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.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
"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.
they must have come
> from somewhere beyond nature.
Another baseless assertion. Don't you just hate it when someone asks for
proof?
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.
Your beliefs affect me not in the least. Your beliefs end at your
fingertips. Your ideas regarding Mosaic laws are baseless and you'd have a
hard time proving anything regarding their enforcement. But please take some
time to show me the proof. This could be entertaining.
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.
> - 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.
> 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'.
As far as willful plague spreading, which is murder,
is concerned, we all live in the 'same house'.
> 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.
> 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.
> Certainly not the Bible!
Tell that one to the judge.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
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.
>
>
> they must have come
> > from somewhere beyond nature.
>
> Another baseless assertion. Don't you just hate it when someone asks for
> proof?
What lacks proof is the 'baseless assertion' that Absolute Morals
came about as part of the [amoral] natural world.
>
>
> 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.
>
> Your beliefs affect me not in the least. Your beliefs end at your
> fingertips. Your ideas regarding Mosaic laws are baseless and you'd have a
> hard time proving anything regarding their enforcement. But please take some
> time to show me the proof. This could be entertaining.
Denial is good.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FE57044.DFC3581A@no-spam
>
>
> 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.
The dietary laws come to mind, but then again you can change anyone one of
them, societies have been doing so for millenia. There is hardly a society
or country that hasn't restricted rights, abused it's own people for it's
own purpose. The idea that morality somehow comes from the bible is
indefensible. Morals existed long before anyone's idea of god. Morals exist
through civilization and man's need to coexist with one another, nothing
more.
>
> >
> >
> > they must have come
> > > from somewhere beyond nature.
> >
> > Another baseless assertion. Don't you just hate it when someone asks for
> > proof?
>
> What lacks proof is the 'baseless assertion' that Absolute Morals
> came about as part of the [amoral] natural world.
Then prove otherwise. A man living alone and feral has no need for these
laws. It is only after he begins to coexist with others that they have a
basis.
And for your information, the idea that the natural world is amoral is
laughable. Sin is man's invention, not nature's.
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Your beliefs affect me not in the least. Your beliefs end at your
> > fingertips. Your ideas regarding Mosaic laws are baseless and you'd have
a
> > hard time proving anything regarding their enforcement. But please take
some
> > time to show me the proof. This could be entertaining.
>
> Denial is good.
Well, you have the rest of this post to convince that somehow that your
religious beliefs apply to me even in the slightest sense. Your belief in
god is no more true than my neighbor's or the paperboys. Why I should take
your word over my own is something for you to prove, not me.
WinGuru wrote:
> "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.
Absolute Morals exist. The weren't built in. We question them
continuously. Is murder universally moral or immoral? If not,
why not?
>
>
> >
> > > - 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"?
No. It's 'thou shalt not [murder]'... big difference.
> 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*" ?
"Murder" is the premeditated taking of human life
without moral justification.
"Killing" is the taking of life by accident, in self
defense, by execution and assassination with
moral justification, etc..
Those who use others to commit murder are
more guilty than those they use.
>
>
> >
> > > 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.
"In our culture", without the force of State coercion, murder would be
the norm, not the exception.
>
>
> >
> > 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?
You believe you're not in denial when you reject the fact
that AIDS is spread [primarily} via anal intercourse?
>
>
> > > 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.
They do not exist in amoral nature. It takes free will to locate
and abide by them. Debate arises because human desire is
opposed to them.
>
>
> >
> > > 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.
You give me too much credit for my interpretive skills.
The fact is: Absolute Morals interpret themselves,
without need for human approval, or rationale.
>
>
> >
> > > 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!
In our society, at least, the "laws" are generally based on those
found in the Bible. Yes, I acknowledge the attempts of the
nihilists among us to do away with the moral restraints those
laws impose but that goes without saying, doesn't it?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
Dave Thompson wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3FE57044.DFC3581A@no-spam
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> The dietary laws come to mind, but then again you can change anyone one of
> them,
Your saying you changed them doesn't change them. All you
can succeed in doing is ignoring, opposing, or abiding by them.
