipotent. If he's omniscient he can't
learn. If he can't learn, he's not omniscient. Ergo he doesn't exist.
The Biblical god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But natural evil exists.
He either can't stop it because he's not omnipotent, or he won't because
he's not omnibenevolent. Ergo he doesn't exist.
The Biblical god is perfect. But he's a jealous god. Jealousy is an
imperfection. Ergo he doesn't exist.
The Biblical god is intelligent. But he created many laws that make no
sense. Therefore he can't be intelligent. Ergo he doesn't exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Erb" |
|
| Title: Science and the Bible (Was: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments) |
01 Jul 2005 08:44:22 AM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da3fra$sf4$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"1743 Dead" <zepp1743#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:g0j9c15kqa69m1i4e9hd3rvhvlbnn2lsop@4ax.com...
It's more of an opinion than a belief. Granted, if you are talking
about the sky muffin in the Bible, that opinion might well approach
certitude, but that's me, not Peacenik.
Actually, it's easy to disprove the *Biblical* god.
I basically agree, but...
According to the Bible...
The Biblical god is omniscient and omnipotent. If he's omniscient he can't
learn. If he can't learn, he's not omniscient. Ergo he doesn't exist.
Not that I believe in a biblical God, but why does omniscience require him
to be able to learn?
The Biblical god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But natural evil
exists.
He either can't stop it because he's not omnipotent, or he won't because
he's not omnibenevolent. Ergo he doesn't exist.
Again, would it be benevolence to interfere with human actions to end evil,
or would that be even worse than letting humans create and develop
themselves over time?
The Biblical god is perfect. But he's a jealous god. Jealousy is an
imperfection. Ergo he doesn't exist.
Or, jealousy is a trait that the Bible says we should strive for! :-)
The Biblical god is intelligent. But he created many laws that make no
sense. Therefore he can't be intelligent. Ergo he doesn't exist.
Or our human sense isn't able to fathom the wisdom of the laws. Of course
the biggest way to get around those last two is to recognize that the Bible
is a human interpretation of God's will, and thus is not to be taken
literally (so you may be able to disprove literalist fundis, but they are a
minority in the Christian world). But science pretty much debunked the idea
the bible is the literal truth of God long ago!
Not belonging any organized religion, and curious about the questions that
inspire science and religion, here's my (developing) take:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/spirit.htm
It's probably longer than you want to read. To sum it up, I develop a God
hypothesis that essentially says God is the force that caused the creation
of space-time, and granted it with the laws of physics which define our
particular reality. Religious types can imagine God as a Will or a
personality, scientists can consider it as simply a label for some kind of
force or event not yet understood. I get there first by looking at
science -- evolution, relativity, quantum theory, etc., to see the limits of
both religion and scientific belief. Ultimately, neither science nor
religion have an adequate explanation for why reality exists. The big bang
is the start of space-time as we know it, and anything "before" the big bang
is not in space-time, so our concepts of time (before, after, etc.) and
space (distance, size, etc.) are irrelevant. Thus we cannot conceive of
what that reality could be, it is at this point not only unknowable, but
virtually impossible to theorize. Perhaps if string theory or something
like that develops further there will be mathematical paths to insight on
this, but this point we have space-time as an entity that was brought into
creation by the big bang, with no known reason for that creation.
Religion sees creation as something willful, from a God. Some religions
believe there are spiritual forces at work. Science cannot deny either
(they are at this point unfalsifiable), and of course can't test or confirm
them. So there is no scientific reason to believe in any religious belief,
yet the unknowables in science can't rule out religious belief (as long as
it isn't something falsifiable, like the sun orbits the earth, or the earth
is 6000 years old -- particular religious beliefs can be ruled out).
And that's about where I'm at. I'm going to try to think about evidence,
fundamental questions, etc. and explore whether what kind of 'reasonable
faith' one might have in some kind of religious or spiritual belief -- or if
that is simply out of the question. I don't know the answer yet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "1745 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and the Bible (Was: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments) |
01 Jul 2005 09:17:37 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:44:22 GMT, "Scott Erb"
<scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da3fra$sf4$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"1743 Dead" <zepp1743#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:g0j9c15kqa69m1i4e9hd3rvhvlbnn2lsop@4ax.com...
