|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2
| Re: More bonehead creationist 'science' (was Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145178 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 21:43 |
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:18:00 -0500, George Peatty
<pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> wrotC:DRIVE_E
>God
>could, had he wished, will the universe into existence with a single
>thought.
Then prove to me he did not do this precisely 1 second ago, creating
the universe, and all of us, with false memories of a non-existent
'past'.
If you say "Well, why would God do that?" I point you to your own
statement: He is not bound by human logic.
Therefore, one can imagine God doing damn near anything at all, thus
making the whole concept meaningless.
I'll spare your the trouble of replying by summarizing the rest of
this exchange for you.
"But we know God's will, because it's in the Bible."
"God lied."
"But he said he doesn't lie!"
"He lied about that."
"Why would God lie?"
"Why not? As you said, he's not bound by human logic."
"But we know God is good!"
"Why?"
"He said so!"
"See above."
"And millions of people believe it!"
"So, is truth subject to the vote?"
"Of course not."
"So why mention how many people believe it?"
"Well, they can't ALL be wrong! People have DIED for their belief in
God!"
"There's many millions of people who believe wholly opposite things --
and they've willingly died for them, too. So who is right?"
"Read the Bible! Then you'll understand!"
|
|
|
| Re: More bonehead creationist 'science' (was Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145179 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 22:11 |
|
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:18:00 -0500, George Peatty
<pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:33:01 -0400, Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote:
>
>>> And, you keep putting your head in the sand, refusing to believe anything
>>> that upsets your neat view of reality.
>>
>> Do you believe that the earth was created before the stars?
>
>Obviously, the creation account is implausible as a scientific theory. It
>seems unreasonable, for example, that plant life would be completed on the
>third day, and the stars on the fourth, when it would seem logical that the
>stars would come first.
>
>Couple of points. God is not bound by man's logic,
You have just encapsulated exactly why creationism has no place in
science.
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145181 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 21:56 |
|
George Peatty <pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> writes:
>On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 05:37:08 GMT, jayembee <jayembeenospam [at] snurcher.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Not to mention all of the first born in Egypt.
>
>>Or the babies in the cities of Sodom and Gommorah.
>
>>In both cases, the children were innocent of any wrongdoing, and
>>yet God had them exterminated along with the guilty.
>
>A number of invalid assumptions here.
And you make even worse errors:
>Everyone is born with a sin nature, and that includes children.
No, everyone is born with a *fallen* nature. That is, what we inherit
is the *results* of Adam's fall - mortality.
>We are therefore all guilty before God and that includes children.
No. No. A thousand times no. We are NOT guilty of Adam's sin, nor are
we guilty by inheritence. Each person is guilty of their OWN sins. A
big difference.
>A child in this context is innocent only to the extent
>that God will not impute that guilt, not in any misguided belief that there
>is no guilt to impute.
There is no guilt to impute - guilt comes ONLY when we each sin. We do
suffer physical death because of Adam's sin, but we are NOT guilty of
that sin.
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchus842SP [at] AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145184 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 22:46 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
> I do understand what it means.
>
> Kees
>
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006091951.737b-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:45:18 -0400, Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> A property that you have not demonstrated
> >> >
> >> > I'm not claiming the universe is a closed system, he is.
> >>
> >> And, you have evaded my statement. Declare your assumptions plainly that
> >> we
> >> may examine them, or be ridiculed yourself for waffling and showing
> >> thereby
> >> you lack the understanding to evaluate his claims.
> >
> > What part of "I don't know" are you having trouble with? I for one
> > don't consider it "waffling" to admit that I don't have all of the data to
> > answer a question.
> > And if someone claims that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to
> > the universe, he should understand what that claim *means*. Why is *that*
> > so hard for you to comprehend?
> I do understand what it means.
So how do you know that the universe is a closed system?
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145185 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 22:50 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006102320.29688H-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:59:04 -0400, Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > It does if that creator god refers to the world as being flat.
> >>
> >> I must have missed that. Where in the Bible is it said that the earth is
> >> flat?
> >
> > Circles are flat, and they aren't spheres.
>
> Read the Hebrew.
Why? Will it say "sphere" or "ball" instead of "circle" when
referring to the Earth?
> > A flat earth can have 4 corners, a spherical one can't.
> > A tent can cover a flat earth, it can't cover a sphere.
> > You can see the whole of the earth from a mountaintop if the earth
> > is flat, but not if it's a sphere.
> > Those are just off the top of my head--I'm sure if I looked really hard I
> > could find more examples.
No comment on seeing the whole world from a mountaintop?
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Doing this in a orderly fashion [message #145186 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 22:58 |
|
I've been reading these posts and I believe this discussion is getting out
of hand. The problems are that the same thing gets brought up over and over
and over again and the same replies are giving over and over and over again.
This retyping the same thing becomes a huge waste of time for everyone
involved and accomplishes very litte. So, I'm going to suggest some rules,
because God is a God of order.
1. Discuss only one topic per discussion and clearly denote the topic. I.e.
if we are talking about which came first men or animal, put that in the
subject line and keep the discussion to that, untill we have come to a
conclusion on the topic. If you feel there is a need to bring up a seperate
topic, just write see my discussion under: whatever the topic is.
2. Refrain from calling names. It doesn't do anything but just create an
atmosphere of misunderstanding. I'm not a Bible worshipper, so don't call me
that. I don't call you a communist, unless you've identified yourself as
such.