> societies have been doing so for millenia. There is hardly a society
> or country that hasn't restricted rights, abused it's own people for it's
> own purpose. The idea that morality somehow comes from the bible is
> indefensible. Morals existed long before anyone's idea of god. Morals exist
> through civilization and man's need to coexist with one another, nothing
> more.
You may say that "morals" have always existed but man's ability
to chose correctly between morality and immorality is determined
by his desire. And, man's desire is opposed to anything that stands
in its way. Without the imposition from without of Absolute Morals
into the Five Books of Moses man has no way of knowing what is
definitively moral and what is not. Without Absolute Morality, man
is left only with the moral relativism common to idolatry. Yes, I
know, man likes it that way.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > they must have come
> > > > from somewhere beyond nature.
> > >
> > > Another baseless assertion. Don't you just hate it when someone asks for
> > > proof?
> >
> > What lacks proof is the 'baseless assertion' that Absolute Morals
> > came about as part of the [amoral] natural world.
>
> Then prove otherwise. A man living alone and feral has no need for these
> laws. It is only after he begins to coexist with others that they have a
> basis.
Hardly. An infant born of a mother who dies in childbirth and
is raised by sand crabs will by the mandate of cognizance
become aware of responsibility to himself and his surroundings.
He will then make laws for himself and his environment. They
will not necessarily be Absolute Moral laws but they will be
laws, including moral laws, nevertheless.... that's what makes us
human, is it not?
>
>
> And for your information, the idea that the natural world is amoral is
> laughable. Sin is man's invention, not nature's.
Can you describe a natural moral law?
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Your beliefs affect me not in the least. Your beliefs end at your
> > > fingertips. Your ideas regarding Mosaic laws are baseless and you'd have
> a
> > > hard time proving anything regarding their enforcement. But please take
> some
> > > time to show me the proof. This could be entertaining.
> >
> > Denial is good.
>
> Well, you have the rest of this post to convince that somehow that your
> religious beliefs apply to me even in the slightest sense.
I never said that [all] the ritual laws in the Five Books of Moses
apply to you. What I said is that "Absolute Morality" applies to all.
You do believe that murder is immoral... no?
> Your belief in
> god is no more true than my neighbor's or the paperboys. Why I should take
> your word over my own is something for you to prove, not me.
Foolish of you to think I'm trying to impose my beliefs
on you. All I'm doing is relating my views in a public
forum. Your feeling them as an imposition is your
problem.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FE631A6.E00B6FDB@no-spam
>
>
> Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FE57044.DFC3581A@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > The dietary laws come to mind, but then again you can change anyone one
of
> > them,
>
> Your saying you changed them doesn't change them. All you
> can succeed in doing is ignoring, opposing, or abiding by them.
I eat shellfish and rather doubt that I am immoral for doing so.
>
> > societies have been doing so for millenia. There is hardly a society
> > or country that hasn't restricted rights, abused it's own people for
it's
> > own purpose. The idea that morality somehow comes from the bible is
> > indefensible. Morals existed long before anyone's idea of god. Morals
exist
> > through civilization and man's need to coexist with one another, nothing
> > more.
>
> You may say that "morals" have always existed but man's ability
> to chose correctly between morality and immorality is determined
> by his desire. And, man's desire is opposed to anything that stands
> in its way. Without the imposition from without of Absolute Morals
> into the Five Books of Moses man has no way of knowing what is
> definitively moral and what is not. Without Absolute Morality, man
> is left only with the moral relativism common to idolatry. Yes, I
> know, man likes it that way.
People and civilizations that never read your stories develpoed societies as
moral or more moral than the ones that have. Your supposition that these
books are the foundation of morals is false.
> >
> > Then prove otherwise. A man living alone and feral has no need for these
> > laws. It is only after he begins to coexist with others that they have a
> > basis.
>
> Hardly. An infant born of a mother who dies in childbirth and
> is raised by sand crabs will by the mandate of cognizance
> become aware of responsibility to himself and his surroundings.
> He will then make laws for himself and his environment. They
> will not necessarily be Absolute Moral laws but they will be
> laws, including moral laws, nevertheless.... that's what makes us
> human, is it not?
Such a person will not decide that masturbation is a sin, nor eating
shellfish, nor blasphemy, but he will learn to peacefully coexist amongst
his surroundings. The same requirements apply when he has to live with other
people. To think that he will develope rules to live by in nature, but not
in society is not logical.