It's more of an opinion than a belief. Granted, if you are talking
about the sky muffin in the Bible, that opinion might well approach
certitude, but that's me, not Peacenik.
Actually, it's easy to disprove the *Biblical* god.
I basically agree, but...
According to the Bible...
The Biblical god is omniscient and omnipotent. If he's omniscient he can't
learn. If he can't learn, he's not omniscient. Ergo he doesn't exist.
Not that I believe in a biblical God, but why does omniscience require him
to be able to learn?
It wouldn't, but then, why would he bother creating the universe since
he already knows everything that is ever going to happen in it?
The Biblical god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But natural evil
exists.
He either can't stop it because he's not omnipotent, or he won't because
he's not omnibenevolent. Ergo he doesn't exist.
Again, would it be benevolence to interfere with human actions to end evil,
or would that be even worse than letting humans create and develop
themselves over time?
I haven't noted any particular decrease in the evil in human affairs
over the past few thousand years. Have you?
The Biblical god is perfect. But he's a jealous god. Jealousy is an
imperfection. Ergo he doesn't exist.
Or, jealousy is a trait that the Bible says we should strive for! :-)
And thus end evil?
The Biblical god is intelligent. But he created many laws that make no
sense. Therefore he can't be intelligent. Ergo he doesn't exist.
Or our human sense isn't able to fathom the wisdom of the laws. Of course
the biggest way to get around those last two is to recognize that the Bible
is a human interpretation of God's will, and thus is not to be taken
literally (so you may be able to disprove literalist fundis, but they are a
minority in the Christian world). But science pretty much debunked the idea
the bible is the literal truth of God long ago!
Not belonging any organized religion, and curious about the questions that
inspire science and religion, here's my (developing) take:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/spirit.htm
It's probably longer than you want to read. To sum it up, I develop a God
hypothesis that essentially says God is the force that caused the creation
of space-time, and granted it with the laws of physics which define our
particular reality. Religious types can imagine God as a Will or a
personality, scientists can consider it as simply a label for some kind of
force or event not yet understood. I get there first by looking at
science -- evolution, relativity, quantum theory, etc., to see the limits of
both religion and scientific belief. Ultimately, neither science nor
religion have an adequate explanation for why reality exists. The big bang
is the start of space-time as we know it, and anything "before" the big bang
is not in space-time, so our concepts of time (before, after, etc.) and
space (distance, size, etc.) are irrelevant. Thus we cannot conceive of
what that reality could be, it is at this point not only unknowable, but
virtually impossible to theorize. Perhaps if string theory or something
like that develops further there will be mathematical paths to insight on
this, but this point we have space-time as an entity that was brought into
creation by the big bang, with no known reason for that creation.
Religion sees creation as something willful, from a God. Some religions
believe there are spiritual forces at work. Science cannot deny either
(they are at this point unfalsifiable), and of course can't test or confirm
them. So there is no scientific reason to believe in any religious belief,
yet the unknowables in science can't rule out religious belief (as long as
it isn't something falsifiable, like the sun orbits the earth, or the earth
is 6000 years old -- particular religious beliefs can be ruled out).
And that's about where I'm at. I'm going to try to think about evidence,
fundamental questions, etc. and explore whether what kind of 'reasonable
faith' one might have in some kind of religious or spiritual belief -- or if
that is simply out of the question. I don't know the answer yet.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and the Bible (Was: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments) |
04 Jul 2005 03:35:33 PM |
|
|
1745 Dead wrote:
<scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Not that I believe in a biblical God, but why does omniscience require him
to be able to learn?
It wouldn't, but then, why would he bother creating the universe since
he already knows everything that is ever going to happen in it?
For fun. We all do lots of things where we know what's going
to happen, e.g. putting on a cd that you've heard before. Why
shouldn't god view us as background music to some kind of
celestial party?
