x-no-archive: yes
go to http://www.lft.k12.la.us/lpss/boardmembers/ to see who these
school board members are. the list includes their phone numbers and
e-mail addresses.
http://www.lft.k12.la.us/lpss/boardmembers/
LAFAYETTE, La. — A school board said it won't apologize for punishing a
boy who said his mother is gay, insisting the boy was disciplined for
behavioral problems, not using the word "gay." A school form that
Marcus McLaurin brought home last month said his use of the word was the
reason for his punishment. His mother, Sharon Huff, complained to the
American Civil Liberties Union (search), which demanded an apology and
that the incident be removed from Marcus' record.
The Lafayette Parish School Board (search) voted 5-3 Thursday night that
it was "never the intent or purpose" to discipline the child for having
used the word "gay."
The school board offered no futher explanation.
ACLU lawyer Ken Choe expressed disappointment and said no new evidence
had been produced to suggest that the boy had been punished for any
reason other than the one given in the form.
"We feel this is revisionist history," Choe said. He said a lawsuit was
an option.
David J. Loftus <dloft59@no-spam> wrote:
>
> Oh, I don't know . . . "gay" was a perfectly serviceable word
> that meant something else entirely before homosexuals hijacked
> it. I kind of miss the traditional meaning.
I see what you mean. In Edwardian times 'gay' was a common-use term for
'hooker'.
Or wasn't that the traditional meaning you had in mind?
--
Mike
NAR #70953 - Sr/HPR Level-1 ~ SeaNAR - The Seattle NAR Section #568
NO Junk Email, please! Real email to: amphoto [at] blarg [dot] net.
<WANTED: Experienced Kamikaze Pilot>
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:14:39 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
>A good word for male "gays" is "sodomites".
Not that good. The root term is not limited only to gay males.
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 07:47:47 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@no-spam> wrote: a bunch of scriptural stuff out
of context.
Tell ya what there -- would you Like to have to live by all the
demands that the Holy Tome places within its text?
If your answer is Yes to All, I can list a bunch of requirements that
will make your existence untenable altogether.
Care to go there?
"Don Homuth" <enough@no-spam> wrote in message
> A good word for male gays and heterosexuals who practice oral sex
> is "sodomites."
"Whuuuuut? Yawl mean straight foke do thatthere oral sex too? I don't
giddit..."
-Cooter the repressed fundamentalist Xtian.
Changing the subject heading. That silly "LA" thread has nothing to do with
this discussion now.
> > Biblical euphemisms] isn't mentioned in any references/verses about
Sodom...
> > though if you're able to cite such, please do so.
>
> Leviticus 20:13 And if a man lie with mankind,
> as with womankind, both of them have committed
> abomination: they shall surely be put to death;
> their blood shall be upon them.
It says nothing about the city/society of Sodom.
More importantly, it has to be understood/read in it's original context.
When the letters and documents comprising the Bible were written, it was
very much a male dominated society, at least in the Palestine/Israel area
where most of these stories took place. Women & girls were essentially men's
property. The vast majority of females were little more than uneducated
'baby-makers' with few if any rights; second-class citizens almost like
slaves. So from that perspective, a man found having sex with a man [note:
female homosexuality is mentioned only once in the entire Bible] was
'officially' considered demeaning then because one of them had to
necessarily take the mere, lowly, subservient 'womans position'. Eros was
not the issue: he-man, masculine dominance was. It was a "guy thing" in the
highly egotistic traditional male sense.
> De 23:17 There shall be no harlot of the daughters
> of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the
> sons of Israel.
See above.
> Genesis 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of
> the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the
> house round, both young and old, all the people from
> every quarter. 5 And they called unto Lot, and said
> unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this
> night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.'
A popular misinterpretation. Not "know" as in "carnal knowledge" [legalese
for sex] but in the non-sexual sense "to understand"... to get a better idea
of who these strangers in the city were. Hospitality and safety were of
practical importance in those societies. They were reasonably trying to find
out if the strangers in Lot's house were possibly spies checking out the
city for an invasion or for robbery.
Additionally, the quote [which I too have read in my KJSV Bible] says
nothing at all about sex: directly or indirectly.
> > Also, regardless of sexual
> > orientation and... uh... 'methods', anal intercourse is not a
> > gender-specific act.
>
> Irrelevant.
It's completely relevant. Anal sex/intercourse, regardless of what's done
with whom using what, is not gender-specific. So the assertion it's
[exclusively] done by male homosexuals is incorrect.
Assuming you're an adult [and regardless of your sexual orientation] what
you do "in your bedroom" with other consenting adults is your business: it's
not mine, not The Community's, not The Church's... yes?
But if you're NOT an adult... look dude, we gotta know right now what you
been doing in there, so good upstanding citizens that we are, we can call
the police pronto!... or at least your minister. You know, 'community
standards' and all that.
> It matters when sodomy is murder.
What?? How do you come up with anal sex/intercourse "is murder"? Murder is
not sex, but violence... duh. Sex between consenting adults, obviously
unless it leads to violence or murder, is not. You're mixing topics.
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:52:14 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
>Outlawing "oral sex" does not make it sodomy.
Defining it as sodomy makes it sodomy.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote...
> To imply that the proscription excludes the social mores
> of societies such as Sodom is the sodomizing of context.
Spare us the prim euphemisms, please. The Leviticus 20:13 text you cited
previously says nothing about Sodom.
> Even if this were not a far stretch of the imagination, it is still
> however, irrelevant.
It is not a "stretch of imagination" and is still completely relevant to the
discussion. Women were little more than property then and there.
> > Additionally, the quote [which I too have read in my KJSV Bible] says
> > nothing at all about sex: directly or indirectly.
>
> The apologia you offer is off track.
No, my apologia is completely on track and completely valid. Your
understanding of it is incorrect. Read the Biblical quote again: it says
nothing about sex of any kind.
> It might be helpful for you to read the context to get a
> handle on what "to know them" means in biblical terms.
I have read it and have had it explained from written sources and ministers
in different denominational churches. Again, "to know" in this instance
means "to understand"... to have more information about. Sex is not a part
of this passage.
> Pay particular attention to Lot's pleading against the
> wickedness of the deed the sodomites would perform
> on the hapless visitors. <snip>
"The sodomites" --some portion of the men from the city of Sodom [no sexual
practices stated]-- were trying to find out who the strangers were, that's
all. Again, sex was not part of the story.
> 8 Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known
> man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do
> ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men
> do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the
> shadow of my roof.'
Yeah, it really makes Lot out to be such a righteous father for offering his
daughters up. Oh, and later on his daughters got him drunk and jumped into
bed with him, during which he got them pregnant. Such really wholesome
family Biblical values demonstrated here, don't you think?
Man, what a story!... supernatural visitors, curious townspeople, suggested
heterosexual gang rape, double incest and even a little sci-fi [Lot's wife
vaporized by the explosion of Sodom... once thought in some scientific
quarters to have been due to a meteorite air-burst over the city]. Who needs
weird or X-rated movies when you can read it all in the Bible!
> > So the assertion it's
> > [exclusively] done by male homosexuals is incorrect.
>
> No such assertion did I make.
Yes you did...
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:14:39 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> >A good word for male "gays" is "sodomites".
> I don't think any sane individual would consider sticking a
> broom handle, etc. into an anus is "sexual intercourse".
Me neither. What those policemen in NY did to that poor man was grotesquely
wrong. Yet that horrific incident had nothing to do with sex [hetero or
homo] and everything to do with violence. Why bring it up?
> > Assuming you're an adult [and regardless of your sexual orientation]
what
> > you do "in your bedroom" with other consenting adults is your business:
it's
> > not mine, not The Community's, not The Church's... yes?
>
> Only so long as not discovered. Still, abomination having
> been done, it is usually paid for in one way or another.
Then, by your definition "so long as not discovered", what consenting adults
do in their bedroom makes no difference, because it is no one else's
business.
> Its better to not have community standards?
What I do or don't do in my bedroom is not this community's business, nor
vice versa. What you do or don't do is likewise not the community' business,
nor vice versa. Neither you nor I set 'moral/religious sexual policy between
consenting adults of any sexual orientation' [my phrase] because it's not
our business.
> I suppose murder is not violent?
I sure as hell don't make that supposition.
> What of the "he-man, masculine dominance" argument you used back up the
page?
I made it in reference to the overwhelmingly male-dominated society during
'biblical times' and its consequent mis-understanding in relation to some
contemporary religious mis-concepts of homosexuality. That's what.
> In any event, willfully spreading deadly plague is murder.
Yep, sure is. But, ummm... is our subject now about a combination of disease
control and the law?
Hey, good morning, Roy! Well, here we go again...
> It also says nothing about Seattle. By your reasoning I
> guess the sodomite community on Capitol Hill is biblically
> free and clear. Try harder.
"The sodomite community on Capitol Hill"????
Oh! My!! God!!!
Congratulations, Roy: you got me good. I really don't remember the last time
I laughed so hard for so long. Funny, funny stuff! Man... get off this
newsgroup and go audition as a religious commedian. You have the gift.
You'll make millions.
> Why did you snip the bulk of your irrelevant straw
> man?... telling, what?
You must be new to USENET discussion groups. People frequently include all
previous material in their replys, which thus add up and up and up until the
replys are unmanageably long and hard to follow. I snip to make my responses
to yours easier to navigate through. No one says you have to do it.
And besides, I happen to like 'irrelevant straw men'. Some of them are great
card players, too.
> > Read the Biblical quote again: it says
> > nothing about sex of any kind.
>
> What do you think its talking about, a recipe for blueberry muffins?
Sure! They're really good this time of year, especially on these colder
mornings.
> > I have read it and have had it explained from written sources and
ministers
> > in different denominational churches. Again, "to know" in this instance
> > means "to understand"... to have more information about. Sex is not a
part
> > of this passage.
>
> Baaloony.
Ah... then all the sources and the ministers are making it up, yes? By
golly, they must be covert homosexuals. Yes, yes that's the only possible
explanation. No, wait... *I* made it all up.
> > "The sodomites" --some portion of the men from the city of Sodom [no
sexual
> > practices stated]-- were trying to find out who the strangers were,
that's
> > all. Again, sex was not part of the story.
>
> Riiight, the story is about how flour and water makes paste.
No, it's about blueberry muffins.