3. Show respect for one another. This includes using proper capitilization.
4. Don't take each other out of context, it just confuses the matter to the
casual reader and it creates unneccesary discussion.
If you all are willing to continue with these guidelines in mind, I think
this can be a fruitful discussion.
Best,
Kees
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145187 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 22:58 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006081650.737V-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
> >
> >> "Michael Alan Chary" <mchary [at] panix.com> wrote in message
> >> news:di0lfk$j6f$1 [at] reader1.panix.com...
> >> > In article <bu26k15qbbh8sue49m5bm9j5rdl2308qnu [at] 4ax.com>,
> >> > jayembee <jayembeenospam [at] snurcher.com> wrote:
> >> >>George Peatty <pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> That's a belief, not a theory. And you don't even specify which god
> >> >>>> (yahweh, zeus, amaterasu).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It is both, And, it could be tested. In the history of modern
> >> >>> scientific
> >> >>> thought, it was taken for granted for centuries. Only recently,
> >> >>> since
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> so-called "enlightenment" - a misnomer, if ever there was one - has
> >> >>> it
> >> >>> been
> >> >>> questioned.
> >> >>
> >> >>And it was taken for granted for centuries that the Sun revolved around
> >> >>the Earth.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ok, the earth revolves around the sun. That's how God created it. What
> >> does
> >> that have to do with the price of a cup of tea in China?
> >
> > The bible never says this--in fact, it clearly refers to an earth-
> > centered universe. It's bible idolators like yourself who seem to have a
> > problem with the concept that the bible is wrong about some things.
>
> Ok, where does the Bible state that the sun revolves around the earth?
Joshua makes the Sun stand still, which means that it's the one
that's moving. Pretty basic, and a very sensible conclusion.
> And it is is Bible with a capital 'B,' please correct that in future post.
Request denied.
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145188 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 23:05 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006095230.29688C-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:53:24 -0400, Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> That's a belief, not a theory. And you don't even specify which god
> >> >> >(yahweh, zeus, amaterasu).
> >> >>
> >> >> It is both, And, it could be tested.
> >> >
> >> > How?
> >>
> >> You know all that stuff about creationism that you dismiss as
> >> unscientific?
> >> That's how .. It is easy enough, for example, to test whether there is
> >> geologic evidence to support the claim of a universal flood.
> >
> > There isn't. Quite the opposite, in fact.
> >
> >> And, there has
> >> been some research into how all those animals were housed in the Ark.
> >
> > Noah's ark could not possibly float (it's too big). I recall
> > reading that "gopher wood" was an invention of the translators of the
> > King James bible, who being Brits knew that it wasn't possible to make
> > something as large as the ark with real wood.
> > So what actual science journal has published papers describing
> > "how all those animals were housed in the Ark"?
>
> Why are you capitilzing King James, the Brits, the Ark and not the Bible?
> That's not right.
I do it to show my lack of respect and that it bugs you.
> >> The act of creation itself is a bit harder, but there has been some work
> >> done on climactic conditions that existed on antediluvian earth that
> >> indicate, for example, that the biblical statements of the Bible cannot
> >> be
> >> dismissed as scientifically inaccurate.
> >
> > I'm interested in reading this work--what scientific papers, in
> > actual science journals, are you referring to?
Do *you* know of these scientific papers that indicate that the
bible cannot be dismissed as scientifically inaccurate?
> > Meaning, there is no known
> >> scientific phenomena which precludes the account happening as described.
> >
> > Sorry, but science doesn't deal in miracles. It clearly requires
> > miracles to create the entire universe in 6 days, let alone halting the
> > Earth's rotation so one group of people can go on slaughtering others.
> >
>
> Ok, so all of history can be dismissed, because it doesn't confirm to the
> scientif method of proofs?
Why not? You probably think that all of history can be dismissed if
it doesn't confirm to your biblical beliefs.
And besides, we're talking science, not history. Not that the bible
is terribly accurate in that respect either...
> I guess we are not going to believe in a lot of
> history, especially, the older history, because we can't stick it in a
> test-tube and recreate it.
What a sadly ignorant view you have of science. You know what
happened when archaeologists tried to find many of the cities that were
mentioned in the bible? No sign of them.
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145189 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 23:19 |
|
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006165040.20501C-100000 [at] mail...
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>
>>
>> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
>> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006081650.737V-100000 [at] mail...
> Joshua makes the Sun stand still, which means that it's the one
> that's moving. Pretty basic, and a very sensible conclusion.
I'm going to suggest that you contact every newspaper in the USA and the
weather channel and inform them of their unscientific use of the word
"sunrise," because the sun isn't rising the earth is rotating. And while
you're at, I'd suggest that you contact every law enforcement agency and
that we would change the speedlimit to accurately reflect and include the
rotating speed at which cars move, because the earth is rotating at a
certain speed. Also, have them do it in the Metric system if they are going
to change all of that anyways, because I believe in the Metric System every
inch of the way!
>
>> And it is is Bible with a capital 'B,' please correct that in future
>> post.
>
> Request denied.
>
> --
> Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
> "I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
> Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
> Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
> violent." -- Dan Savage
>
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145190 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 23:20 |
|
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006165040.20501C-100000 [at] mail...
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>> And it is is Bible with a capital 'B,' please correct that in future
>> post.
>
> Request denied.
Then by not recoginizing Christ as God and His Word, you might be denied
request into heaven.