>
> >
> >
> > And for your information, the idea that the natural world is amoral is
> > laughable. Sin is man's invention, not nature's.
>
> Can you describe a natural moral law?
Why should I. You assume there is a purpose to nature or life. This false
assumption is why you need a god to reinforce your beliefs. Otherwise they
would not stand on their own.
> > Well, you have the rest of this post to convince that somehow that your
> > religious beliefs apply to me even in the slightest sense.
>
> I never said that [all] the ritual laws in the Five Books of Moses
> apply to you. What I said is that "Absolute Morality" applies to all.
Your idea of absolute morality and someone else's will not necessarily
agree. This is why the belief of absolutes existing is farcical.
>
> You do believe that murder is immoral... no?
It depends on the definition.
Don't forget that even though you believe in absolutes, there really are no
absolutes in the bible. The bible contradicts itself right and left. It is
accepting one over the other that makes the bible one of the greatest tools
for situational ethics and rationalization. If you have a view or opinion on
what is right and wrong, no matter what it may be, you will probably be able
to find it in the bible. Just look at the Christian Identity for evidence of
this.
>
> > Your belief in
> > god is no more true than my neighbor's or the paperboys. Why I should
take
> > your word over my own is something for you to prove, not me.
>
> Foolish of you to think I'm trying to impose my beliefs
> on you. All I'm doing is relating my views in a public
> forum. Your feeling them as an imposition is your
> problem.
When did I use the word "impose"? I merely said that you are wrong and can't
prove your assertion. So far I have been correct.
Nev wrote:
> "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."
> ----------------------------------
What you've quoted here is a litany of disinformation and straw men
raised by an AIDS activist organization with the sole purpose of
diverting attention from the fact that AIDS was originally a disease
passed almost exclusively through anal intercourse between male
sodomites. It was only later that the virus spread to the general
population, and even within it it is passed primarily through anal
intercourse. The victims via all other means of transmission can
ultimately be traced back to the virus having been spread through
sodomy.
>
>
> 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.
It has been shown conclusively that AIDS in African populations
is due to anal intercourse being used as the primary method of
birth control. AIDS infection caused by normal sexual intercourse
in heterosexual African populations was a disingenuous straw man
that bit the dust years ago, almost immediately it was erected.
Yet, I'm not surprised that the disease's activist promoters are still
passing out this long since discredited disinformation.
>
>
> 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.
Sad to say, you are misinformed... see above.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
Dave Thompson wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3FE631A6.E00B6FDB@no-spam
> >
> >
> > Dave Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3FE57044.DFC3581A@no-spam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > The dietary laws come to mind, but then again you can change anyone one
> of
> > > them,
> >
> > Your saying you changed them doesn't change them. All you
> > can succeed in doing is ignoring, opposing, or abiding by them.
>
> I eat shellfish and rather doubt that I am immoral for doing so.
Ignorance is your only valid excuse.
>
>
> >
> > > societies have been doing so for millenia. There is hardly a society
> > > or country that hasn't restricted rights, abused it's own people for
> it's
> > > own purpose. The idea that morality somehow comes from the bible is
> > > indefensible. Morals existed long before anyone's idea of god. Morals
> exist
> > > through civilization and man's need to coexist with one another, nothing
> > > more.
> >
> > You may say that "morals" have always existed but man's ability
> > to chose correctly between morality and immorality is determined
> > by his desire. And, man's desire is opposed to anything that stands
> > in its way. Without the imposition from without of Absolute Morals
> > into the Five Books of Moses man has no way of knowing what is
> > definitively moral and what is not. Without Absolute Morality, man
> > is left only with the moral relativism common to idolatry. Yes, I
> > know, man likes it that way.
>
> People and civilizations that never read your stories develpoed societies as
> moral or more moral than the ones that have. Your supposition that these
> books are the foundation of morals is false.
There has never been a society, save one, that chooses for
itself laws that are exclusively moral.
>
>
> > >
> > > Then prove otherwise. A man living alone and feral has no need for these
> > > laws. It is only after he begins to coexist with others that they have a
> > > basis.