> You keep snipping relevant parts of my replies. That's dishonest.
It has nothing to do with honesty or dishonesty. See my 'snipping' comment
above.
> > weird or X-rated movies when you can read it all in the Bible!
>
> A fine example of fundie atheist disingenuous mistranslation.
Oh, but it gets better! All sorts of neat weird stuff in the Bible: wheels
within wheels in the sky [Ezekiel], dragons and Heavenly warfare [various],
dry bones raising up, parthenogenic births... great reading! Let me
recommend it to you.
> > > No such assertion did I make.
> >
> > Yes you did...
>
> Cite my words?... I'll wait.
I did, in the response prior to this last night. You must have missed it, so
go back and read it again.
> > > I don't think any sane individual would consider sticking a
> > > broom handle, etc. into an anus is "sexual intercourse".
> >
> > Me neither. What those policemen in NY did to that poor man was
grotesquely
> > wrong. Yet that horrific incident had nothing to do with sex [hetero or
> > homo] and everything to do with violence. Why bring it up?
>
> Fine piece of back-tracking.
Thanks. Remember, you brought up the broom handle incident to be begin with.
> No. Without witnesses it is merely no one else's direct knowledge.
> It still makes a difference in the lives of the miscreants and the
> innocents they adversely affect.
Yeah, for those police it's called jail time.
> the degenerate behavior they exhibit beyond the bedroom.
Of which I have no information on, and can thus make no assumptions. Hmmm...
feeding into my doubtlessly perverted interests [must be a 'closet gay']...
exactly what DO they do "beyond the bedroom?"
> > Neither you nor I set 'moral/religious sexual policy between
> > consenting adults of any sexual orientation' [my phrase] because it's
not
> > our business.
>
> If you want a "safe and sane world" it certainly is our business.
Oh, so the sexual practices of commited, loving, caring, responsible
heterosexual adults is no ones business [especially the 'community'], but
the sexual practices of commited, loving, caring responsible homosexual
adults is just the reverse... and all because of seven snippets of verse
scattered throughout the Bible like afterthoughts... each hyper-magnified,
pontificated over and blown wildly and irrationally out of proportion by
lock-step religious twits. Yes?
> > Yep, sure is. But, ummm... is our subject now about a combination of
disease
> > control and the law?
>
> Yep, this part of the exchange is about sodomites and their partners
> in crime, who by co-opting the law in order to willfully block the most
> fundamental anti plague health measures, ensure proliferation of the
> AIDS plague and consequently the murder of millions of innocents.
> And, for what?... the preservation by murderous effete thugs of the
> AIDS cash cow.
Never mind that AIDS is spread by other means. But those doesn't figure in,
do they? They're 'irrelevant' [hey... what a great catch-all response! I
must start using it]
But you know, don't you Roy, that all of those other ways of serving the
AIDS cash cow were concepted and spread by those nasty old non-Christian
fags at Gay World Domination Headquarters Central up on Capitol Hill. I've
seen the place. It's painted in glittery pink camoflage and covered with
jock straps and feathered boas. Disgusting.
My heavens, what a conspiracy! Nuke the damned place out of existence! Make
the World safe for good heterosexual Christians! Onward [straight] Christian
Soldiers! Do God's holy [straight] business on Earth! Rid us all of the
insidious Gay menace! Lock up your wives and daughters...? Whoops. Sorry.
[clears throat] Lock up your sons and yourselves! No one is safe! God save
us from the Queers!
NOOOOOOoooooooo!!!!!!!!!!
Well, wait... the Gay Headquarters kitchen DOES make excellent blueberry
muffins. It's how they finance their abominable anti-heterosexual,
non-Christian research, you know.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote
> I should explain to you tghat the only authority as
> far as I'm concerned is The Five Books of Moses
> (Genesis - Deuteronomy}. It is tghe word of God.
> All the rest of everything else ever written are the
> words of fallible men.
Are you Christian [which title describes next to nothing: there are over
30,800 denominations of it world-wide, so be specific if you claim it],
Jewish, something else or 'independent'? Your 'sig' suggests Judaism. If so,
orthodox?
I've attended and served in 'mainstream' United Church of Christ, Methodist
and Lutheran churches for some 50 years: none of which [I hastily add] were
the "First Church of Adrenaline" or the "Assembly of Pound the Table and
Shout Hallelujah". I would've run screaming in the opposite direction.
Whenever I go to any church or read my Bible I don't first check my brain in
at the door.
To be a Christian [or of any other world religion, for that matter] doesn't
relieve the individual of the responsibility of thinking, questioning and
even doubting. Furthermore, God/Allah/Great Spirit/etc. is not a Celestial
Bank Account for which any religion can claim Preferred Customer status.
I've also taken college and church sponsored classes in comparative religion
[during which --not knowing any different beforehand-- I was thunderstruck
by how fundamentally similar they are in so many ways]. I was peripherally
involved for about three years with the Washington State Interfaith Council,
and through them had a 'bit part' with the 1992 visit of HH The Dalai Lama
when he spoke at St Mark's cathedral in Seattle: standing room only. Good
speaker... very intelligent and compassionate. I read one of his thoughtful
books a few years ago "Ethics For The New Millennium" and highly recommend
it to anyone, since it's clearly for a general audience.
You?
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vu29nupad6e508@no-spam
>
>
> "gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:Zx4Eb.16150$G9.14572@no-spam
> >
> > "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in message
> >
> > > "Seks-you-all ooooorgans are not meee-aaant foh' the mow-th!"
> >
> > Hehe! Every campus must have one then. There was this guy that carried
a
> > giant wooden cross along highway 99 every year (it had wheels on it so
he
> > didn't have to actually carry it.)
> >
> > The creepy thing is that he looked relatively normal and his brainwashed
> > wife and chillins and their pet rabbit that they kept on a rope came
with
> > them. Every year, to OSU, he'd stand in the middle of campus and preach
> to
> > a crowd of mostly the curious and amused. Folks always taunted him and
I
> > kind of felt bad because he was probably simply crazy.
> >
> > Sounds like your guy may have changed his name to Lon and moved to
Oregon.
>
> The weird thing is that people have told me that Brother Jeb (and his
cohort
> Sister Cindy), have been all over college campuses for the last three
> decades. I saw him in 1981 thru 1986 and did an interview with him in 1984
> for the college radio station. He knocked up sister Cindy in 1984 and I
> wonder if he isn't the same person you have seen. I actually saw him
> preaching with a PREGNANT sister Cindy before I graduated so I know he
> didn't quite practice what he preached. It's almost impossible to research
> them now since there are so many responses to "brother Jeb" referring to
Jeb
> Bush that it's impossible to find him at all.
>
> Anyway, Jeb had a bowl haircut and Cindy dressed like a Quaker with a
bonnet
> and a long skirt. If you ever saw them, you'd know who I was talking
about.
> They made the pac-10 circuit and went to every school from what I have
been
> told.
>
> Anyone that saw them, (or the Barruhp Barruhp brothers) please let me
know.
>
>
The owner of this Web site is really in to ol Bro Jeb (if that's his REAL
name). At least one a lot like him that was all over the Midwest. She likes
to talk about him.
Her site is just chock full of great stuff, anyway.
http://www.tftb.com/deify/
I'm sure you can contact her through this page, anyway. there used to be
(may still be) a Usenet group dedicated to him, too, but I gave up on it
because it got overrun by spam.
--
Weather is here.
Wish you were beautiful
JR
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FE4EE57.EAC0C26A@no-spam
>
>
> Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FE36585.1FACCC93@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:3FE2A105.43649CDC@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, but it gets better! All sorts of neat weird stuff in the
Bible:
> > > > wheels
> > > > > > within wheels in the sky [Ezekiel], dragons and Heavenly warfare
> > > > [various],
> > > > > > dry bones raising up, parthenogenic births... great reading! Let
me
> > > > > > recommend it to you.
> > > > >
> > > > > I should explain to you tghat the only authority as
> > > > > far as I'm concerned is The Five Books of Moses
> > > > > (Genesis - Deuteronomy}. It is tghe word of God.
> > > > > All the rest of everything else ever written are the
> > > > > words of fallible men.
> > > >
> > > > Hate to tell ya, Roy boy, but those books were written by men also.
> > There's
> > > > no proof at all that any of the bible is the literal word of god. In
> > other
> > > > words your so called authority is debatable and many reject it
outright.
> > >
> > > Its authority is proven by the complete set of
> > > Absolute Morals found within The Five Books
> > > of Moses and nowhere else in the world.
> >
> > Just how is this supposed to be proof? Someone wrote it, so it's true?
> >
> > It may be assumed by you to be proof, but there's no evidence that it
> > effects me whatsoever. Some "proof".
>
> If Absolute Morals exist in this amoral world, and they
> do in the Five Books of Moses, they must have come
> from somewhere beyond nature. The vast majority of
> the world's population chooses to call that transcendent
> somewhere, God. Those Absolute Morals affect you
> whether you respect thewm or not.
EVEN assuming that you have read the prohibitions correctly, assuming that
the oral history was correctly passed down and not edited for "ease of
understanding", "misunderstood by the next generation in the chain",
assuming that when finally written down in the various versions (see all the
different versions of the same text in the Dead Sea Scrolls for example) and
then finally was correctly translated into a form for you to read - did you
ever consider that these were rules given to the Jews of the time and that
they did not apply to anyone else? No where does it say that these rules
were to be forced onto others - only those living in the same house. So
what makes you think that this collection of old city codes has any
application to you today and what makes you think that you have the right to
impose your interpretation on someone else? Certainly not the Bible!
In alt.culture.oregon Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
>
> I retired from business at a relatively early age. My expertise
> is in connecting dots.
obbook: http://store.doverpublications.com/0486407322.html
oops wrong group
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FE56CFC.B2A31452@no-spam
>
>
> WinGuru wrote:
>
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FE4EE57.EAC0C26A@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:3FE36585.1FACCC93@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:3FE2A105.43649CDC@no-spam
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oh, but it gets better! All sorts of neat weird stuff in the
> > Bible:
> > > > > > wheels
> > > > > > > > within wheels in the sky [Ezekiel], dragons and Heavenly
warfare
> > > > > > [various],
> > > > > > > > dry bones raising up, parthenogenic births... great reading!