>
> --
> Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
> "I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
> Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
> Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
> violent." -- Dan Savage
>
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145191 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 23:33 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006100030.29688D-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:53:24 -0400, Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Actualy scientific inquiry (as we understand the word today) didn't
> >> >start *until* the enlightenment.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. Modern scientific inquiry goes back before Aristotle. The
> >> modern
> >> day scientific renaissance began with Copernicus. It is only the
> >> bankrupt
> >> heuristic framework which systematically excludes God from scientific
> >> inquiry which began with the enlightenment.
> >
> > How is excluding unrepeatable, supernatural explanations
> > unscientific? How do you test a miracle?
>
> You can't.
Which is why they don't belong anywhere near science.
> How do you test the one time existance of Alexander the Great?
> You can't with the scientific method.
You are either bearing false witness or you are woefully ignorant
of the scientific method. Or possibly both.
There is plenty of evidence outside of
> the scientific method. You are like someone, who doesn't believe in travel,
> because you can't travel with an oven. You use a car for that. Likewise the
> scientific method has its place, but not in history.
> >
> >> Further, the very framework has been used by the unchurched to invalidate
> >> the very existence of God, or the acts attributed to him in Holy Writ.
> >> Such
> >> that, for example, the Big Bang proves the creation account is false, or
> >> evolution proves that the creation account is false.
> >
> > The Big Bang and the fact of evolution prove that a literal
> > interpretation of the bible (i.e. the Earth is only a few thousand years
> > old) is wrong.
>
> The "fact" of evilution???? Excuse me????????????
Yes, the fact of evolution. Species change over time. How is that
controversial?
Was that a deliberate misspelling of "evolution"? If so, then stop
lecturing me about capitalizing god or the bible or be revealed as the great
hypocrite that you are.
> >> In short, the game has been rigged. Scientific evidence is cited to
> >> discredit biblical accounts, and any attempt to gather scientific
> >> evidence
> >> in support of those accounts is branded a priori as unscientific ..
> >
> > Not so--it's just that all of the explanations that creationists
> > come up with are much more easily explained by natural processes.
> >
> The easy explanation might not be a correct explanation.
Actually, creation *is* the easy explanation, and it was *the*
explanation for centuries. It wasn't until the 1700's (a century before
Darwin) that scientists figured out that the Earth had to be far older
than the bible said (based on geology, not biology).
> >> Newton was a creationist; Galileo was a creationist, Kepler was a
> >> creationist.
> >
> > Appeal to authority may work for bible idolators such as yourself,
> > but scientists find that reality is the ultimate authority.
> >
> Quit calling us "bible idolators."
It's what you are. You believe the bible cannot possibly be wrong,
which sounds like idolatry to me.
> What if I started calling you a
> communist, because certain of your views are the same as the communists
> have?
When have I quoted (let alone espoused) communist doctrine?
I have publically expressed a belief in god (just not yours);
doesn't that disqualify me as a communist? Or is it that anyone who
doesn't believe in your definition of god is an atheist?
> >> They had no problem seeing God at work within their scientific
> >> inquiries. Why can't you?
> >
> > I don't--I also don't feel the need to accept your personal vision
> > of god as *the* god (in fact I find your biblical literalist god to be a
> > blodthirsty, vindictive monster).
> >
> And you will pay for that.....
Getting a hard-on picturing me suffering for all eternity? Damn,
you're one sick bastard, but I don't hate you--I pity you.
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145192 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 23:40 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006084254.737X-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> >> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051005112241.11480V-100000 [at] mail...
> >> > On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'm glad you wouldn't murder babies.
> >> >
> >> > Me neither, but the god of the bible did.
> >>
> >> Oh, yeah? Where?
> >
> > Noah's flood (GE 6-7).
> > First-born of Egypt (Ex 12:29).
> > God sent wild beasts to eat children (LE 26:22).
> > God caused the earth to swallow up a bunch of people, including
> > women & children (NU 16:27-33).
> > God okays destroying all of the Caananites (NU 21:3).
> > God okays slaying all of the people of Og (NU 21:35).
> > God okays slaying all of the Midianite people, but the Israelites
> > can keep the virgin girls for themselves (NU 31:17-18).
> > God okays slaying all of those of Sihon (DT 2:33-34).
> > God again okays killing everyone of Og (DT 3:6).
> > God says it's okay to slay everything that's living if he says so
> > (DT 7:2).
> > God again says to kill everything living (DT 20:16).
> > God okays killing everyone in Jericho (JS 6:21-27).
> > God okays Joshua "utterly destroying" the Gibeonites (JS 10:10-27),
> > the people of Makkedah (JS 10:28), the Libhanites (JS 10:30), the people
> > of Lachish (JS 10:32-33), the Eglonites (JS 10:34-35), the Hebronites
> > (JS 10:36-37) and the Debirites (JS 10:38-39).
> >
> > There's more, but I'm getting disgusted by the unholy bloodlust your
> > god of the bible exhibits.
> >
> >> And it is God with a captial "G" and Bible with a capital "B."
> >
> > Neither of them are worthy of it.
>
> I'm not sure that I should continue talking with you then.
All of the blood on your god's hands is making your stomach turn?
Good for you--there's hope for you yet! Just remember that empathy for
your fellow humans is a *good* thing.
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145193 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 23:43 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006090623.737Z-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
> >
> >> Genesis 2 wasn't written from a Chronological standpoint.
> >
> > Sure it was--god created man, *then* he created animals (because man
> > was alone). In GE 1:20, god creates birds before beasts (different day),
> > while in GE 2:19 god creates both of them at the same time.