As for Scott's query, he might be omniscient in our universe,
but he might not for all the other universes. It depends
how far omniscience goes.
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "1745 Dead zepp1745#2211finestplanet.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and the Bible (Was: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments) |
04 Jul 2005 04:15:00 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:35:33 +0100, "chris.holt"
<chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
1745 Dead wrote:
<scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Not that I believe in a biblical God, but why does omniscience require him
to be able to learn?
It wouldn't, but then, why would he bother creating the universe since
he already knows everything that is ever going to happen in it?
For fun. We all do lots of things where we know what's going
to happen, e.g. putting on a cd that you've heard before. Why
shouldn't god view us as background music to some kind of
celestial party?
That sorta brings a whole new meaning to the phrase, "the music of the
celestial spheres", I gotta admit.
As for Scott's query, he might be omniscient in our universe,
but he might not for all the other universes. It depends
how far omniscience goes.
By definition, it has no limit.
"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope
the use of force will not become necessary.
Hopefully this can be done peacefully.
Hopefully we can do this without any
military action."
--Putsch, three months after telling Blair he planned
to attack as soon as he had the phony intelligence
and propaganda all in place.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Curly Surmudgeon" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and the Bible (Was: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments) |
05 Jul 2005 02:22:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:35:33 +0100, chris.holt wrote:
1745 Dead wrote:
<scotterb@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Not that I believe in a biblical God, but why does omniscience require him
to be able to learn?
It wouldn't, but then, why would he bother creating the universe since
he already knows everything that is ever going to happen in it?
For fun. We all do lots of things where we know what's going
to happen, e.g. putting on a cd that you've heard before. Why
shouldn't god view us as background music to some kind of
celestial party?
As for Scott's query, he might be omniscient in our universe,
but he might not for all the other universes. It depends
how far omniscience goes.
Perhaps god was an ancient astronaut with a laser pointer who ran
prehumans around chasing the dot like I do my pet.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et.al. lied this nation into a war. They were all
complicit. They knew what they were doing." --mellstrr, 07/03/05
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/documents/bush_lies.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: Science and the Bible (Was: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments) |
05 Jul 2005 02:48:42 PM |
|
|
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:35:33 +0100, chris.holt wrote:
1745 Dead wrote:
It wouldn't, but then, why would he bother creating the universe since
he already knows everything that is ever going to happen in it?
For fun. We all do lots of things where we know what's going
to happen, e.g. putting on a cd that you've heard before. Why
shouldn't god view us as background music to some kind of
celestial party?
...
Perhaps god was an ancient astronaut with a laser pointer who ran
prehumans around chasing the dot like I do my pet.
Why only prehumans?
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "1743 Dead zepp1743#2211finestplanet.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
01 Jul 2005 08:22:40 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 21:18:35 +0800, "Peacenik"
<cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote:
"1743 Dead" <zepp1743#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:g0j9c15kqa69m1i4e9hd3rvhvlbnn2lsop@4ax.com...
It's more of an opinion than a belief. Granted, if you are talking
about the sky muffin in the Bible, that opinion might well approach
certitude, but that's me, not Peacenik.
Actually, it's easy to disprove the *Biblical* god.
According to the Bible...
The Biblical god is omniscient and omnipotent. If he's omniscient he can't
learn. If he can't learn, he's not omniscient. Ergo he doesn't exist.
The Biblical god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But natural evil exists.
He either can't stop it because he's not omnipotent, or he won't because
he's not omnibenevolent. Ergo he doesn't exist.
The Biblical god is perfect. But he's a jealous god. Jealousy is an
imperfection. Ergo he doesn't exist.
The Biblical god is intelligent. But he created many laws that make no
sense. Therefore he can't be intelligent. Ergo he doesn't exist.
Heinlein once said something like [paraphrase]: God is omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnibenevolent. It says so right on the label. If
you are capable of believing all three, I have a bridge to sell you.
"I have not ordered the use of force. I hope
the use of force will not become necessary.