> >
> > Hardly. An infant born of a mother who dies in childbirth and
> > is raised by sand crabs will by the mandate of cognizance
> > become aware of responsibility to himself and his surroundings.
> > He will then make laws for himself and his environment. They
> > will not necessarily be Absolute Moral laws but they will be
> > laws, including moral laws, nevertheless.... that's what makes us
> > human, is it not?
>
> Such a person will not decide that masturbation is a sin, nor eating
> shellfish, nor blasphemy, but he will learn to peacefully coexist amongst
> his surroundings.
You have no way of knowing what sort of morality such an
individual will impose on himself, or whether or not he will
exist peacefully or at war with his surroundings. And, that's
the point. 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..
> The same requirements apply when he has to live with other
> people. To think that he will develope rules to live by in nature, but not
> in society is not logical.
He will certainly develop rules for both but in either case they
will necessarily be a mixture of moral and immoral rules.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > And for your information, the idea that the natural world is amoral is
> > > laughable. Sin is man's invention, not nature's.
> >
> > Can you describe a natural moral law?
>
> Why should I. You assume there is a purpose to nature or life. This false
> assumption is why you need a god to reinforce your beliefs. Otherwise they
> would not stand on their own.
In other words, you can't describe a 'natural moral law'.
>
>
> > > Well, you have the rest of this post to convince that somehow that your
> > > religious beliefs apply to me even in the slightest sense.
> >
> > I never said that [all] the ritual laws in the Five Books of Moses
> > apply to you. What I said is that "Absolute Morality" applies to all.
>
> Your idea of absolute morality and someone else's will not necessarily
> agree. This is why the belief of absolutes existing is farcical.
It is precisely because we disagree on what is moral and
what is not that Absolute Morality was given in the Five
Books of Moses.
>
>
> >
> > You do believe that murder is immoral... no?
>
> It depends on the definition.
>
> Don't forget that even though you believe in absolutes, there really are no
> absolutes in the bible. The bible contradicts itself right and left. It is
> accepting one over the other that makes the bible one of the greatest tools
> for situational ethics and rationalization. If you have a view or opinion on
> what is right and wrong, no matter what it may be, you will probably be able
> to find it in the bible. Just look at the Christian Identity for evidence of
> this.
I seem to remember informing in a prior post that I believe exclusively
in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy). Within those
books alone are the words of God. Everything else ever written
contain merely the words of fallible men.
Now, if you have a specific example of an immoral directive coming
from the Five Books of Moses, I'd appreciate your presenting such.
Please cite chapter and verse.
>
> >
> > > Your belief in
> > > god is no more true than my neighbor's or the paperboys. Why I should
> take
> > > your word over my own is something for you to prove, not me.
> >
> > Foolish of you to think I'm trying to impose my beliefs
> > on you. All I'm doing is relating my views in a public
> > forum. Your feeling them as an imposition is your
> > problem.
>
> When did I use the word "impose"? I merely said that you are wrong and can't
> prove your assertion. So far I have been correct.
So far, you have been wrong.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
"Nev" <nev@no-spam> wrote in message
news:7OqdnXdXabz6znqiRVn-sw@no-spam
>
> "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?
Christianity is monotheistic? News to me. The Christian god is a trinity.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nev" <nev@no-spam> wrote in message
news:7OqdnXdXabz6znqiRVn-sw@no-spam
>
> "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.
Nope. In that you're just plain wrong.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Nev wrote:
> "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'??
I see them [all] as man made.
>
>
> 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.
Surely you don't expect me to agree?
>
>
> God is God is God.
I agree that gods are gods are gods.
>
>
> 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?
It is the only place in the world where Absolute Morality as it relates
to human behavior exists in its entirety. It is the only place in the
world where it exists not as transient serendipitous crap shoot but as
permanent immutable design.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@no-spam> wrote in message
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.
No, Baxter, you are an idiot. There are many flavors of Jews and Christians.
The most conservative have overlaps. I have a fundy Catholic mother-in-law
and have dealt with fundy Jews (conservatives) that oddly have the same
views.
Please refrain from contributing when you don't know what you are talking
about.
Nev wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote
>
> > > 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?
> >
> > It is the only place in the world where Absolute Morality as it relates
> > to human behavior exists in its entirety. It is the only place in the
> > world where it exists not as transient serendipitous crap shoot but as
> > permanent immutable design.