> >
> >> Sort of like me saying that in the Sixties men landed on the moon,
> >> President
> >> Kennedy was shot and the Beatles made it big. It's a true statement, it's
> >> not made from a Chronological standpoint.
> >
> > No, that's not like it at all. Genesis 2 makes clear statements
> > that plants came first, then man, then all of the animals.
>
> See my earlier post.
That was a dodge, not an answer.
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145194 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 23:50 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006113319.29688R-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:24:41 -0400, Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > What do all of the atrocities in the bible reveal to you about the
> >> >nature of your god?
> >>
> >> I don't have a god,
> >
> > Then why so interested in the bible?
>
> Notice everyone that Jim Phillips pulls even statements on this newsgroup
> out of context.
It was such a surprising statement that I thought I'd give you the
chance to elaborate upon it. Or were you not serious, even though you said
that you'd be serious?
> Why would anyone finish a sentence with a comma?
Because they wanted to comment on the statement that preceded he
comma.
> This
> clearly shows that Jim (Oh, and I courteous enough to capitilize his name)
You don't have to if you don't want to (oops, did I just confuse you
with this comment?).
> is not being honest, but is just pulling things out of context, because he
> wants to justify his life without God. Jim just got caught red handed.
No I didn't. And I don't have a life without God, I have a life
without *your* monstrous, bloodthirsty demon. You're welcome to join me,
but I think he's got you, and that's just plain sad.
> >> but what the Bible tells me about God is, like he told
> >> Job, he is more than I will ever understand.
> >
> > What a cop-out--the god of the bible commits unspeakable atrocities,
> > and you apologize for it with "god works in mysterious ways".
Oh, now I understand--you didn't want to answer my points, so you
desperately searched for something to distract from this avoidance.
> > I trust with all my heart in
> >> one simple truth: based on my beliefs and God's promises,
> >
> > So you do have a god--why did you lie about it above? Do you often
> > lie about god so readily?
I don't really blame you for dodging this question--I'm sure it
makes you feel very uncomfortable.
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145195 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 23:51 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006105714.29688L-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 05:30:31 GMT, jayembee <jayembeenospam [at] snurcher.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >No, it doesn't, actually. All my "skewed" view of science tells me is
> >> >that there
> >> >is not one shred of proof, not one shred of evidence that some Supreme
> >> >Being created the Universe.
> >>
> >> Sure there is. Assume the universe cannot sustain itself.
> >
> > I reject that assumption. If you have to make such an assumption,
> > why not simply assume that god exists and skip the middle steps?
>
> Sounds like a good idea. Have child like faith.
It's honest in comparison to misusing the 2nd law of thermo.
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145196 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 23:54 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006121019.29688T-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> >> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051005183643.737D-100000 [at] mail...
> >> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
> >> > The inquisition killed Christians. It was not done by other Christians.
> >> > A
> >> >> Christian is someone, who has placed their faith in Christ to save
> >> >> them.
> >> >
> >> > But everyone involved claimed to be a christian. How do you know
> >> > that the inquisitors weren't christians, or that the persecuted were?
> >> >
> >>
> >> See the definition as to who is a Christian.
> >
> > Which one? What do *you* think the definition of a "christian"
> > is?
>
> See my earlier posts. It is someone, who realizes that they have sinned and
> they could never enter heaven without Christ and they put their trust in
> what Christ did on the cross by dying for them.
Are there any other definitions or elaborations that you consider
necessary?
And why aren't Catholics christians? They believe the same thing.
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145197 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 23:54 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006121901.29688U-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> >> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051005185101.737F-100000 [at] mail...
> >> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051005101957.11480K-100000 [at] mail...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What do all of the atrocities in the bible reveal to you about the
> >> >> > nature of your god?
> >> >>
> >> >> They reveal that God understands the nature of men and they reveal the
> >> >> consequences of sin.
> >> >
> >> > What does it reveal about your god when it's clear that he commanded
> >> > so much of the slaughter be done?
> >>
> >> Yes, God did have certain nations wiped out from the face of the earth.
> >> If
> >> you read what the habits of those nations were, it makes sense. It'd be
> >> like
> >> removing a cancer.
> >
> > A lot of babies died, but that's okay, god wanted them all to die,
> > right? Sorry, but "bloodthirsty monster" is a better description than
> > "god
> > works in mysterious ways".
> >
>
> Those babies went to heaven.
Where does it say that in the bible?
What about the other children--was there a cut-off age?
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: Doing this in a orderly fashion [message #145198 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 23:56 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:58:18 -0400, Kees Boer wrote:
> I've been reading these posts and I believe this discussion is getting out
> of hand. The problems are that the same thing gets brought up over and over
> and over again and the same replies are giving over and over and over again.
> This retyping the same thing becomes a huge waste of time for everyone
> involved and accomplishes very litte. So, I'm going to suggest some rules,
> because God is a God of order.
>
> 1. Discuss only one topic per discussion and clearly denote the topic. I.e.
> if we are talking about which came first men or animal, put that in the
> subject line and keep the discussion to that, untill we have come to a
> conclusion on the topic. If you feel there is a need to bring up a seperate
> topic, just write see my discussion under: whatever the topic is.
>
> 2. Refrain from calling names. It doesn't do anything but just create an
> atmosphere of misunderstanding. I'm not a Bible worshipper, so don't call me
> that. I don't call you a communist, unless you've identified yourself as
> such.