Let
> > me
> > > > > > > > recommend it to you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I should explain to you tghat the only authority as
> > > > > > > far as I'm concerned is The Five Books of Moses
> > > > > > > (Genesis - Deuteronomy}. It is tghe word of God.
> > > > > > > All the rest of everything else ever written are the
> > > > > > > words of fallible men.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hate to tell ya, Roy boy, but those books were written by men
also.
> > > > There's
> > > > > > no proof at all that any of the bible is the literal word of
god. In
> > > > other
> > > > > > words your so called authority is debatable and many reject it
> > outright.
> > > > >
> > > > > Its authority is proven by the complete set of
> > > > > Absolute Morals found within The Five Books
> > > > > of Moses and nowhere else in the world.
> > > >
> > > > Just how is this supposed to be proof? Someone wrote it, so it's
true?
> > > >
> > > > It may be assumed by you to be proof, but there's no evidence that
it
> > > > effects me whatsoever. Some "proof".
> > >
> > > If Absolute Morals exist in this amoral world, and they
> > > do in the Five Books of Moses, they must have come
> > > from somewhere beyond nature. The vast majority of
> > > the world's population chooses to call that transcendent
> > > somewhere, God. Those Absolute Morals affect you
> > > whether you respect thewm or not.
> >
> > EVEN assuming that you have read the prohibitions correctly, assuming
that
> > the oral history was correctly passed down and not edited for "ease of
> > understanding", "misunderstood by the next generation in the chain",
> > assuming that when finally written down in the various versions (see all
the
> > different versions of the same text in the Dead Sea Scrolls for example)
and
> > then finally was correctly translated into a form for you to read
>
> Absolute Morals are immutable, not subject to interpretation. They
> do not change according to man's desire. They were [given] so that
> man would know to challenge rather than pander to his immoral self
> destructive desires.
There are no such things. IF they existed, then they would have been
universally acknowledged and built-in to us. There would never be any
question about them.
>
> > - did you
> > ever consider that these were rules given to the Jews of the time and
that
> > they did not apply to anyone else?
>
> The rule against murder applies to all.
Define "murder" or is it "thou shalt not kill"? Can you affirmatively state
the difference and exactly how you are so positive about one versus another
of those definitions? Do you definitions only apply to those who actually
commit the act or does it also apply to those who say to loyal followers "it
would be good if such and such person was *removed*" ?
>
> > No where does it say that these rules
> > were to be forced onto others - only those living in the same house.
>
> If you think being forced not to commit murder is wrong
> you'll have to 'save it for the judge'.
In our culture, typically no one is "forced not to commit murder". Murders
happen all the time. There are even those who get away with murder without
any punishment at all.
>
> As far as willful plague spreading, which is murder,
> is concerned, we all live in the 'same house'.
>
What "plague"? If you are referencing AIDS, you do understand that this
has nothing particular to do with any type of sex since AIDS can be spread a
number of ways other than by sexual contact and that AIDS is NOT caused by
any particular type of sex act? You do understand this, don't you?
> > So
> > what makes you think that this collection of old city codes has any
> > application to you today
>
> Absolute Moral laws are as applicable today as they were
> the day they were given. Tools change, man does not.
IF such existed, then we would all know them and there would be no debate.
Therefore they don't exist.
>
> > and what makes you think that you have the right to
> > impose your interpretation on someone else?
>
> We [all] have the right to self defense.
Only in your interpretation. NOT a provable contention.
>
> > Certainly not the Bible!
>
> Tell that one to the judge.
> --
Why? Judges in our society aren't particularly concerned with some obsolete
codes of law - they are focused on what the laws of today, here and now are!
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote
> the fact that AIDS is spread [primarily] via anal intercourse?
That's just not accurate. The AIDS virus --we'd all agree-- is spread by
several methods. This quote from AEGIS...
----------------------------------
"HIV is spread most commonly by having unprotected sex with an infected
partner. The virus can enter the body through the lining of the vagina,
vulva, penis, rectum, or mouth during sex.
HIV also is spread through contact with infected blood. Before donated blood
was screened for evidence of HIV infection and before heat-treating
techniques to destroy HIV in blood products were introduced, HIV was
transmitted through transfusions of contaminated blood or blood components.
Today, because of blood screening and heat treatment, the risk of getting
HIV from such transfusions is extremely small.
HIV frequently is spread among injection drug users by the sharing of
needles or syringes contaminated with very small quantities of blood from
someone infected with the virus. It is rare, however, for a patient to give
HIV to a health care worker or vice-versa by accidental sticks with
contaminated needles or other medical instruments.
Women can transmit HIV to their babies during pregnancy or birth.
Approximately one-quarter to one-third of all untreated pregnant women
infected with HIV will pass the infection to their babies. HIV also can be
spread to babies through the breast milk of mothers infected with the virus.
If the mother takes the drug AZT during pregnancy, she can reduce
significantly the chances that her baby will get be infected with HIV. If
health care providers treat mothers with AZT and deliver their babies by
cesarean section, the chances of the baby being infected can be reduced to a
rate of 1 percent."
----------------------------------
So if the variety of these methods of sexual and *non-sexual* transmission
were not the case, then the vast majority of AIDS/HIV cases would be
homosexual men. Yet as the African epidemic/pandemic has unquestionably
demonstrated for years, AIDS/HIV ravages both genders and all ages of
heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals. An argument to link these cases
back to homosexual [either gender] sex is just not defensible pathologically
or sociologically.
AIDS is not 'primarily spread via anal intercourse'. Very early-on it likely
was, but it's demonstrably not so today. Africa --God help it-- is proof
positive.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote
> >
> > > Without the Absolute Morality in the Five Books
> > > of Moses, there is no way for him to know conclusively
> > > whether or not his choices are 100% correct 100% of the time.
> >
> > According to one portion of one religious source from one country in one
> > era.
> >
> > God and the wisdom of God is not exclusive to one religion or to one set
of
> > scriptures. Just as there is more than one path to the summit of Mt
Rainer,
> > so too there is more than one path to God. No other premise is
argueable:
> > whether from the heart, the mind or the printed word.
> >
> > To believe otherwise would be like sitting in a United Airlines 747 and
> > resolutely refusing to look out the window and see all the aircraft from
all
> > the other manufactures and airline companys in the air with you.
>
> The subject is not comparative man made religions and their gods
> but the existence of Absolute Morality where there is no natural
> design for it in an amoral world.
'Man made religions'??
Roy, the God of Moses is the same God of all Jews, Christians, Ba' Hais,
Muslims, Vedanta [our word for Hindu], Sikhs, 7th Day, etc.
God is God is God.
Do I hear you saying the Pentateuch [sp?] is the end-all and be-all of
religious text/sources/morality in relation to all other monotheistic
religions in this world?
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > What lacks proof is the 'baseless assertion' that Absolute Morals
> > > came about as part of the [amoral] natural world.
> >
> > No, what lacks proof is the baseless assertion that absolute morals came
> > from anywhere but the minds of men.
> >
> > > Denial is good.
> >
> > All he asked for was proof. You failed to provide it.
>
> I provided it and he and you failed to understand it.
Nope. You failed to provide anything. Not one thing.
> But now that's immaterial, since you've come out of the
> Jew hater closet:
That would make me a Jesus hater, too, wouldn't it? But you're stuck on the
Jewdom bit and failed to defend our friends the Jesus fundies.
Funny how you can judge people as "mass murderers" but when it's turned
around on you, you can't hack it. Suddenly I'm a hater, but you lumping a
huge amount of perfectly peaceful people as "mass murders"...naw...that's
not hate. I thought you people learned better by 1945.
BTW, I'm not saying I'm a jew hater. I'm saying that Jews and Jesus Freaks
are the real cause of AIDS. Specifically because they spread nonsense and
mysticism rather than the science and information that actually identifies
and tries to control AIDS in the first place. A monogamous hetero or
homosexual "sodomite" who also happens to be an AIDS reseacher is still, in
your book, a mass murderer. Meanwhile you've done nothing to stop AIDS but
quote millenia-old nonsense and misinformation.
You can be through with me all you want. You accused folks who have anal
sex of being mass murderers. I'm now accusing you of the same, based on the
same f-ed up logic. If you can't take it, don't dish it out
Not like anybody is taking you seriously here anyway. Shouldn't you be
burning Ozzy records or something?
-c
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote
> Christianity is monotheistic? News to me. The Christian god is a trinity.
Yes. No. Maybe. Irrelevant.
I've attended and served in various Christian churches in three states for
over 50 years, and it quite literally depends on who you talk to. The
'triune' nature of God [or not] is one of Christianity's contentious
aspects. Very clearly Christians don't all believe the same things, as is
patently obvious by how many different denominations there are.
Consider too these frequently super-divisive, internal fire storm issues:
Clergy MAY marry
Clergy may NOT marry
Women MAY be ministers
Women may NOT be ministers
Homosexuality IS a sin
Homosexuality is NOT a sin
Members MAY eat and drink what they wish
Members may NOT eat and drink what they wish
Any member of any church may take Communion here
Only members of this church may take Communion here
The bread and wine IS the real flesh & blood of Christ
The bread and wine is NOT the real flesh & blood of Christ
Infant baptism IS sufficient
Infant baptism is NOT sufficient
You WILL go to Hell if you do thus and so
You will NOT go to Hell if you do thus and so
Christ IS God
Christ is NOT God....
'Holy wars' --there's an oxymoron of the very highest order-- have been
fought over these differences. BTW, at one time Christianity had two Popes
[or three; I don't remember for sure] in different locations, each
oh-so-righteously and oh-so-piously damning the other to pieces. And, of
course, none of these issues take into account Christianity's protracted,
bitter fights with non-Christian religions.
Who needs 'reality TV' with all this?
Great fun!
"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@no-spam> wrote in
news:vuev068b1pto2b@no-spam
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>
> "gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:h_IFb.38$UB3.17@no-spam
>>
>> "Nev" <nev@no-spam> wrote in message news:EuqdnUlrFIDJzXqiRVn-
>>
>> > > Jews and Jesus Freaks are the real cause of AIDS.
>> > >
>> > > Who needs proof when it comes to Jews and Jesus Freaks?
>> >
>> > Gatt, as much as I [a Christian, of sorts] stridently disagree with
>> > Roy
> [a
>> > Jew, of sorts] on this heated religious/sexual issue, your
>> > assertions
>> above
>> > are, at the very least, nothing more than scatter gun-like
>> > irrational bad-mouthing.