>
> That statement speaks from a dark, seething, socio-religious fantasy world
> within the most confining and inward facing of walls.
>
> In your guts; in your heart; in your soul you would expect Jews outside your
> belief system, as well as Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Ba Hais and all the
> other monotheistic world religions to agree with that statement, even though
> all of us, you included, worship the same God... and if they don't, then
> their scriptures and their relations with God are dismissed out of hand as a
> "transient serendipitous crap shoot"?
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.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
Dave Thompson wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3FE792B9.40BC899B@no-spam
> >
> >
> > Dave Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3FE7531D.4AF5B2C1@no-spam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > gatt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "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.
> > > >
> > > > But now that's immaterial, since you've come out of the
> > > > Jew hater closet:
> > >
> > > Does that make me a Jew-hater, too? I object to your ridiculous premise
> and
> > > would fight the imposition of your beliefs on me or the laws of this
> > > country. Because of this, do I hate Jews?
> > >
> > > Just want to know.
> >
> > I know that you hate God... not to worry, 99.999% of
> > the world's population also hates Him.
>
> Aaaaaaaah! The typical redirect of the fundy. I disagree with you so I hate
> god.
Nonsense.
>
>
> Tell me, how can I hate something that does not exist?
If God didn't exist, you wouldn't be obsessed with ridding
your mind and the world of Him.
>
>
> What I hate is stupidity. If you want to expand that to include yourself
> then feel free. It does nothing to hurt or help me to think you are an
> idiot.
yawn.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FE7C1DE.57FF665C@no-spam
>
>
> Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FE792B9.40BC899B@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:3FE7531D.4AF5B2C1@no-spam
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > gatt wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "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.
> > > > >
> > > > > But now that's immaterial, since you've come out of the
> > > > > Jew hater closet:
> > > >
> > > > Does that make me a Jew-hater, too? I object to your ridiculous
premise
> > and
> > > > would fight the imposition of your beliefs on me or the laws of this
> > > > country. Because of this, do I hate Jews?
> > > >
> > > > Just want to know.
> > >
> > > I know that you hate God... not to worry, 99.999% of
> > > the world's population also hates Him.
> >
> > Aaaaaaaah! The typical redirect of the fundy. I disagree with you so I
hate
> > god.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> >
> >
> > Tell me, how can I hate something that does not exist?
>
> If God didn't exist, you wouldn't be obsessed with ridding
> your mind and the world of Him.
No, I obsess with ridding the world of authoritarians who claim dominion
over the world.
s stupidity. If you want to expand that to include yourself
> > then feel free. It does nothing to hurt or help me to think you are an
> > idiot.
You and your ilk would prefer to refer to me as an idiot. It's people like
me that fight religious authoritarians such as yourself. You don't like it,
then try to fight back.
I will continue to out religious fascists such as yourself. We live in a
secular government that has no need for theocrats like you. Any site of
people like you I will fight to preserve this country. To hell with you
unpatriotic America hating religious fascists. I want my children to live in
freedom, not in the religious oppression that you promote.
So if you don't like what I say, go fuck yourselves. I love my country and
if you want to take it from me then just fucking take a shot. And I hope you
rot in hell you fucking bastard.
Dave Thompson wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3FE7C1DE.57FF665C@no-spam
> >
> >
> > Dave Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3FE792B9.40BC899B@no-spam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3FE7531D.4AF5B2C1@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > gatt wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But now that's immaterial, since you've come out of the
> > > > > > Jew hater closet:
> > > > >
> > > > > Does that make me a Jew-hater, too? I object to your ridiculous
> premise
> > > and
> > > > > would fight the imposition of your beliefs on me or the laws of this
> > > > > country. Because of this, do I hate Jews?
> > > > >
> > > > > Just want to know.
> > > >
> > > > I know that you hate God... not to worry, 99.999% of
> > > > the world's population also hates Him.
> > >
> > > Aaaaaaaah! The typical redirect of the fundy. I disagree with you so I
> hate
> > > god.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tell me, how can I hate something that does not exist?
> >
> > If God didn't exist, you wouldn't be obsessed with ridding
> > your mind and the world of Him.