>
> 3. Show respect for one another. This includes using proper capitilization.
>
> 4. Don't take each other out of context, it just confuses the matter to the
> casual reader and it creates unneccesary discussion.
>
> If you all are willing to continue with these guidelines in mind, I think
> this can be a fruitful discussion.
>
> Best,
>
> Kees
We are all just blowing off steam here [at least I am]. Take your rules and
go away.
--
All men are created equal; unfortunately all men are not created with equal
opportunity.
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145199 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 23:40 |
|
Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> writes:
>On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>> Ok, where does the Bible state that the sun revolves around the earth?
>
> Joshua makes the Sun stand still, which means that it's the one
>that's moving. Pretty basic, and a very sensible conclusion.
Jim - this is pretty lame, actually. In English, we use terms like
'sunrise' and 'sunset' and similar terms, when we know for a fact
that the sun is not rising or setting, but that the earth is rotating.
We also talk about stars transiting the night sky, constellations rising
and setting, the sun being 'in' a constellation, and a whole host of
other things that aren't scientifically 'accurate' - at least not when
taken literally.
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchus842SP [at] AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145200 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 23:58 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Jim Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 10:50:56 -0400, Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Genesis 1:20-27: God made animals before he made man.
> > >Genesis 2:9 & 2:18-20: God made animals after man.
> >
> > I don't get this one:
> >
> > Gen 2:19-20
> >
> > 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field
> > and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he
> > would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was
> > its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the
> > air and all the beasts of the field.
> > NIV
> >
> > 2:19 is clearly past tense. Again, no timeline is explicitly declared,
> > certainly none that would support a claim that the animals were made after
> > man.
>
> Hmm...you may have something there. Well, one contradiction down,
> plenty more to go.
I hardly ever reply to my own message, but I'd like to withdraw my
concession of this point, since someone posted 2:18, which clearly refers'
to creating the animals in the present, rather than the past. I guess I'll
have to check any other quotes you present to see if theyre misleading.
> How did Judas die?
I'd still like to know, btw.
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145201 ] |
Do, 06 Oktober 2005 23:38 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006100826.29688E-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:53:24 -0400, Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "God" doesn't make testable claims, so it's out in terms of science.
> >> >The *only* time science pays attention to god is when his followers make
> >> >testable claims, such as a literal interpretation of genesis. Such a
> >> >claim
> >> >is easy to demolish.
> >>
> >> You ain't done it yet, and no one else has, either. Those claims have
> >> withstood all attempts to undermine them for nearly four millennia.
> >> There
> >> isn't a single bit of empirical evidence, or a single scientific theory
> >> that
> >> refutes, obfuscates, or undermines the least statement in Scripture.
> >
> > The universe is older than a few thousand years.
> > Birds did not come about before other land animals.
> > The Earth did not exist before the stars.
> > Humans were not created separate from all of the other animals,
> > humans are animals by any sensible definition.
> > There was no water above and below the primordial Earth; the folks
> > who wrote the bible thought that rain came from waters above the earth and
> > well water came from waters below the earth.
> >
> Why is it impossible for God to create these things with and apparent age?
It's not; nor is it impossible for god to have created the universe
this morning, complete with apparent age and false memories. The problem
with this is that it means your god is deceitful--are you okay with that?
> Remember Adam and Eve were created not as babies. Thus a week after the
> creation, you would not be able to come to the conclusion what came first,
> because God gave them an age to start off with. I.e. trees had rings. God
> spoke and it came to be.
The god of the bible made it look like the earth is billions of
years old--that's deceit. If you want your god to be that way, that's up
to you.
> > There are more contradictions between what we know and what the
> > bible claims--these are a few of the contradictions from Genesis 1 off
> > the top of my head.
> >
> > Since
> >> science makes no claim to absolute truth in the first place, it is
> >> impossible that it could be used in an effort to undermine that which is
> >> declared to be absolute truth.
> >
> > So *anything* that claims to be "absolute truth" *is* absolute
> > truth???
> >
> No, it can be tested.
How do you test "absolute truth"?
snip
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: Doing this in a orderly fashion [message #145203 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 00:32 |
|
Kees Boer wrote:
> I've been reading these posts
Why?
And what does any of it have to do with Star Trek?
|
|
|
| Re: More bonehead creationist 'science' (was Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145204 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 00:36 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006073839.737Q-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:33:01 -0400, Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> And, you keep putting your head in the sand, refusing to believe
> >> >> anything
> >> >> that upsets your neat view of reality.
> >> >
> >> > Do you believe that the earth was created before the stars?
> >>
> >> No actually, and the Bible does not say that. The Hebrew word bara which
> >> is
> >> best understood as ex nihilo creation is not used in Genesis 1:16, but
> >> the
> >> word translated made might better be understood as fashioned. In the
> >> sense
> >> of put the finishing touches on.
> >
> > Earth is explicitly mentioned in Genesis 1:10 as being created on
> > the 3rd day. Genesis 1:14 refers to the ceation of "lights in the
> > firmament
> > of the heaven" (stars) that were created on the 4th day.
>
> Yes, Earth onf the 3rd, the stars on the fourth. So?????
The stars are older than the Earth.
> >
> >> Personally, I believe that the stars in crude form came into existence at
> >> Genesis 1:3,
> >
> > Even though they are specifically mentioned as being created on the
> > 4th day. I guess you don't take the bible literally.
> >
> Yes, I take it literally.
Obviously you are in error, since a "crude form" of stars is not
mentioned anywhere in Genesis.