>>
>> Better keep your head down, 'cause I'm just getting started. Jews
>> and
> Jesus
>> Freaks are responsible for the spread of AIDS. IE, they're mass
> murderers.
>> And since you couldn't let my sarcasm stand at that, for purposes of
>> tweaking Roy-the-self-righteous-follower-of-Moses, I'll explain to
>> exactly why Jews and Jesus Freaks ARE responsible for the spread of
>> AIDS:
>>
>> They're responsible for the spread of AIDS because of the spread of
>> religious nonsense. Secular scientists identified, diagnosed,
>> explained
> and
>> developed treatment for AIDS and warned everybody of the various
>> types of behavior that spreads it. The fundies, who contributed
>> squat to the understanding of AIDS, dismiss it as something caused by
>> anal sex among Africans or some such nonsense.
>>
>> Ergo, it's quite clear. JEWS AND CHRISTIANS are mass murderers
> responsible
>> for spreading the AIDS epidemic through hokey fundamentalism and
>> nonsense.
>>
> Ergo, it's clear that you're an idiot for linking jews to fundy
> christians.
Now this is turning into an entertaining day!
Mooooooooo!
>
>
>
>
"Nev" <nev@no-spam> wrote in
news:zfidnb8UDuLY9HqiRVn-uA@no-spam
> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote
>
>> Christianity is monotheistic? News to me. The Christian god is a
>> trinity.
>
> Yes. No. Maybe. Irrelevant.
>
> I've attended and served in various Christian churches in three states
> for over 50 years, and it quite literally depends on who you talk to.
> The 'triune' nature of God [or not] is one of Christianity's
> contentious aspects. Very clearly Christians don't all believe the
> same things, as is patently obvious by how many different
> denominations there are.
>
> Consider too these frequently super-divisive, internal fire storm
> issues:
>
> Clergy MAY marry
> Clergy may NOT marry
> Women MAY be ministers
> Women may NOT be ministers
> Homosexuality IS a sin
> Homosexuality is NOT a sin
> Members MAY eat and drink what they wish
> Members may NOT eat and drink what they wish
> Any member of any church may take Communion here
> Only members of this church may take Communion here
> The bread and wine IS the real flesh & blood of Christ
> The bread and wine is NOT the real flesh & blood of Christ
> Infant baptism IS sufficient
> Infant baptism is NOT sufficient
> You WILL go to Hell if you do thus and so
> You will NOT go to Hell if you do thus and so
> Christ IS God
> Christ is NOT God....
>
> 'Holy wars' --there's an oxymoron of the very highest order-- have
> been fought over these differences. BTW, at one time Christianity had
> two Popes [or three; I don't remember for sure] in different
> locations, each oh-so-righteously and oh-so-piously damning the other
> to pieces.
One in Italy and one in France (Avignon, IIRC).
> And, of course, none of these issues take into account
> Christianity's protracted, bitter fights with non-Christian religions.
>
> Who needs 'reality TV' with all this?
>
> Great fun!
>
>
>
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote
> Religion is not a loving but rather a hateful response to God. It is an
> intellectual effort sponsored by desire to supplant His authority with
> man's, by at least seriously diminishing, if not entirely negating His
> omnipotence. Humans hate being dictated to, especially in the area
> of morality but mostly men hate God because they envy His
> immortality. In every man made religion it is death, not God that is
> worshipped.
Yeow.
Roy, since I got into the "Better not say gay..." thread, your responses
have ultimately been either...
1. An extended put-on, generated for your amusement
2. A result or response to brutal, repressive or abusive
family/societal/religious experience/s in your life.
If #2, then what a joyless and profoundly unhappy inner life you must now
lead: certainly religious and probably otherwise. Roy, you're crawling into,
or calling out from a soul-shrivellingly deep, dark, metaphysical hole...and
this often rat-infested, looney-bin of a newsgroup [blandly called
"seattle.general"] is most assuredly not where you want to converse with the
outside world.
Get off your computer, find a good compassionate rabbi you'd be really
comfortable talking with [they're out there] and tell him what you wrote up
there.
DO IT NOW!
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FE8880B.BE76766B@no-spam
>
>
> Nev wrote:
>
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote
> >
> > > Religion is not a loving but rather a hateful response to God. It is
an
> > > intellectual effort sponsored by desire to supplant His authority with
> > > man's, by at least seriously diminishing, if not entirely negating
His
> > > omnipotence. Humans hate being dictated to, especially in the area
> > > of morality but mostly men hate God because they envy His
> > > immortality. In every man made religion it is death, not God that is
> > > worshipped.
> >
> > Yeow.
> >
> > Roy, since I got into the "Better not say gay..." thread, your responses
> > have ultimately been either...
> >
> > 1. An extended put-on, generated for your amusement
> > 2. A result or response to brutal, repressive or abusive
> > family/societal/religious experience/s in your life.
> >
> > If #2, then what a joyless and profoundly unhappy inner life you must
now
> > lead: certainly religious and probably otherwise. Roy, you're crawling
into,
> > or calling out from a soul-shrivellingly deep, dark, metaphysical
hole...and
> > this often rat-infested, looney-bin of a newsgroup [blandly called
> > "seattle.general"] is most assuredly not where you want to converse with
the
> > outside world.
> >
> > Get off your computer, find a good compassionate rabbi you'd be really
> > comfortable talking with [they're out there] and tell him what you wrote
up
> > there.
> >
> > DO IT NOW!
>
> Seldom do NG posts get me to smile let alone chuckle. Yours (above}
> got me smiling and chuckling at the same time, for which I am grateful.
> I'm so grateful in fact that I believe I owe you for the "pop psyche"
> analysis... Were do I send your fee?
> --
>
> The last stage of
> utopian sentimentalism
> is homicidal mania.
From dark, dogmatically religious 'agent provocateur' to breezy,
glib-tongued dilettante. Any other personalities inside to regale us with?
This is fascinating.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FE907C3.2DD1765C@no-spam
>
>
> WinGuru wrote:
>
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FE8FB2C.822025FE@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > > > "gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:fy2Gb.12500$NZ1.11331@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > > > P.S. Just a little attempt at levity there. I know that
about 3"
> > of
> > > > > black
> > > > > > > electrical tape solves the flashing 12:00 issue!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You put the tape over your eyes?
> > > > >
> > > > > ...and then have FAITH that all that science isn't still sitting
out
> > there
> > > > > flashing its lights at you.
> > > >
> > > > If he doesn't believe in science I'd like him to stop believing in
the
> > > > theory of gravity and see if he suddenly floats into the sky.
> > >
> > > the·o·ry
> > > P
> > >
> > > Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
> > > n. pl. the·o·ries
> > >
> > > An assumption based on limited information or
> > > knowledge; a conjecture.
> > > --
> >
> > Thus speaks someone who has no understanding of science and little if
any
> > understanding of reality. Bet you got that "definition" out of the
> > so-called "creation science" catechism.
>
> Looks like this standard definition out of a standard
> dictionary done buzzed your buzzer.
As I said - no understanding of science. Was that the "Little kids first
reader dictionary" or the glossary at the back of the "creation science"
(sic) story book?
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FE9324A.E1BE0C08@no-spam
>
>
> Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> > --
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FE8FB2C.822025FE@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > > > "gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:fy2Gb.12500$NZ1.11331@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > > > P.S. Just a little attempt at levity there. I know that
about 3"
> > of
> > > > > black
> > > > > > > electrical tape solves the flashing 12:00 issue!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You put the tape over your eyes?
> > > > >
> > > > > ...and then have FAITH that all that science isn't still sitting
out
> > there
> > > > > flashing its lights at you.
> > > >
> > > > If he doesn't believe in science I'd like him to stop believing in
the
> > > > theory of gravity and see if he suddenly floats into the sky.
> > >
> > > the·o·ry
> > > P
> > >
> > > Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
> > > n. pl. the·o·ries
> > >
> > > An assumption based on limited information or
> > > knowledge; a conjecture.
> >
> > You obviously have no idea what theory means regarding science. A
scientific
> > theory is not conjecture. Creationisn is pure unadulterated bullshit.
>
> Something you learned in school?
>
> > Thank
> > god you don't teach.
>
> Ahh but I do.
If you do, then you are a charlatan and a fake. I seriously doubt you have
any teaching certification or formal training.
>
> >
> >
> > Buh bye, creationist.
>
> OOh, OOch.
> --
>
> The last stage of
> utopian sentimentalism
> is homicidal mania.
>
>
In alt.culture.oregon Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> clw@no-spam wrote:
>>
>> Hell, ask him what he ment by his entire creatanic sciolism.
>
> Why don't you crawl out of the peanut gallery and
> ask for yourself, like a real man?
Real Men don't ask questions.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FEA1CF0.E5975E9B@no-spam
>
>
> Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FE9324A.E1BE0C08@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:3FE8FB2C.822025FE@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:fy2Gb.12500$NZ1.11331@no-spam
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > P.S. Just a little attempt at levity there. I know that
> > about 3"
> > > > of
> > > > > > > black
> > > > > > > > > electrical tape solves the flashing 12:00 issue!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You put the tape over your eyes?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...and then have FAITH that all that science isn't still
sitting
> > out
> > > > there
> > > > > > > flashing its lights at you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If he doesn't believe in science I'd like him to stop believing
in
> > the
> > > > > > theory of gravity and see if he suddenly floats into the sky.
> > > > >
> > > > > the·o·ry
> > > > > P
> > > > >
> > > > > Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
> > > > > n. pl. the·o·ries
> > > > >
> > > > > An assumption based on limited information or
> > > > > knowledge; a conjecture.
> > > >
> > > > You obviously have no idea what theory means regarding science. A
> > scientific
> > > > theory is not conjecture. Creationisn is pure unadulterated
bullshit.
> > >
> > > Something you learned in school?
> >
> > I learned that a scientific theory, as used in science, is an
explanation or
> > model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially
one
> > that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to exp
lain
> > and predict natural phenomena.
>
> Strange how these bits of information have a way of
> changing over time.
The facts don't - the explanation that covers the facts do. Furthermore,
this is a strength of the scientific method; that what is, is and is not
because we believe it so. In any event, you overrate the amount and degree
of changes.
