Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2

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

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #147678 ]

Do, 13 Oktober 2005 05:41

John Shocked

"jayembee" <jayembeenospam [at] snurcher.com> wrote in message news:usgrk1dtqe1e73jjvpg9ags3rerg7ef6k1 [at] 4ax.com...
> "John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> What does this have to do with the clear intent of BSG Hollywood
>> Homosexuals to sell Sodomy to you and your kids in the script and
>> storyline of BSG and other fake science fiction TV series ?
> Not a single fucking thing. But since I also don't believe a single fucking
> thing you're babbling about, it all works out.
> -- jayembee

Religion is based on Nature.
Morality is based on Nature.
That is the relationship between the two concepts.
The exact machinations of each particular religion have little to do with the universal condemnation
of homosexuality as Immoral.

============================================================ =
News Bulletin from www.scifi.com :

http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue390/news.html

==================search 2/3 down page=============================
Gaylactic Awards Presented
Organizers announced the winners of the Gaylactic Spectrum Awards,
created by the Gaylactic Network, an organization for gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender fans of SF, fantasy and horror.
The awards honor works that deal positively with gay characters,
themes and issues.
The Gaylactic Spectrum Awards Foundation was created in 2002 to
manage and further the mission of the awards to educate and raise
awareness of such content in SF&F. Awards were presented in three
categories for works originally released in 2003.
The 2004 Gaylactic Spectrum Awards were presented at the World
Science Fiction Convention in Boston on Sept. 5. A list of winners follows.
Best Novel
.. The Salt Roads by Nalo Hopkinson
Best Short Fiction
.. "Lark Till Dawn, Princess" by Barth Anderson
Best Other Work
.. Angels in America, by Tony Kushner, HBO, et al.
.. Gotham Central: Half a Life (issues 6-10), by Greg Rucka and Michael Lark
============================================================ ====

Politics

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #147691 ]

Do, 13 Oktober 2005 12:07

Richard Hudson

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:19:28 GMT, jayembee
<jayembeenospam [at] snurcher.com> wrote:

>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What does this have to do with the clear intent of BSG Hollywood
>> Homosexuals to sell Sodomy to you and your kids in the script and
>> storyline of BSG and other fake science fiction TV series ?
>
>Not a single fucking thing. But since I also don't believe a single fucking
>thing you're babbling about, it all works out.
>
>-- jayembee

Does anyone else thing that "John Shocked" is actually a liberal
posting this garbage in order to make conservatives look bad?

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #147693 ]

Do, 13 Oktober 2005 12:57

John Shocked

"Richard Hudson" <Rhudson765 [at] snet.net> wrote in message news:4dcsk198rofvc6339p6ol23ug21d34i51m [at] 4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:19:28 GMT, jayembee
> <jayembeenospam [at] snurcher.com> wrote:
>>"John Shocked" <jshocked [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> What does this have to do with the clear intent of BSG Hollywood
>>> Homosexuals to sell Sodomy to you and your kids in the script and
>>> storyline of BSG and other fake science fiction TV series ?
>>Not a single fucking thing. But since I also don't believe a single fucking thing you're babbling about, it all works out.
>>-- jayembee
> Does anyone else thing that "John Shocked" is actually a liberal posting this garbage in order to make conservatives look bad?

This guy must have just checked in. Here is the truth:

============================================================ ==============
One of the reasons the Hollywood Homosexuals behind Battlestar Galactica are pushing Sodomy symbolisms in BSG
is because they would desperately like to reverse some of the following results which they encountered in all
11 states in the US on November 3 2004 (US election day) which had Ballot Questions (plebiscital votes by
voters in a state controlling their own state's laws) on the Homosexual Marriage agenda. So if you are
watching your favorite science fiction show and then you notice something in the script which does not make
sense, it may be that it was time for Word From BSG's Sponsor, the Hollywood Homosexuals who are using the
script as their advertisement vehicle.