> >> and this is the closest that we'll ever get to theological
> >> support for modern cosmological theory.
> >
> Then modern cosmological theory is wrong.
Why? Merely because it doesn't agree with the fairy story in the
bible? That's no reason.
> > There are eastern religions that do a better job of matching
> > theology with modern cosmology.
> >
> No suprise, same source.
Huh? Eastern religions come from modern cosmology???
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: Doing this in a orderly fashion [message #145205 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 00:37 |
|
In rec.arts.tv on Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:58:18 -0400 in Msg.#
<Kdg1f.3233$eW1.2160 [at] okepread04>, "Kees Boer"
<keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote:
> I've been reading these posts and I believe this discussion is getting out
> of hand. The problems are that the same thing gets brought up over and over
> and over again and the same replies are giving over and over and over again.
> This retyping the same thing becomes a huge waste of time for everyone
> involved and accomplishes very litte. So, I'm going to suggest some rules,
> because God is a God of order.
Where's your suggestion about cross posting?
Newsgroups:
alt.battlestar-galactica,
rec.arts.sf.tv,
alt.startrek,
alt.tv.scifi.channel,
rec.arts.tv,
alt.politics,
alt.politics.homosexuality,
rec.arts.drwho
--
Donna B 8^> shallotpeel <*>
|
|
|
| Re: More bonehead creationist 'science' (was Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145206 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 00:44 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006074512.737R-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:33:01 -0400, Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> And, you keep putting your head in the sand, refusing to believe
> >> >> anything
> >> >> that upsets your neat view of reality.
> >> >
> >> > Do you believe that the earth was created before the stars?
> >>
> >> Obviously, the creation account is implausible as a scientific theory.
> >
> > Agreed--christian fundamentalists should stop trying to get it
> > taught as such.
>
> Ok, evilutionists should stop trying to teach evilution to our children in
> the public school.
Does it strike you as at all hypocritical for you to complain that I
don't capitalize "god" or the "bible" but that you deliberately misspell the
word "evolution"?
> It's just an hypotheses.
What's wrong with being "an explanation that accounts for a set of
facts and that can be tested by further investigation", anyway? That's a
lot more than young-earth creationists or intelligent designers have been
able to do. is that it--are you jealous of evolution's success?
> It's not proven.
Neither has god. Besides, evolution has been observed.
> >> Couple of points. God is not bound by man's logic, and just because man
> >> couldn't or wouldn't do something in a certain way, doesn't preclude God
> >> from doing it that way.
> >
> > Apologizing for god? Sorry, but when I hear a fundamentalist saying
> > that a really stupid idea is "god's work" or that "god works in mysterious
> > ways", I smell a cop-out.
>
> No, God's ways are beyond our ways, that's one thing about being God. It's
> like my ways are beyond the ways of a fly. They have no idea why I do what I
> do.
As I said, a cop-out. God can do *anything* and you won't have the
courage to call him on it.
> >> Further, by definition the creation account applies
> >> infinite power backed by infinite will and guided by infinite knowledge.
> >> God
> >> could, had he wished, will the universe into existence with a single
> >> thought.
> >
> > He could have done it last Tuesday, complete with memories of the
> > past. He's that powerful.
>
> Yup. You're starting to get it.
You don't seem to "get" that a god that does that is deceitful.
Such a god isn't worthy of your worship.
> >> One day, he will do exactly that ..
> >
> > Whatever--so long as you don't try to get it taught in a classroom,
> > have fun with your delusions
>
> Oh, I teach it in my classroom all the time. I'm a teacher. .
Frightening thought. I certainly hope it's not a public school.
It's okay if you teach at a church school--society needs janitors and
convenience store clerks, so they have to come from somewhere.
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: More bonehead creationist 'science' (was Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145207 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 00:46 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>
> "Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006074952.737S-100000 [at] mail...
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, George Peatty wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 11:33:01 -0400, Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > He's not the one that believes in talking serpents.
> >>
> >> Oh, yeah. I not only believe in talking serpents, but talking donkeys
> >> and
> >> talking rocks, too. And, rocks that breed, and rocks that produce water,
> >> and rocks that become bread. All that stuff.
> >
> > Then stop accusing other people of believing in fables; I believe
> > there's even a biblical quote about this situation...
>
> We don't believe in fables.
Talking snakes are found in children's fables, not in real life.
> You're the one that does that, quoting Savage at
> the end. I wonder if the name is an accident.
Do you even know who he is?
--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"I would bring up Ann Coulter's comment about blowing up the New York
Times...there's a lot of hateful, violent rhetoric that spews from the
Right. The Left is snide and sarcastic, the Right is dangerous and
violent." -- Dan Savage
|
|
|
| Re: More bonehead creationist 'science' (was Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145208 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 01:32 |
|
"Jim Phillips" <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1051006183615.20501V-100000 [at] mail...
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:
>>> Oh, I teach it in my classroom all the time. I'm a teacher. .
>
> Frightening thought. I certainly hope it's not a public school.
> It's okay if you teach at a church school--society needs janitors and
> convenience store clerks, so they have to come from somewhere.
>
I've taught at a Community College, High Schools and currently I teach
Algebra II, Survey of Calculus and AP Calculus at a High School. I teach
them from a Biblical worldview.
Kees
|
|
|
| Re: More bonehead creationist 'science' (was Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145209 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 01:43 |
|
"Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote:
>I've taught at a Community College, High Schools and currently I teach
>Algebra II, Survey of Calculus and AP Calculus at a High School. I teach
>them from a Biblical worldview.