>
> >
> > Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational
examination of
> > the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things
which
> > can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which
correlate
> > and interpret the facts). A scientific theory must also be falsifiable
and
> > the conclusions made can be considered true beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
> If its "falsifiable" its subject to change, therefore factual
> only in transience.
Apparently you aren't conversant with what "falsifiable" means. It does NOT
mean that "its subject to change". I'll give you a hint - Falsifiable
relates to validating the proposition and the opposing or "false" condition
as being testable.
>
> >
> >
> > If you understand what a scientific theory is, and what all the
disciplines
> > in evolution are based on, then you understand that creationism is
> > unadulterated bullshit and that there is no scientific theory of
creationism
> > whatsoever.
>
> I suppose "evolution theory" is fact... LOL
Actually, evolution has been both observationally and experimentally proven
time and time again in just about every field of scientific endeavor. There
are no observed facts that contradict evolution. ANY such purported in your
creationism story books can and has likely been proven to a hoax, poor
observation, or inaccurate procedure.
>
> >
> >
> > You obviously have no idea what a scientific theory is if you define it
as
> > pure assumption. Creationism is pure assumption.
>
> yawn.
So you are unwilling to even be open enough to examine the evidence?
> > >
> > > > Thank
> > > > god you don't teach.
> > >
> > > Ahh but I do.
> >
> > That's a shame. As long as you don't teach science you can't cause too
much
> > trouble.
>
> Riiight. Like, only scientists can cause trouble... LOL
>
The operative phrase is "too much trouble", not no trouble.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FEA34FB.277C67BD@no-spam
>
>
> WinGuru wrote:
>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > the·o·ry
> > > > > > > P
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
> > > > > > > n. pl. the·o·ries
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > An assumption based on limited information or
> > > > > > > knowledge; a conjecture.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You obviously have no idea what theory means regarding science.
A
> > > > scientific
> > > > > > theory is not conjecture. Creationisn is pure unadulterated
> > bullshit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Something you learned in school?
> > > >
> > > > I learned that a scientific theory, as used in science, is an
> > explanation or
> > > > model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning,
especially
> > one
> > > > that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to
exp
> > lain
> > > > and predict natural phenomena.
> > >
> > > Strange how these bits of information have a way of
> > > changing over time.
> >
> > The facts don't - the explanation that covers the facts do.
>
> Accepting explanations as facts does not a fact make.
So why do you believe that fiction called "creation science" which is NOT
science. Not testable, not provable, not the result of detailed
observation?
>
> > Furthermore,
> > this is a strength of the scientific method; that what is, is and is not
> > because we believe it so.
>
> Throw a slab of mud against a wall and call its sticking
> there a fact, uh, at least until it slides to the ground, at
> which time a new fact is born.
>
The "fact" would be that this slab of mud stuck initially. The "fact" is
incomplete without a description of conditions and a timeline. Attempting
to falsely simplify the situation is a typical hallmark of psuedo-science.
> > In any event, you overrate the amount and degree
> > of changes.
>
> Strange statement from someone who ostensibly
> knows what "evolution theory" is about.
Changes in the theories - which you obviously knew from the context that you
snipped - by the time something has reached the point that it is referred to
as a "theory", it has already passed through a number of testing scenarios
till no fundamental change really occurs.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational
> > examination of
> > > > the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts
(things
> > which
> > > > can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which
> > correlate
> > > > and interpret the facts). A scientific theory must also be
falsifiable
> > and
> > > > the conclusions made can be considered true beyond a reasonable
doubt.
> > >
> > > If its "falsifiable" its subject to change, therefore factual
> > > only in transience.
> >
> > Apparently you aren't conversant with what "falsifiable" means. It does
NOT
> > mean that "its subject to change". I'll give you a hint - Falsifiable
> > relates to validating the proposition and the opposing or "false"
condition
> > as being testable.
>
> I suppose "testable" means "unchanging"... Haw.
You still don't get it do you? Look up the definition of falsifiable as it
relates to testing of hypotheses.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you understand what a scientific theory is, and what all the
> > disciplines
> > > > in evolution are based on, then you understand that creationism is
> > > > unadulterated bullshit and that there is no scientific theory of
> > creationism
> > > > whatsoever.
> > >
> > > I suppose "evolution theory" is fact... LOL
> >
> > Actually, evolution has been both observationally and experimentally
proven
> > time and time again in just about every field of scientific endeavor.
>
> Bull.
Reality. Your desire to ignore the situation does not change the reality.
>
> > There
> > are no observed facts that contradict evolution.
>
> We'll discuss it soon as you provide an example of one
> species evolving/changing into another.
Ever look at a fossil record? Ever seen donkeys, horses, mules? Ever had
the flu, and then had it again another year? All of these are examples of
speciation occurring.
>
> > ANY such purported in your
> > creationism story books can and has likely been proven to a hoax, poor
> > observation, or inaccurate procedure.
>
> Dreaming is good.
>
True. Ignoring reality and believing the dogma isn't a good state of
affairs though.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You obviously have no idea what a scientific theory is if you define
it
> > as
> > > > pure assumption. Creationism is pure assumption.
> > >
> > > yawn.
> >
> > So you are unwilling to even be open enough to examine the evidence?
>
> Projection is good.
??? Oh, you're trying to be cute and avoid the issue of your ignoring
evidence because it conflicts with your dogma.
>
"Roy Jose Lorr" and "Dave Thompson" wrote [or, rather, exchanged shots back
and forth]:
> > I learned that a scientific theory, as used in science,, is an
explanation or
> > model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially
one
> > that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to
explain
> > and predict natural phenomena.
>
> Strange how these bits of information have a way of
> changing over time.
"Strange". "Strange"? Not 'strange' at all: quite understandable and
predictable.
In general, Science changes and updates its descriptions/statements as its
available investigative tools change and improve... and it readily
acknowledges, understands and welcomes these changes because higher, keener
and more accurate understanding is the result.
Want an example of proof? Look at the difference between the rudimentary
hand-held telescopes Galileo had to work with and the Hubble space
telescope: the difference of knowledge and understanding between the two is
separated by orders of magnitude.
Oh, and Galileo faced excommunication [at the very least] because his
primitive but first-hand observations of the planets and their motions
conflicted with what 'mother church' had to say about it. The Church knew
what it knew what it knew... never mind that what it 'knew' based on
interpretation of Scripture was being proved wrong.
Part of story of The Flood says that God placed a rainbow in the sky
afterwards. Fine. As a life-long Christian [of sorts] I accept that story as
an allegory or tribal tale, written in Genesis. It's a neat story. But as a
college student working on my third degree, I also accept the complex
explanation I got in a 100-level astronomy class at the University of
Illinois of how photons bend going through airborne water droplets,
stimulate the cones and rods in the retina, travel through the optic nerves
cross at the optic chiasm and eventually register in our brain as a visible
circular spectrum of red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet.
The one description is tribal story and the other is a description [to
several numbers past the decimal point] of the mathematical basis for it.
One describes what God did, the other how God did it... and if/when Science
has a more precise definition, then they'll happily acknowledge the fact.
Whatever else one might say, God is nothing if not a first-rate
mathematician.
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
-snips-
> > One can be pretty sure than cannonballs dropped from the tower
> > of Pisa drop at the same rate and in the same direction as they
> > did when Gallileo dropped his - although the explanation has
> > altered and the measurements are more precise.
> Then Piltdown man is still Piltdown man, no matter
> the change in status?
The Piltdown "fossils" still exist. The data remains unaltered.
All that has changed is the interpertation and explanation of
that data.
Though, to be accurate, the "status" of Piltdown was problematic
from the beginning. While Piltdown had its advocates, it was
never completely accepted from a scientific standpoint.
While it took a while for the possibility of an out and out
hoax to be suspected, the correct explanation for the find -
that the skull was modern human and the jaw that of a chimpanzee -
was being advanced as early as 1916 or so. While Piltdown
had some currency in the popular literature, it was always
considered suspect at best in the scientific literature.
> > Religion just doesn't seem to have any bits of information at all.
> You needed to slip in one gratuitous remark, or lose status?
Just pointing out the fundamental difference between religion and
science which, given the heading on this thread seems an entirely
appropriate observation.
Hoaxes and just outright mistakes are not common in science and,
when they do occur, they are almost always quickly identified and
corrected. Religion, OTOH, is built exclusively on hoaxes and mistakes
which continue to be perpetuated dispite ever increasing evidence
to the contrary.
Peace and justice,
Just now, looking at the post from which I copied this statement...
"Why don't you crawl out of the peanut gallery and ask for yourself, like a
real man?"
...it appears that our IPS [or something in its chain to this newsgroup] may
have incorrectly shown who the author of the statement was... meaning I have
no way of accurately knowing who wrote it, and to whom I subsequently
responded with the rebuttal below. I've seen similar glitches in this and
other newsgroups, though they are rare.
So I apologize to whomever I may have mistakenly directed my answer at [I
removed a person's name from the response below]... though not to whomever
originally authored it.
-----------------------------------------
> > Why don't you crawl out of the peanut gallery and
> > ask for yourself, like a real man?
>
> "like a real man"
>
> BWAHAHAAAAAAAaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Oh yes... NOW it comes to that! Absolutely 100% freakin'
> hilarious!!!!!
>
> "Like a real man"! What a true masterstroke of classical logic and
reasoning
> for your rebuttal! Yes, yes... testosterone all the way! Raise the flag,
> men!
>
> Oh yes!... when in doubt; when all else fails, just inject an element of
> he-manly masculinity into the answer, by golly. Appeal to vanity!!! Can't
go
> wrong with that in philosophical and religious discussions! Absolutely
> priceless!
>
> You are in *splendid* misogynist company with New Testament author Paul's
> wildly sexist statement "I permit no women to teach or have authority over
> men. She is to remain silent."
I wrote...
> > But, you know, I'm sure even you will admit that with the grotesque
little
> > bits of religious & social phlegm you've coughed up here, like...
> >
> > "Religion is not a loving but rather a hateful response to God."
> > "Sodomy is murder"
> > "The last stage of utopian sentimentalism is homicidal mania."
> >
> > ...it'd be so very easy for anyone to wonder what was clanking and
rattling
> > around inside you there.
You responded...
> That's the easy excuse for you to use since you don't seem
> able to challenge credibly, any of my assertions.