Homosexuals have had control of Hollywood since around 1992, when Clinton (and Jerry Brown) ran for President
the first time. Even though they have been pushing their agenda hard for all these years, they are yet to win
a single statewide vote. Clinton took homosexual money in 1992 and as soon as he was inaugurated started to
implement policies that he was bought and paid to implement -- Gays In The Military, in 1993. This was an
intense unpopular policy initiative, shocked the public, and resulted in the Democrats losing both Houses of
Congress in 1994, and started a series of investigations into Clinton's personal life, resulting finally in
his Impeachment in 1998. John Kerry (Democrat 2004 Presidential Candidate) again took homosexual money in the
2004 election year. Democrats do not have many sources of money, representing the poorer segments of society.
Since Kerry was from the state of Massachusetts, a state which earlier in 2004 legalized Homosexual Marriage
through a corrupt bribed out Judges judicial decision (not a vote by its legislature) the onus was on John
Kerry to separate himself from this suicidal issue in a very public manner.

However, because Kerry took Hollywood Homosexual money in the 2004 year and before, he simply was not able to
do that. Thus in a year when Kerry was running for President against George W. Bush, who had a terrible
record, who had had the Economy collapse early in his first year (2001) and it stayed that way till mid 2004,
who also failed to prevent the 9-11 Attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, who lied to drag the US into a
war against Iraq, when his allegations that Iraq had Weapons Of Mass Destruction were false and various other
failures, Kerry still could not win because of the Homosexual agenda ball and chain around his neck. Kerry
should have won this race 55%-45% if he was not carrying this Homosexual agenda ball and chain. And the
following votes are an in indication of how strongly people felt against this homosexual agenda Kerry was
pushing.

Several of these 11 states were Swing States -- they were close in the previous election and would decide the
election in 2004. Many people went to vote against the Homosexual Agenda, and voted against Kerry as an
afterthought.

Now, Hollywood Homosexuals are wealthy fatcats and, despite popular misconceptions, are overwhelming
Republican. They do not want Democrats like John Kerry to win and then raise their taxes. Thus, there may well
be a scam going on here, to buy the Democrat candidate each year and ask him to support something the US
public despises -- this time it was Homosexual Marriage. If this buying every 4 years of the Democrat
candidate by Hollywood Homosexual fatcats continues, it could be an extremely long time before the Democrats
ever come close to taking back any of the branches of government again.

==================================================

No, Hollywood Homosexuals are Republicans and should be Republicans. The Sodomy issue, along with similar ACLU
issues like the Legalization of Drugs, is one of those selfish issues that generally come under the title
"civil liberties". These are 'leave me alone', 'let me do what I want to do', "do not raise my taxes", "keep
the government out of my life"; selfish issues that are not just conservative, but libertarian in nature. .
Heck, if not for the federal government, Unions would not exist. If not for the federal government, Blacks
and Women would not have Civil Rights. If not for the federal government, there would be no 60's Great
Society programs for The Poor, or what is left of those programs since Clinton (a big homosexual rights Gays
In The Military supporter) rolled them back. The federal government passed the Defense Of Marriage Act which
was anti-homosexual marriage rights.

The response of Hollywood Homosexuals ? Try to negate the federal government laws in the Courts by playing up
this crap that the Federal Courts can negate the laws created by the will of the people (Judicial Review, they
call it). The same US Supreme Court that ruled in Plessy vs Ferguson in 1896 in the "Separate But Equal"
decision that Blacks were second class citizens and that segregation was ok. It was only in the 1950's, when
the US Supreme Court was dominated by non-Judges (only one of the 9 judges then had a judicial background --
the Chief Justice was Governor of California immediately before joining the US Supreme Court in 1953), that
Brown vs Board of Education (1954) reversed the corrupt Plessy decision. And I should mention that the 14th
Amendment passed right after the US Civil War which ended Slavery, banned any kind of racial segregation State
Laws, so the 1896 decision was unconstitutional, on its face.

=================================================

Some examples of Unconstitutional decisions by the US Supreme Court which hurt the little guy:

1) The Poor (1930's President Franklin D. Roosevelt impasse of legislation to help Unions and The Poor being blocked by the US
Supreme Court broken in 1937 when President Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court),

2) Blacks (1896 Plessy vs Ferguson, legalizing racial segregation southern State laws, an incredible
decision, totally repudiating the 14th Amendment),

3) Unions (1930's President Franklin D. Roosevelt impasse of legislation to help Unions and The Poor being blocked by the US
Supreme Court broken in 1937 when President Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court),

4) Women denied the right to vote under 14th Amendment in Minor vs Happersett (1874)

5) The "Corporation" created out of thin air by the US Supreme Court from the 14th Amendment: Robber Barons at the turn of the
century
(ca 1900) and today's Enron alike, loved this decision. This was a US Supreme Court decision which abused
the 14th Amendment, which they refused to use to protect the intended black men and black women, and instead
used to protect predatory wealthy fatcats. In incredible series of decisions.