Fascinating, wanna explain how these subjects are taught from a
Biblical worldview?
|
|
|
| Re: Doing this in a orderly fashion [message #145210 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 01:48 |
|
"Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
news:Kdg1f.3233$eW1.2160 [at] okepread04...
> I've been reading these posts and I believe this discussion is getting out
> of hand. The problems are that the same thing gets brought up over and
over
> and over again and the same replies are giving over and over and over
again.
> This retyping the same thing becomes a huge waste of time for everyone
> involved and accomplishes very litte. So, I'm going to suggest some rules,
> because God is a God of order.
>
> 1. Discuss only one topic per discussion and clearly denote the topic.
I.e.
> if we are talking about which came first men or animal, put that in the
> subject line and keep the discussion to that, untill we have come to a
> conclusion on the topic. If you feel there is a need to bring up a
seperate
> topic, just write see my discussion under: whatever the topic is.
>
> 2. Refrain from calling names. It doesn't do anything but just create an
> atmosphere of misunderstanding. I'm not a Bible worshipper, so don't call
me
> that. I don't call you a communist, unless you've identified yourself as
> such.
>
> 3. Show respect for one another. This includes using proper
capitilization.
>
> 4. Don't take each other out of context, it just confuses the matter to
the
> casual reader and it creates unneccesary discussion.
>
> If you all are willing to continue with these guidelines in mind, I think
> this can be a fruitful discussion.
All very good, but you forgot;
"Quit cross posting this "discussion" to NGs where it's OFF TOPIC! Oh like
the Dr Who and Star Trek ones, where no gives a shit!"
Don't feed the trolls!
--
Qa'pla
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
|
|
|
| Re: More bonehead creationist 'science' (was Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #145211 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 01:58 |
|
Absolutely. Especially in Mathematics, we can see absolute truth, that's
because God is the God of order and He has created and designed the world
with absolute truths in them. This can easily be reflected in sciences such
as Mathematics.
Other disciplines such as history, etc... can also be approached from a
Biblical viewpoint, such as the founding of the United States, what was
really meant by seperation of church and state when originally penned, how
did the Reformation affect history, what is the difference between the
Hebrew and Greek method of learning.
Hebrews for instance learned based on the written revelation of God's Word.
The Greeks based their learning on purely reason and observation. The
Hebrews reasoned from truth, the Greeks reasoned to truth. One was
inductive, the other was deductive reasoning.
It's a totally different approach to learning.
Kees
"Steve" <mhyt [at] fpoh.inv> wrote in message
news:jidbk1p4ujqjgr2u4d9j8lovg35le8amlo [at] 4ax.com...
> "Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote:
>>I've taught at a Community College, High Schools and currently I teach
>>Algebra II, Survey of Calculus and AP Calculus at a High School. I teach
>>them from a Biblical worldview.
>
> Fascinating, wanna explain how these subjects are taught from a
> Biblical worldview?
|
|
|
| Re: Doing this in a orderly fashion [message #145212 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 02:12 |
|
Kweeg wrote:
> "Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
> news:Kdg1f.3233$eW1.2160 [at] okepread04...
>>If you all are willing to continue with these guidelines in mind, I think
>>this can be a fruitful discussion.
>
>
> All very good, but you forgot;
> "Quit cross posting this "discussion" to NGs where it's OFF TOPIC! Oh like
> the Dr Who and Star Trek ones, where no gives a shit!"
Thank you, Kweeg.
It's certainly *all* off-topic for alt.startrek, where this continuing
John-Shocked-and-friends intrusion/invasion is completely unwelcome.
But you people all know that.
Alt.startrek has been here a long time and we have seen many troll
invasions come and go. You too shall eventually go, and we will still
be here.
|
|
|
| Re: Doing this in a orderly fashion [message #145214 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 02:16 |
|
Your first week on usenet, eh?
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
|
|
|
| Re: Doing this in a orderly fashion [message #145216 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 02:20 |
|
in article 3m9bk1dsilo7ak4gdml22e7hlcnkb3df6t [at] 4ax.com, Donna B at
shallotpeel [at] delphiforums.com wrote on 10/6/05 3:37 PM:
> In rec.arts.tv on Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:58:18 -0400 in Msg.#
> <Kdg1f.3233$eW1.2160 [at] okepread04>, "Kees Boer"
> <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote:
>
>> I've been reading these posts and I believe this discussion is getting out
>> of hand. The problems are that the same thing gets brought up over and over
>> and over again and the same replies are giving over and over and over again.
>> This retyping the same thing becomes a huge waste of time for everyone
>> involved and accomplishes very litte. So, I'm going to suggest some rules,
>> because God is a God of order.
>
> Where's your suggestion about cross posting?
>
> Newsgroups:
> alt.battlestar-galactica,
> rec.arts.sf.tv,
> alt.startrek,
> alt.tv.scifi.channel,
> rec.arts.tv,
> alt.politics,
> alt.politics.homosexuality,
> rec.arts.drwho
Or having a useful subject line?
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
|
|
|
| Re: Doing this in a orderly fashion [message #145217 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 02:25 |
|
Actually been on here since 1994.
Kees
"ANIM8Rfsk" <ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net> wrote in message
news:BF6B0C76.55F12%ANIM8Rfsk [at] cox.net...
> Your first week on usenet, eh?