"Challenge credibly"? Let's see.
Oh, and Roy, if you're up to the task of explaining your statements, then
please: no cutey-poo little "straw-man", "disingenuous" or "pop psych" in
your responses. Surprise me with some content: some demonstrable examples of
the 'years of study' you profess.
1] "Religion is not a loving but rather a hateful response to God."
You actually *believe* this? Your concept or someone else's, and if so,
whose where?
Other than Karl Marx's "Religion is the opiate [or opium] of the masses"
I've never
seen or heard a more ashen-filled, profoundly nihilistic and cold [not to
mention stellarly ass-backward] view of Humanity's relationship with the
divine. Nowhere: not even remotely suggested in any comparative world
religion class, textbook, in-church seminar or casual conversation I've ever
attended or spoken to anyone [clergy or laity] about with, in any
monotheistic synagogue, church, sanctuary or temple setting. Not even from
what few Wicans [polytheistic] I've spoken with, nor Buddhists [for which
the existence/question of "god", I think, isn't directly applicable].
2] "Sodomy is murder"
First, what's your description of "sodomy"?
3] "The last stage of utopian sentimentalism is homicidal mania."
"Utopian sentimentalism" Yeah, yeah... in relation to what?
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
-snips-
> In addition: "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of
> creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate
> forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For
> example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years
> for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no
> transitional forms.
Oh, nonsense. The fossil record is repleat with transitional forms.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
> For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part
> feet has been found.
No, but then one would not expect such a thing - quite obviously
-legs- must predate feet. One must, after all, have something to
attach the feet to and the fins of spiney-finned fishes would make
a damn poor anchor for feet. We would expect the progression to
be: fins -> legs with fins -> legs without fins -> legs with feet.
Which is exactly what we find.
And, it's hardly necessary to look to fossils for examples of
creatures with legs with fins. Both the currently existing
lungfish and coelacanths satisfy that criterium although for various
reasons, the now extinct rhipidistian fishes are generally considered
the more likely ancestors of amphibians than are lungfish or coelacanths.
Like lungfish and coelacanths, rhipidistians were lobe-finned creatures
with their fins attached to the ends of lobes or proto-legs but their
skeletal structure more closely resembles that of amphibians than do
the other two lobed-fin fish orders.
Fie. You must really familiarize yerself with the actual facts before
jumping into this particular pool.
Peace and justice,
Bill Shatzer wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
> -snips-
>
> > In addition: "There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of
> > creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate
> > forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For
> > example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years
> > for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no
> > transitional forms.
>
> Oh, nonsense. The fossil record is repleat with transitional forms.
>
> www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> > For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part
> > feet has been found.
>
> No, but then one would not expect such a thing - quite obviously
> -legs- must predate feet. One must, after all, have something to
> attach the feet to and the fins of spiney-finned fishes would make
> a damn poor anchor for feet. We would expect the progression to
> be: fins -> legs with fins -> legs without fins -> legs with feet.
>
> Which is exactly what we find.
>
> And, it's hardly necessary to look to fossils for examples of
> creatures with legs with fins. Both the currently existing
> lungfish and coelacanths satisfy that criterium although for various
> reasons, the now extinct rhipidistian fishes are generally considered
> the more likely ancestors of amphibians than are lungfish or coelacanths.
> Like lungfish and coelacanths, rhipidistians were lobe-finned creatures
> with their fins attached to the ends of lobes or proto-legs but their
> skeletal structure more closely resembles that of amphibians than do
> the other two lobed-fin fish orders.
Utter nonsense. None of your examples show their being
intermediate steps in one species changing into another.
Grasping at straws has always been the evolutionist's forte.
>
>
> Fie. You must really familiarize yerself with the actual facts before
> jumping into this particular pool.
Fo fum. Whose "facts", yours? LOL
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FEF373C.C17244F6@no-spam
>
>
> Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FEEE27F.543D98CA@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > clw@no-spam wrote:
> > >
> > > > There has NEVER been a single moment of phase
> > > > transition from one species to another. There is no "missing link",
> > > > that is a figment of your imagination and lack of information. It
is a
> > > > very gradual thing requiring millions of years. At the present
moment
> > > > humans may be evolving into the replacement species, all that is
needed
> > > > is the necessary environbmental stressor.
> > >
> > > Straw man sophistry. When you can't produce a transitional stage
> > > you resort to the: it takes millions and millions of years ploy. But
> > > where in those millions of years are the evidences of the transition
> > > of one species into another. Given the time allotted, there should
> > > be millions of examples, yet there are none.
> >
> > There are plenty of transitional fossils. Maybe you should take some
time
> > and familiarize yourself with the facts.
> >
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> Facts my arse. If you had [facts] you'd produce
> them instead of giving a link to religious dogma.
What is on that page that you consider religious dogma? Be specific.
Also tell us how science backs up your view on creation. Be specific.
Just because science contradicts your dogma does not mean that it is dogma
as well.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FEF35A7.BA594566@no-spam
>
>
> Nev wrote:
>
> > I wrote...
> > > > But, you know, I'm sure even you will admit that with the grotesque
> > little
> > > > bits of religious & social phlegm you've coughed up here, like...
> > > >
> > > > "Religion is not a loving but rather a hateful response to God."
> > > > "Sodomy is murder"
> > > > "The last stage of utopian sentimentalism is homicidal mania."
> > > >
> > > > ...it'd be so very easy for anyone to wonder what was clanking and
> > rattling
> > > > around inside you there.
> >
> > You responded...
> > > That's the easy excuse for you to use since you don't seem
> > > able to challenge credibly, any of my assertions.
> >
> > "Challenge credibly"? Let's see.
> >
> > Oh, and Roy, if you're up to the task of explaining your statements,
then
> > please: no cutey-poo little "straw-man", "disingenuous" or "pop psych"
in
> > your responses. Surprise me with some content: some demonstrable
examples of
> > the 'years of study' you profess.
> >
> > 1] "Religion is not a loving but rather a hateful response to God."
> >
> > You actually *believe* this? Your concept or someone else's, and if so,
> > whose where?
> >
> > Other than Karl Marx's "Religion is the opiate [or opium] of the masses"
> > I've never
> > seen or heard a more ashen-filled, profoundly nihilistic and cold [not
to
> > mention stellarly ass-backward] view of Humanity's relationship with the
> > divine. Nowhere: not even remotely suggested in any comparative world
> > religion class, textbook, in-church seminar or casual conversation I've
ever
> > attended or spoken to anyone [clergy or laity] about with, in any
> > monotheistic synagogue, church, sanctuary or temple setting. Not even
from
> > what few Wicans [polytheistic] I've spoken with, nor Buddhists [for
which
> > the existence/question of "god", I think, isn't directly applicable].
> >
> > 2] "Sodomy is murder"
> >
> > First, what's your description of "sodomy"?
> >
> > 3] "The last stage of utopian sentimentalism is homicidal mania."
> >
> > "Utopian sentimentalism" Yeah, yeah... in relation to what?
>
> My replies to all these questions are in the thread. I suggest
> you go back and reread them instead of dishonestly pretending
> I avoided answering them.
No Roy, you are being dishonest because I did not say you avoided answering
them. You are pretending.
Additionally, the only thread I have access to is the current "Oh Boy...."
because the earlier ones expired. If you have access to the earlier threads
with you answers, then you should have no trouble copying and pasting your
responses from them. But if you too don't have access to them, then here's
your big chance to pontificate anew.
What a wonderful opportunity for you, Roy!
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > Oh, nonsense. The fossil record is repleat with transitional forms.
> > www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
> > > For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part
> > > feet has been found.
> > No, but then one would not expect such a thing - quite obviously
> > -legs- must predate feet. One must, after all, have something to
> > attach the feet to and the fins of spiney-finned fishes would make
> > a damn poor anchor for feet. We would expect the progression to
> > be: fins -> legs with fins -> legs without fins -> legs with feet.
> > Which is exactly what we find.
> > And, it's hardly necessary to look to fossils for examples of
> > creatures with legs with fins. Both the currently existing
> > lungfish and coelacanths satisfy that criterium although for various
> > reasons, the now extinct rhipidistian fishes are generally considered
> > the more likely ancestors of amphibians than are lungfish or coelacanths.
> > Like lungfish and coelacanths, rhipidistians were lobe-finned creatures
> > with their fins attached to the ends of lobes or proto-legs but their
> > skeletal structure more closely resembles that of amphibians than do
> > the other two lobed-fin fish orders.
> Utter nonsense. None of your examples show their being
> intermediate steps in one species changing into another.
Well, they demonstrate an entire -order- or -family- changing into
another. Certainly if the evolutionary changes encompass entire
orders and families, speciation is necessarily involved.
> Grasping at straws has always been the evolutionist's forte.
Blithe dismissals without attempting to present any counter facts
at all is the forte of the ignorant, misinformed, and unreasoning.
> > Fie. You must really familiarize yerself with the actual facts before
> > jumping into this particular pool.
> Fo fum. Whose "facts", yours? LOL
Oh, just -any- facts you might wish to contribute would be
a start. So far, you've provided just none.
When you've got one or two, come on back, ya'll hear?
Peace and justice,
> Whatever its conclusions, science is a man made religion.
[long sigh]
Apart from whatever "Christian Science" may be [I don't know], science is
not a "religion" anymore than religion is a "science". They're different
disciplines which, on vanishingly rare occasions, cross paths with wildly
different explanations for the same event/s. Not "wrong" explanations but
"different" explanations, because they're coming from profoundly different
backgrounds.
To me [a Christian, of sorts, for over 50 years, and working on my third
technical degree from 12+ years at four different colleges] arguments
between "creationists" and "evolutionists" are, by their often wild-eyed,
firmly entrenched natures, nothing more than laughably pointless 'fact vs
faith' spitting contests... about as instructive and useful as TV "survivor"
shows.
So very much of 'Judeo-Christian' Scripture was neither written nor
conceived to be understood as verifiable, historic fact but instead as
tribal stories, metaphors and allegories. Did God really create the Cosmos
literally in seven days? Possibly, but not probably. The 'Creation Story'
was told and eventually written by people with no concept or need of what we
understand as Science. It was sufficient for them at their time in their
understanding. But it wasn't/isn't 'wrong'.