>
> No, I obsess with ridding the world of authoritarians who claim dominion
> over the world.
Hmmm... you're on a holy crusade, then?... "ridding the world"
of God loving scum... eh?
>
>
> s stupidity. If you want to expand that to include yourself
> > > then feel free. It does nothing to hurt or help me to think you are an
> > > idiot.
>
> You and your ilk would prefer to refer to me as an idiot. It's people like
> me that fight religious authoritarians such as yourself. You don't like it,
> then try to fight back.
Hmm. It was you who referred to me as an "idiot": "It does
nothing to hurt or help me to think you are anidiot."...
remember, Dave? If not, you can read it again, below.
Not all that smart, eh, Dave?
>
> I will continue to out religious fascists such as yourself. We live in a
> secular government that has no need for theocrats like you. Any site of
> people like you I will fight to preserve this country. To hell with you
> unpatriotic America hating religious fascists. I want my children to live in
> freedom, not in the religious oppression that you promote.
Projection is good.
>
>
> So if you don't like what I say, go fuck yourselves. I love my country and
> if you want to take it from me then just fucking take a shot. And I hope you
> rot in hell you fucking bastard.
Hysteria is good.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
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.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:KS0Gb.865$UB3.105@no-spam
>
> "Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dosser.mapson@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:c1PFb.465$
>
> > > Yeah, gatt did go to Moo U (at least he claimed to).
> >
> > Hey don't knock it. I went there too. Twice.
>
> Nice place. Which reminds me. Since Baxter's bashing on OSU again,
Nope. Not unless OSU is somehow made lesser by your presence there.
> and
> suggesting that I merely -claimed- to go there,
Can't much prove you went to college anywhere from the level of discourse
you've presented in these forums.
>it's time to level the
> field.
What you really mean is to invent potshots again.
>
> Where'd ya go to college, Baxter? Beauty College doesn't count. If
you're
> gonna snipe at my education you better be willing to lay yours out,
Your quality of education is not dependent on mine - or vice versa.
> otherwise you'd be talking out your ass about something (an education)
that
> you don't understand. 'Cause we know you didn't go to college, which
would
> be fine if you weren't belittling other people's college education.
>
> Fess up or admit cowardice, Baxter. You got something to hide?
>
Sorry, gatt, but you're the one who's the insecure, lying coward.
Nev wrote:
> "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.
I love your pop psyche analyses... keep them coming.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
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$NZ1.11331@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > > P.S. Just a little attempt at levity there. I know that about 3"
> of
> > > > black
> > > > > > electrical tape solves the flashing 12:00 issue!
> > > > >
> > > > > You put the tape over your eyes?
> > > >
> > > > ...and then have FAITH that all that science isn't still sitting out
> there
> > > > flashing its lights at you.
> > >
> > > If he doesn't believe in science I'd like him to stop believing in the
> > > theory of gravity and see if he suddenly floats into the sky.
> >
> > the·o·ry
> > P
> >
> > Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
> > n. pl. the·o·ries
> >
> > An assumption based on limited information or
> > knowledge; a conjecture.
> > --
>
> Thus speaks someone who has no understanding of science and little if any
> understanding of reality. Bet you got that "definition" out of the
> so-called "creation science" catechism.
Looks like this standard definition out of a standard
dictionary done buzzed your buzzer.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
WinGuru wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3FE907C3.2DD1765C@no-spam
> >
> >
> > WinGuru wrote:
> >
> > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:3FE8FB2C.822025FE@no-spam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > news:fy2Gb.12500$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?
Your buzzer being buzzed, noted for a second time.
Time for you to get a grip..
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
WinGuru 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$NZ1.11331@no-spam
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > P.S. Just a little attempt at levity there. I know that
> about 3"
> > > of
> > > > > > black
> > > > > > > > electrical tape solves the flashing 12:00 issue!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You put the tape over your eyes?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...and then have FAITH that all that science isn't still sitting
> out
> > > there
> > > > > > flashing its lights at you.
> > > > >
> > > > > If he doesn't believe in science I'd like him to stop believing in
> the
> > > > > theory of gravity and see if he suddenly floats into the sky.
> > > >
> > > > the·o·ry
> > > > P
> > > >
> > > > Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
> > > > n. pl. the·o·ries
> > > >
> > > > An assumption based on limited information or
> > > > knowledge; a conjecture.