Hopefully this can be done peacefully.
Hopefully we can do this without any
military action."
--Putsch, three months after telling Blair he planned
to attack as soon as he had the phony intelligence
and propaganda all in place.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Canyon" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
01 Jul 2005 08:45:46 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 06:22:40 -0700, 1743 Dead
<zepp1743#2211finestplanet.com> wrote:
Heinlein once said something like [paraphrase]: God is omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnibenevolent. It says so right on the label. If
you are capable of believing all three, I have a bridge to sell you.
I think it's pretty funny for a Greywolf Jamieson, who guy who
professed to being a werewolf trying to poke fun at religion.
--
Did Zepp Jamieson really think he was going to get away with
posting as "Greywolf the Wanderer" long ago, writing his homosexual
fantasies about the startrek characters and his belief that he was
a werewolf?
Are the similarities just a coincidence?
First,
Both Greywolf and Zepp lived in Scotland and in B.C. Canada.
Both Greywolf and Zepp used to be a bbs sysop in Santa Barbara.
Both Greywolf and Zepp now live near Mt Shasta in California.
Both Greywolf and Zepp say they aren't U.S. Citizens.
Both Greywolf and Zepp have a house full of cats and 3 dogs.
Both Greywolf and Zepp complain of bad eyesight.
Both Greywolf and Zepp worked at an airport.
Both Greywolf and Zepp worked as a janitor.
Both Greywolf and Zepp worked at a hospital.
Both Greywolf and Zepp have samoyeds named Monk.
Both Greywolf and Zepp complain of "rhuematiz."
Both Greywolf and Zepp say they are dyslexic.
Both Greywolf and Zepp like author Robert Heinlein
Both Greywolf and Zepp like Heinlein's "Moon is a Harsh Mistress."
Both Greywolf and Zepp like Jethro Tull.
Both Greywolf and Zepp claim to be writers.
Both Greywolf and Zepp are dedicated Sci fi fans.
Both Greywolf and Zepp use the phrase "I is suitably impressed."
Greywolf said he was overweight, Zepp admitted to weighing over 300 lbs.
Greywolf says that he's a wiccan and Zepp does a lot of writing about
wiccans.
Greywolf's favorite quote is "evolution in action," Zepp used that for
one of his commentaries.
Greywolf's an alcoholic who has stopped drinking, Zepp says he's had a
problem with alcohol and therefore doesn't drink.
Greywolf used Zepp's ISP account and Zepp's computer and claimed to live
with Zepp, also claiming that his household consisted of only two people.
Zepp also claims that Greywolf lives in his household, but also claims that
he lives with his wife and nobody else.
So is Zepp the same person as Greywolf? And if so, what does Zepp's homely
wife think of Greywolf posting his homosexual fantasies on Usnet.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Why The Left Hates The Ten Commandments |
01 Jul 2005 05:00:23 PM |
|
|
Peacenik wrote:
"1743 Dead" <zepp1743#2211finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:g0j9c15kqa69m1i4e9hd3rvhvlbnn2lsop@4ax.com...
It's more of an opinion than a belief. Granted, if you are talking
about the sky muffin in the Bible, that opinion might well approach
certitude, but that's me, not Peacenik.
Actually, it's easy to disprove the *Biblical* god.
According to the Bible...
The Biblical god is omniscient and omnipotent. If he's omniscient he can't
learn. If he can't learn, he's not omniscient. Ergo he doesn't exist.
The Biblical god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But natural evil exists.
He either can't stop it because he's not omnipotent, or he won't because
he's not omnibenevolent. Ergo he doesn't exist.
The Biblical god is perfect. But he's a jealous god. Jealousy is an
imperfection. Ergo he doesn't exist.
The Biblical god is intelligent. But he created many laws that make no
sense. Therefore he can't be intelligent. Ergo he doesn't exist.
Also, the Biblical god is omnipresent. But he cannot be seen in the
visual spectrum. Therefore he's not omnipresent. Ergo he doesn't exist.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