Likewise, is Scripture supposed to have instructions for building super
sophisticated, three mile diameter, hyper megawatt driven particle
accelerators? 'Verily, it is not written down in the Book of Life'... at
least not the last time I looked
'Creation' VS 'Evolution' fights are ultimately nothing more than absurd
exercises in adrenaline production. No one studies philosophy books to fix
cars.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FF03DDC.7211F254@no-spam
>
>
> Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FEBF690.5EDDD15F@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:3FEB89F8.6B6A985C@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Nev wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" and "Dave Thompson" wrote [or, rather, exchanged
> > shots
> > > > back
> > > > > > and forth]:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I learned that a scientific theory, as used in science,, is
an
> > > > > > explanation or
> > > > > > > > model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning,
> > > > especially
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle
> > helping to
> > > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > and predict natural phenomena.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Strange how these bits of information have a way of
> > > > > > > changing over time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Strange". "Strange"? Not 'strange' at all: quite understandable
and
> > > > > > predictable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In general, Science changes and updates its
descriptions/statements
> > as
> > > > its
> > > > > > available investigative tools change and improve... and it
readily
> > > > > > acknowledges, understands and welcomes these changes because
higher,
> > > > keener
> > > > > > and more accurate understanding is the result.
> > > > >
> > > > > Strange isn't it how practitioners of "science", across
> > > > > the spectrum, have taken to confessing that the more
> > > > > they know, the less they know?
> > > >
> > > > Strange how religion isn't that honest?
> > >
> > > Irrelevant.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Want an example of proof? Look at the difference between the
> > rudimentary
> > > > > > hand-held telescopes Galileo had to work with and the Hubble
space
> > > > > > telescope: the difference of knowledge and understanding between
the
> > two
> > > > is
> > > > > > separated by orders of magnitude.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or another conclusion might be: the more we know, the less we
know.
> > > >
> > > > But religion assumes that theists know everything. That Goddidit.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, and Galileo faced excommunication [at the very least]
because
> > his
> > > > > > primitive but first-hand observations of the planets and their
> > motions
> > > > > > conflicted with what 'mother church' had to say about it. The
Church
> > > > knew
> > > > > > what it knew what it knew... never mind that what it 'knew'
based on
> > > > > > interpretation of Scripture was being proved wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > And one might conclude that "science" is protective of its
religious
> > > > > dogma, no less than the church.
> > > >
> > > > Science says nothing about religion.
> > >
> > > Scientists have plenty to say about religion.
> > >
> > > > But religion pretends it knows
> > > > something about scienc
> > >
> > > Irrelevant.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Part of story of The Flood says that God placed a rainbow in the
sky
> > > > > > afterwards. Fine. As a life-long Christian [of sorts] I accept
that
> > > > story as
> > > > > > an allegory or tribal tale, written in Genesis. It's a neat
story.
> > But
> > > > as a
> > > > > > college student working on my third degree, I also accept the
> > complex
> > > > > > explanation I got in a 100-level astronomy class at the
University
> > of
> > > > > > Illinois of how photons bend going through airborne water
droplets,
> > > > > > stimulate the cones and rods in the retina, travel through the
optic
> > > > nerves
> > > > > > cross at the optic chiasm and eventually register in our brain
as a
> > > > visible
> > > > > > circular spectrum of red, orange, yellow, green, blue and
violet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The one description is tribal story and the other is a
description
> > [to
> > > > > > several numbers past the decimal point] of the mathematical
basis
> > for
> > > > it.
> > > > > > One describes what God did, the other how God did it... and
if/when
> > > > Science
> > > > > > has a more precise definition, then they'll happily acknowledge
the
> > > > fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > No doubt chasing minutia is an entertaining distraction but the
> > > > > paramount question is not what and how God did it but why.
> > > >
> > > > Prove that there is a why,
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Congratulations. You have evaded every question put to you. Now tell me
why
> > it is that anyone should take your unsupported opinions seriously?
>
> Projection is good.
You're soooo right!
The biblical story of the rainbow's creation is indeed 'good projection',
because prior to the flood, light going through water droplets in the sky
just didn't produce the same effect as it did right after. There were no
rainbows until God changed the physics of light refraction to make His
point.
But, ummm... then how did humans perceive colors beforehand [you know; light
reflection and absorption of materials: Beginning Color Theory 101]? Did
'pre-Flood' people not see color prior to the rainbow's first appearance?
Wait, wait: I know! People obviously must not have had cones in their
retinas to see color... thus everything must have appeared to them in black
& white! So God changed physics AND anatomy at the very same time.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FF02341.F87D1465@no-spam
>
>
> Nev wrote:
>
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FEED8A8.1D743AE0@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Nev wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Why don't you crawl out of the peanut gallery and
> > > > > ask for yourself, like a real man?
> > > >
> > > > "like a real man"
> > > >
> > > > BWAHAHAAAAAAAaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Oh yes, Roy!... NOW it comes to that! Absolutely 100% freakin'
> > > > hilarious!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > "Like a real man"! What a true masterstroke of classical logic and
> > reasoning
> > > > for your rebuttal! Yes, yes... testosterone all the way! Raise the
flag,
> > > > men!
> > > >
> > > > Oh yes!... when in doubt; when all else fails, just inject an
element of
> > > > he-manly masculinity into the answer, by golly. Appeal to vanity!!!
> > Can't go
> > > > wrong with that in philosophical and religious discussions!
Absolutely
> > > > priceless!
> > > >
> > > > You are in *splendid* misogynist company with New Testament author
> > Paul's
> > > > wildly sexist statement "I permit no women to teach or have
authority
> > over
> > > > men. She is to remain silent."
> > > >
> > > > Roy, you have been found out!
> > >
> > > yawn
> >
> > WOW... what a blistering response; what irrefutable logic you
demonstrate!
> > LOL
>
> yawn
belch
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, Nev wrote:
-snips-
> So very much of 'Judeo-Christian' Scripture was neither written nor
> conceived to be understood as verifiable, historic fact but instead as
> tribal stories, metaphors and allegories. Did God really create the Cosmos
> literally in seven days? Possibly, but not probably. The 'Creation Story'
> was told and eventually written by people with no concept or need of what we
> understand as Science. It was sufficient for them at their time in their
> understanding. But it wasn't/isn't 'wrong'.
I've often wondered how things might have gone had god decided to
give Moses the straight scoop on how things really work.
God: OK, Moses, I'm tell ya' how things work.
Moses: Great! Let me get a pen and some papyrus to write this down.
God: OK, we start with quarks. Everything is made of quarks.
Moses: Quarks? How to you spell that?
God: Never mind that - do it phoentically. Anyway, quarks come
in six different flavors - up, down, charm, ....
Moses: Charm?
God: Yes, charm, damnit. Stop interrupting.
Moses: Tell, me Lord, how might I behold one of these quarks?
God: Well, you can't. They don't exist separately.
Moses: [writing] d-o-n't e-x-i-s-t ....
God: They only exist in hadryons.
Moses: Hadryons?
God: Yes, Hadryons. You take two up quarks and a down quark and
you get a proton. You take two downs and an up and you get
a neutron, you take two ups and a....
Moses: Proton? Neutron? I thought you said hadryons?
God: Protons and Neutrons are hadryons! Now please pay attention.
Moses: And these protons and neutrons and hadrons, how might I behold
one of these?
God: Well, you can't do that either. They're too small and they go
together to make up atomic nuclei.
Moses: [writing] t-o-o s-m-a-l-l, a-t-o-m-i-c .... And these atomic?
nuclei?
God: Well, they're too small to behold as well but trust me on this.
Everything is made of atoms and the nuclei is part of the atom.
Moses: Cats and tablets and wine?
God: Yes, everything.
Moses: Then why are cats different than wine?
God: Well, the atoms differ in atomic number.
Moses: Atomic number? God, I think I'm getting a headache!
God: Yes, I can see that. Tell you what - look, forget all that
and just write this down, "in the begining, God created
the heavens and the earth....."
Peace and justice,
In alt.culture.oregon Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote
[in an endless ships-in-the-night discussion of religion]:
>
> Collective dreaming is good.
I'm reading a great book now, _House of Day, House of Night_ by
Olga Tokarczuk. It's published as part of the Writings from an Unbound
Europe by Northwestern University Press. The book says on the back:
Winner of the Gunter Grass Prize. Olga is Polish. The protagonist
moves into Silesia, and starts collecting/telling stories about the
various folk there and their history. This part of Poland was in Germany
prior to WWII.
She puts an ad in the local paper saying she is collecting dreams,
but people want money, more than she can pay. Instead she finds a
website where people from all over the world wake up and post their
dreams. She finds:
"If you do it regularly, if you carefully read dozens - hundreds,
even - of other people's dreams every morning, it's easy to start
seeing he similarities between them. I've been wondering for ages
if anyone else has noticed this too. There are noghts when everyone
seems to dream of running away, nights of war, nights of babies being
born, nights of dubious love-making. There are nights of wandering
in labyinths - in hotels, stations, student hostels, or the dreamers'
own flats. Or nigts spent opening doors, boxes, chests and cupboards.
And there are nights full of travel, whenthe dreamers negotiate stations,
airports, trains, motorways and roadside motels, lose suitcases, wait
for tickets, and worry that they won't make their connections on time.
Every morning you could string these dreams together like beads and
end up with a unique and beautiful necklace. Based on the most
fequently recurring motifs, you could give the nights titles. 'The
night of feeding the weak and infirm.' 'The night thngs fell from the
sky.' 'The night of strange animals.' 'The night of receiving letters.'
'The night precious things got lost.' Maybe you could name the days
after the previous night's dreams. Or name whole months, years, eras,
in which people keep having similar dreams, their minds synchronized
in a way that can no longer be felt once the sun is up."
It's a woderful book, highly recommended.
As of today I have one week of vacation until my final trimester of college
starts, but I'm already working on components of my hyper-critical Sr
Project due in April. It's a roughly two minute long, music-driven sci-fi
space story, done in the 3D modeling & animation program 'Softimage XSI'
which, in our curriculum, requires five consecutive trimesters just to learn
the basics!
So I literally can spend no more time on this increasingly endless thread.
Like similar nut cases I've encountered in other newsgroups,
who revel in the spotlight of controversy from the warm, faceless anonymity
of their computers, I now refuse to feed Roy anymore. Sew in your own
juices, Roy. I'll stir them no longer.