> > >
> > > You obviously have no idea what theory means regarding science. A
> scientific
> > > theory is not conjecture. Creationisn is pure unadulterated bullshit.
> >
> > Something you learned in school?
> >
> > > Thank
> > > god you don't teach.
> >
> > Ahh but I do.
>
> If you do, then you are a charlatan and a fake. I seriously doubt you have
> any teaching certification or formal training.
OOh, OOch.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Hs5Gb.12898$NZ1.1096@no-spam
>
> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in message
>
> > > > > I think it was probably clown school.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe he got his associates in prison.
> > > >
> > > I'm voting that you went to clown school with Dave.
> >
> > You're not even smart enough to be original. The best you can do is this
> "I
> > know you are but what am I?" routine.
>
> That was also Pee Wee Herman's routine, wasn't it? It's becoming clear
> now.
>
> It's like he read "clown school" and couldn't wait to go use it in on
> somebody in the newsgroup. Oops.
>
> BTW, I'm willing to scan and post/email a copy of my diploma.
Sure you are. And just how would I be assured that the scan wasn't doctored?
> All I want is
> for Baxter to tell us where he went to college.
Yeah, right, whatever.
> Since he's making fun of my
> college education and all.
No, I never "made fun" of your "college education and all". What I said,
and you continue to twist and misrepresent, is that 1) a college degree was
less important than experience in the field - to the point of vanishing, 2)
you don't seem to be applying any of that learning, and 3) you don't have
any right to my private information - when you're willing to hire me and I'm
willing to work for you THEN and only then will we discuss my degrees. 4)
that you're waving your degree strictly to impress people - much like
claiming to have a big dick.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vui2idjmbfc458@no-spam
>
> "gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:Hs5Gb.12898$NZ1.1096@no-spam
> >
> > "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in message
> >
> > > > > > I think it was probably clown school.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe he got his associates in prison.
> > > > >
> > > > I'm voting that you went to clown school with Dave.
> > >
> > > You're not even smart enough to be original. The best you can do is
this
> > "I
> > > know you are but what am I?" routine.
> >
> > That was also Pee Wee Herman's routine, wasn't it? It's becoming clear
> > now.
> >
> > It's like he read "clown school" and couldn't wait to go use it in on
> > somebody in the newsgroup. Oops.
> >
> > BTW, I'm willing to scan and post/email a copy of my diploma. All I
want
> is
> > for Baxter to tell us where he went to college. Since he's making fun
of
> my
> > college education and all.
>
> I'll do mine, too. I'll put my pathetic diplomas from ASU and UT up
against
> his Devry Institute degrees.
Why stop there? With a little image editing you can post degrees from
Harvard, Yale, MIT, Berkley, Oxford, and so on.
>
> Oh, Baxter, I am so shamed. You are obviously in possession of a superior
> degree. You must be holding back so that we common folk are not disgraced.
Yeah, you've got a bigger dick. That's really all you're saying.
>
> Oh horrors! To think Baxter has two degrees and I must shame myself with a
> third.
>
> I'll have to get that PhD just to stay ahead! Please, hold me, GATT.
>
I hear you can get them online from Indian universities for a pittance.
"Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3FE9324A.E1BE0C08@no-spam
>
>
> Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> > --
> > "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3FE8FB2C.822025FE@no-spam
> > >
> > >
> > > Dave Thompson wrote:
> > >
> > > > "gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > > news:fy2Gb.12500$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 explain
and predict natural phenomena.
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 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.
You obviously have no idea what a scientific theory is if you define it as
pure assumption. Creationism is pure assumption.
>
> > 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.
>
> >
> >
> > Buh bye, creationist.
>
> OOh, OOch.
Then pick up a different book sometime.
"Baxter" <lbax01.spamguard@no-spam> wrote in message
news:vuji89ihpds84d@no-spam
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:vui2idjmbfc458@no-spam
> >
> > "gatt" <gatt@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:Hs5Gb.12898$NZ1.1096@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > > > > I think it was probably clown school.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe he got his associates in prison.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I'm voting that you went to clown school with Dave.