>
>
>
> --
>
> You Can't Stop the Signal
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Doing this in a orderly fashion [message #145218 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 02:26 |
|
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:12:49 -0400, ToolPackinMama wrote:
> Kweeg wrote:
>
>> "Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
>> news:Kdg1f.3233$eW1.2160 [at] okepread04...
>
>>>If you all are willing to continue with these guidelines in mind, I think
>>>this can be a fruitful discussion.
>>
>>
>> All very good, but you forgot;
>> "Quit cross posting this "discussion" to NGs where it's OFF TOPIC! Oh like
>> the Dr Who and Star Trek ones, where no gives a shit!"
>
> Thank you, Kweeg.
>
> It's certainly *all* off-topic for alt.startrek, where this continuing
> John-Shocked-and-friends intrusion/invasion is completely unwelcome.
>
> But you people all know that.
>
> Alt.startrek has been here a long time and we have seen many troll
> invasions come and go. You too shall eventually go, and we will still
> be here.
Resistance is futile.
--
All men are created equal; unfortunately all men are not created with equal
opportunity.
|
|
|
| Re: Doing this in a orderly fashion [message #145219 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 02:30 |
|
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:12:49 -0400, ToolPackinMama wrote:
> Kweeg wrote:
>
>> "Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
>> news:Kdg1f.3233$eW1.2160 [at] okepread04...
>
>>>If you all are willing to continue with these guidelines in mind, I think
>>>this can be a fruitful discussion.
>>
>>
>> All very good, but you forgot;
>> "Quit cross posting this "discussion" to NGs where it's OFF TOPIC! Oh like
>> the Dr Who and Star Trek ones, where no gives a shit!"
>
> Thank you, Kweeg.
>
> It's certainly *all* off-topic for alt.startrek, where this continuing
> John-Shocked-and-friends intrusion/invasion is completely unwelcome.
>
> But you people all know that.
>
> Alt.startrek has been here a long time and we have seen many troll
> invasions come and go. You too shall eventually go, and we will still
> be here.
Good to see you here Mama. I always got a kick out of your posts in the
Trek NGs. Do you come here by way of hyperdimensional transwarp posting or
did the Star Trek NG get swallowed up by a gravimetric anomaly when
Enterprise was axed and all traffic is routed here until Picard and B4
figure out how to break the causality loop?
--
All men are created equal; unfortunately all men are not created with equal
opportunity.
|
|
|
| Re: Doing this in a orderly fashion [message #145220 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 02:37 |
|
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 16:58:18 -0400, "Kees Boer"
<keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote:
>I've been reading these posts and I believe this discussion is getting out
>of hand. The problems are that the same thing gets brought up over and over
>and over again and the same replies are giving over and over and over again.
>This retyping the same thing becomes a huge waste of time for everyone
>involved and accomplishes very litte. So, I'm going to suggest some rules,
>because God is a God of order.
>
>1. Discuss only one topic per discussion and clearly denote the topic. I.e.
>if we are talking about which came first men or animal, put that in the
>subject line and keep the discussion to that, untill we have come to a
>conclusion on the topic. If you feel there is a need to bring up a seperate
>topic, just write see my discussion under: whatever the topic is.
>
>2. Refrain from calling names. It doesn't do anything but just create an
>atmosphere of misunderstanding. I'm not a Bible worshipper, so don't call me
>that. I don't call you a communist, unless you've identified yourself as
>such.
>
>3. Show respect for one another. This includes using proper capitilization.
>
>4. Don't take each other out of context, it just confuses the matter to the
>casual reader and it creates unneccesary discussion.
>
>If you all are willing to continue with these guidelines in mind, I think
>this can be a fruitful discussion.
>
>Best,
>
>Kees
>
Nice troll!
Cheers,
Jaime
|
|
|
| Re: Doing this in a orderly fashion [message #145221 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 03:03 |
|
"Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
news:Kdg1f.3233$eW1.2160 [at] okepread04...
>
> If you all are willing to continue with these guidelines in mind, I think this can be a fruitful
> discussion.
>
No worries, Dad!
|
|
|
| Re: Doing this in a orderly fashion [message #145222 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 03:05 |
|
"Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
news:kgj1f.3240$eW1.1041 [at] okepread04...
> Actually been on here since 1994.
>
> Kees
>
Struth! Isn't your bum sore by now?
|
|
|
| Re: Doing this in a orderly fashion [message #145224 ] |
Fr, 07 Oktober 2005 03:38 |
|
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 20:12:49 -0400, ToolPackinMama wrote:
> Kweeg wrote:
>
>> "Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
>> news:Kdg1f.3233$eW1.2160 [at] okepread04...
>
>>>If you all are willing to continue with these guidelines in mind, I think
>>>this can be a fruitful discussion.
>>
>>
>> All very good, but you forgot;
>> "Quit cross posting this "discussion" to NGs where it's OFF TOPIC! Oh like
>> the Dr Who and Star Trek ones, where no gives a shit!"
>
> Thank you, Kweeg.
>
> It's certainly *all* off-topic for alt.startrek, where this continuing
> John-Shocked-and-friends intrusion/invasion is completely unwelcome.
>
> But you people all know that.
>
> Alt.startrek has been here a long time and we have seen many troll
> invasions come and go. You too shall eventually go, and we will still
> be here.
BTW, I am reading your post in at.fan.rushlimbaugh... Hmmmm.
--
All men are created equal; unfortunately all men are not created with equal
opportunity.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 16:30:54 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,11237 Sekunden |