Final thoughts on 'religion VS sexuality'.
The recurring objections to homosexuality and, now, homosexual marriage
always seem rooted in some variation of the stance that "the homosexual
lifestyle" or "gay and lesbian practices" -- whatever
those prim generalizations may mean -- are contrary to or forbidden by
Biblical/Christian teaching. The stances are often accompanied by a few
snippets of Scripture to support them.
However, as convincing as those stances try to appear, the
higher question they've never addressed is what the linkage between sexual
orientation and Christianity (or any other religion for that matter) is
supposed to be in the first place. In my opinion the question can't be
answered because there is no linkage.
The notion that a persons religious practices (or lack of) can somehow set
or change their sexual orientation, is head-scratchingly bizarre.
Philosophy/religion affecting biology/genetics? The concept is so
bizarre it almost sounds like material for an offbeat TV show: "Yo dude, I
wanna change my sex orientation. Got any churches I can check it out with?"
Or how about: "Mommy, after yesterdays sex class I still don't know
whether I want to be attracted to boys or girls. I'll just see what else our
youth minister tells us next week."
Irreverent? Well, if sexual orientation is in fact a matter of choice and
a function of religion, then some very specific questions may be
asked. For instance, do any of you remember choosing your sexual
orientation: deciding which sex/gender you would be attracted to, aroused by
and eventually want to have intimate relations with? If so, at what
presumably young age did you make this pivotal decision? Did you discuss
your choice to be hetero, homo or bisexual with your parents? What church
or school taught you the pros and cons of picking the gender you'd someday
fall in love with? Did your minister/teacher study this complex subject at
an accredited institution? And for extra credit during your own studies,
did you do a report about bisexuality: perhaps "AC/DC for Today's Teens"?
Now, lest I be dismissed as "some wacko gay atheist", I've
attended and served in United Church of Christ, Methodist and Lutheran
churches for some 50 years. I'm baptized and confirmed. One of my degrees is
in a health profession field. I've taken college and church-sponsored
classes
in comparative religion, and was peripherally involved
with the Washington State Interfaith Council for about three years.
Finally -- cutting to the chase -- I am heterosexual by genetics, by birth,
not by choice. Read that again. Through what demonstrable, verifiable
means could I be otherwise? Does anyone honestly think I'm heterosexual
because I chose to be; because I go to church or because I've "been Saved"?
If letters and editorials are to be taken at face value,
apparently more than a few people do truly believe sexual orientation is a
matter of religion; of choice and thus, by extension, a choice I made too.
What irrational, religious cow poop. I am heterosexual because I was born
heterosexual, not because "The Bible tells me so".
Homosexuality is a vanishingly small topic in the Bible. Only seven brief
references to it are scattered throughout the Old and New Testaments: four
in the Old [two of which are only oblique references] and only three [from
just one author] in the New. Most importantly, not a single, solitary one of
these was uttered by Jesus! Not a one. Jesus said nothing about
homosexuality, one way or another: not so much as one blessed word.
Yet the OT book of Leviticus by itself, has *fourteen* laws and
pronouncements about menstruation! Does anyone know of any Good
Christian or Jewish women who follow those Biblical laws, or of any
ministers who preach sin and damnation if they don't? Do Tampex
and Kotex receive hate mail because Holy Writ isn't printed on their
boxes? No? Then why the oh-so-righteous finger-pointing at Scripture's
far fewer references to homosexuality, scattered throughout almost as
afterthoughts? Condemnation of homosexuals [the word is not
gender-specific] on religious grounds is no different and no more
justifiable than persecution of women or slavery, both of which
Scripture once seemed to be acceptable.
I regularly attend church and read Scripture. But I also resolutely think
and live in the enlightened 21st Century. And thus not for one split
second do I have the slightest reason whatsoever to believe that
heterosexuality is "God's chosen sexual orientation", anymore than I
believe being male and Caucasian are "God's chosen gender and race".
Religion is a matter of choice. Sexual orientation
-- heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or in between -- is not.
Consequently, IMHO the continuing persecution and knee-jerk
marginalization of "sexual minorities" -- especially on religious grounds,
for God's sake -- to me represents nothing less than mindless bigotry: one
of Religion's egregiously fetid little backwaters.
In article <3FE57044.DFC3581A@no-spam>,
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote:
> Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FE4EE57.EAC0C26A@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:3FE36585.1FACCC93@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:3FE2A105.43649CDC@no-spam
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Oh, but it gets better! All sorts of neat weird stuff in the
> > Bible:
> > > > > > wheels
> > > > > > > > within wheels in the sky [Ezekiel], dragons and Heavenly warfare
> > > > > > [various],
> > > > > > > > dry bones raising up, parthenogenic births... great reading! Let
> > me
> > > > > > > > recommend it to you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I should explain to you tghat the only authority as
> > > > > > > far as I'm concerned is The Five Books of Moses
> > > > > > > (Genesis - Deuteronomy}. It is tghe word of God.
> > > > > > > All the rest of everything else ever written are the
> > > > > > > words of fallible men.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hate to tell ya, Roy boy, but those books were written by men also.
> > > > There's
> > > > > > no proof at all that any of the bible is the literal word of god. In
> > > > other
> > > > > > words your so called authority is debatable and many reject it
> > outright.
> > > > >
> > > > > Its authority is proven by the complete set of
> > > > > Absolute Morals found within The Five Books
> > > > > of Moses and nowhere else in the world.
> > > >
> > > > Just how is this supposed to be proof? Someone wrote it, so it's true?
> > > >
> > > > It may be assumed by you to be proof, but there's no evidence that it
> > > > effects me whatsoever. Some "proof".
> > >
> > > If Absolute Morals exist in this amoral world, and they
> > > do in the Five Books of Moses,
> >
> > Really? Prove it.
>
> The proof is in man's inability to alter them. Perhaps you'd
> care to cite a moral tenet from the Five Books of Moses
> that you can change... I'll wait.
Thou shalt not kill?
the Robot Vegetable wrote:
> In alt.culture.oregon Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote
> [in an endless ships-in-the-night discussion of religion]:
> >
> > Collective dreaming is good.
>
> I'm reading a great book now, _House of Day, House of Night_ by
> Olga Tokarczuk. It's published as part of the Writings from an Unbound
> Europe by Northwestern University Press. The book says on the back:
> Winner of the Gunter Grass Prize. Olga is Polish. The protagonist
> moves into Silesia, and starts collecting/telling stories about the
> various folk there and their history. This part of Poland was in Germany
> prior to WWII.
> She puts an ad in the local paper saying she is collecting dreams,
> but people want money, more than she can pay. Instead she finds a
> website where people from all over the world wake up and post their
> dreams. She finds:
>
> "If you do it regularly, if you carefully read dozens - hundreds,
> even - of other people's dreams every morning, it's easy to start
> seeing he similarities between them. I've been wondering for ages
> if anyone else has noticed this too. There are noghts when everyone
> seems to dream of running away, nights of war, nights of babies being
> born, nights of dubious love-making. There are nights of wandering
> in labyinths - in hotels, stations, student hostels, or the dreamers'
> own flats. Or nigts spent opening doors, boxes, chests and cupboards.
> And there are nights full of travel, whenthe dreamers negotiate stations,
> airports, trains, motorways and roadside motels, lose suitcases, wait
> for tickets, and worry that they won't make their connections on time.
> Every morning you could string these dreams together like beads and
> end up with a unique and beautiful necklace. Based on the most
> fequently recurring motifs, you could give the nights titles. 'The
> night of feeding the weak and infirm.' 'The night thngs fell from the
> sky.' 'The night of strange animals.' 'The night of receiving letters.'
> 'The night precious things got lost.' Maybe you could name the days
> after the previous night's dreams. Or name whole months, years, eras,
> in which people keep having similar dreams, their minds synchronized
> in a way that can no longer be felt once the sun is up."
And, there's also Jung's 'collective conscious'.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
In article <vv0v3n2c5bgm3b@no-spam>,
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3FF03FA3.E2D3CB6D@no-spam
> >
> >
> > Dave Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3FEBF720.2F7765A0@no-spam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3FEB8C48.F3687DF6@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I learned that a scientific theory, as used in science, is
> an
> > > > > explanation or
> > > > > > > > > model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning,
> > > > > especially one
> > > > > > > > > that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle
> > > helping to
> > > > > explain
> > > > > > > > > and predict natural phenomena.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Strange how these bits of information have a way of
> > > > > > > > changing over time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The "bits of information" don't change although the
> interpretation
> > > > > > > and explanation of them might.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Loss of status [is] change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One can be pretty sure than cannonballs dropped from the tower
> > > > > > > of Piza drop at the same rate and in the same direction as they
> > > > > > > did when Gallileo dropped his - although the explanation has
> > > > > > > altered and the measurements are more precise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then Piltdown man is still Piltdown man, no matter
> > > > > > the change in status?
> > > > >
> > > > > Science accepted that Piltdown man was a hoax rather quickly.
> > > >
> > > > Irrelevant.
> > >
> > > No, it's indicative that science is not dogmatic.
> >
> > Denial is good.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > How long did
> > > > > it take creationists to accept Pulloxy as a hoax?
> > > >
> > > > What is "Pulloxy"
> > >
> > > Paluxy. Creationists believe that there are tracks in the riverbed that
> show
> > > dinosaurs and man living at the same time. They were shown to be a hoax
> but
> > > creationists refused to accept it. Some still use it as an example of
> man
> > > and dinosaur walking together.
> >
> > Straw man.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > You see, that science rejected Piltdown and other hoaxes, and
> creationists
> > > still refuse to reject an obvious hoax, is very relevant to the
> discussion.
> > > Science is not dogma. Religion is.
> >
> > Bunk. All it shows is that there are people in both camps in whom
> > intransigence takes precedence over open inquiry.
>
> This from a guy who keeps repeating "projection is good" as an answer to
> posts. This from a guy who thinks science is a religion and scientists are
> deluded despots.
>
> You are a classic troll, jrl.
Then you shouldn't respond to him.
In article <vv1ufunil956e@no-spam>,
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
> "nobody" <nobody@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:nobody-332720.21541529122003@no-spam
> > In article <vv0v3n2c5bgm3b@no-spam>,
> > "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
> >
> > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3FF03FA3.E2D3CB6D@no-spam
&