> > > >
> > > > You're not even smart enough to be original. The best you can do is
> this
> > > "I
> > > > know you are but what am I?" routine.
> > >
> > > That was also Pee Wee Herman's routine, wasn't it? It's becoming
clear
> > > now.
> > >
> > > It's like he read "clown school" and couldn't wait to go use it in on
> > > somebody in the newsgroup. Oops.
> > >
> > > BTW, I'm willing to scan and post/email a copy of my diploma. All I
> want
> > is
> > > for Baxter to tell us where he went to college. Since he's making fun
> of
> > my
> > > college education and all.
> >
> > I'll do mine, too. I'll put my pathetic diplomas from ASU and UT up
> against
> > his Devry Institute degrees.
>
> Why stop there? With a little image editing you can post degrees from
> Harvard, Yale, MIT, Berkley, Oxford, and so on.
>
> >
> > Oh, Baxter, I am so shamed. You are obviously in possession of a
superior
> > degree. You must be holding back so that we common folk are not
disgraced.
>
> Yeah, you've got a bigger dick. That's really all you're saying.
That's what your wife told me, anyway.
> > Oh horrors! To think Baxter has two degrees and I must shame myself with
a
> > third.
> >
> > I'll have to get that PhD just to stay ahead! Please, hold me, GATT.
> >
> I hear you can get them online from Indian universities for a pittance.
Do you speak from experience?
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 explain
> and predict natural phenomena.
Strange how these bits of information have a way of
changing over time.
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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
>
>
> You obviously have no idea what a scientific theory is if you define it as
> pure assumption. Creationism is pure assumption.
yawn.
>
>
> >
> > > 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
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Buh bye, creationist.
> >
> > OOh, OOch.
>
> Then pick up a different book sometime.
I've read your book, front to cover. Especially revealing is
your current exchange with Baxter/Gatt in this thread.
Quite the level headed grown up... ain'tcha?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
Nev wrote:
> "Roy Jose Lorr" <mosestorah@no-spam> wrote
>
> > I love your pop psyche analyses... keep them coming.
>
> Why gee, Roy... how thoughtful of you! Really, they were no problem at all.
> :o)
Never is, for the pop psychist..
>
>
> 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.
That's the easy excuse for you to use since you don't seem
able to challenge credibly, any of my assertions.
>
>
> However, seeing the error in my ways [you know, suggesting --even
> obliquely-- that you get some 'help': oh silly me!] I will hereafter
> dutifully refrain from flinging such juicy bones your way. Sorry to ruin
> your fun... the festive holiday season and all, you know.
Do you have a tune for that lyric?
>
>
> PS: unlike me you've still not revealed your occupation/s [other than the
> highly informative "retired... rather early"]. Something in your past you're
> embarrassed about, perhaps?
I asked you to continue with the 'pop psyche' and you've
been good enough to accommodate my request. For that
you deserve an honest answer: None of your business.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
"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
explain
> > and predict natural phenomena.
>
> Strange how these bits of information have a way of
> changing over time.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> >
> >
> > You obviously have no idea what a scientific theory is if you define it
as
> > pure assumption. Creationism is pure assumption.
>
> yawn.
Tell me, the, what is the scientific theory of creationism and what evidence
exists that backs it up?
> > Then pick up a different book sometime.
>
> I've read your book, front to cover. Especially revealing is
> your current exchange with Baxter/Gatt in this thread.
> Quite the level headed grown up... ain'tcha?
You have quite a way with diverting the conversation to things that don't
hurt your argument. However, such tactics probably hurt you more than
actually answering the question directed to you.
"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.
Then give me examples of how scientific evidence "changes" (note: additions
to the evidence that clarifies it is not "change").
>
> >
> > 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.
Your ignorance of science is showing. Falsifiable means that there must
exist a way to prove something false. Falsifiability is not transience. In
other words god's (non)existence can not be a scientific theory because
there is no way to show that god does(not) exist. You can prove if gravity
does not exist by empirical evidence, so it is a scientific theory by
definition. The same is not true about creationism. There is no way to prove
that god did or did not have a hand in creating life at some point because
there is no way to prove or disprove scientifically that god does not exist.
Thus we use the scientific method to explain the world around us. Thus
evolution.
WinGuru wrote:
> "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!
> >