=================================================

The truth is that Homosexuals have nothing in common with the Left, which comprises The Poor, Blacks, Unions
and Women). They should and do want opposite solutions in government policy.

The greatest danger to this country today is that from the right wing libertarian nexus between:
US Supreme Court, Hollywood Homosexuals Neo-Conservatives,
ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), Organized Crime.
Organized Crime are the ultimate libertarians, even more right wing libertarian than homosexuals.

=======================================================

=======================================================

http://www.profam.org/press/thc_pr_040813.htm

In 2000, California voters approved a ballot question (Proposition 22), defining marriage as the union of a
man and a woman. In liberal, laid-back California, the vote in favor of upholding traditional marriage was 61%
to 39%. Blacks and Hispanics approved the measure by higher percentages than whites.

========================================================
========================================================

Here are the results from the 11 States in November 2004 who had the Homosexual agenda on a ballot question 5
months ago:

========================================================

Arkansas Ballot wording: Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal status for
unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or
recognized in Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state
between a man and a woman. The legislature has the power to determine the capacity of persons to marry,
subject to this amendment, and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage.Result:
Passed 75% to 25%

Georgia The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: (a) This state shall
recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are
prohibited in this state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as
entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial
proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that
is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall
have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or
otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection
with such relationship.Result: Passed 77% to 23%.

Kentucky Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.
A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be
valid or recognized.Result: Passed: 75% to 25%.

Michigan The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: To secure and preserve
the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one
woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any
purpose.Result: Passed: 59% to 41%.

Mississippi The measure amends the state constitution to read: Marriage may take place and may be valid under
the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction
between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this
state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state.Result: Passed: 86% to 14%.

Montana The measure amends the state constitution to read: Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall
be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.Result: Passed: 66% to 34%.

North Dakota The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: Marriage consists
only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be
recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent effect.Result: Passed 73% to 24%.

Ohio The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: Only a union between one
man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This
state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of
unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of
marriage.Result: Passed 62% to 38%.

Oklahoma The measure amends the state constitution to read: A Marriage in this state shall consist only of the
union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to
require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. B. A
marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and
binding in this state as of the date of the marriage. C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in
violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.Result: Passed 76% to 24%.

Oregon The measure would amend the state constitution to read: It is the policy of Oregon, and its political
subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a
marriage.Result: Passed 57% to 43%.

Utah The measure amends the state constitution to read, 1. Marriage consists only of the legal union between a
man and a woman. 2. No other domestic status or union, however denominated, between persons is valid or
recognized or may be authorized, sanctioned, or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as a
marriage. Results: Passed 66% to 34%.

============================================================ ===========

Politics

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #147695 ]

Do, 13 Oktober 2005 13:32

Jim Phillips

Piggy-backing...

> In article <dign6u0v28 [at] drn.newsguy.com>,
> George Peatty <pttyg47-1230 [at] copper.net> said:
>
> > You again put words in my mouth. I never claimed to presume that
> > the universe cannot exist unless God does. That is the
> > **conclusion**, not the premise. The premise is the universe
> > cannot sustain itself from one moment to the next.

What is the fallacy when you assume your conclusion in your premise?

--
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 #147698 ]

Do, 13 Oktober 2005 16:31

pv+usenet

Richard Hudson <Rhudson765 [at] snet.net> writes:
>Does anyone else thing that "John Shocked" is actually a liberal
>posting this garbage in order to make conservatives look bad?

Only people even stupider than he is. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #147699 ]

Do, 13 Oktober 2005 16:32

pv+usenet

Jim Phillips <jphillip [at] bcpl.net> writes:
> What is the fallacy when you assume your conclusion in your premise?

I know! I Know! "Begging the question". *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #147703 ]

Do, 13 Oktober 2005 18:49

Malcom XXX

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #147708 ]

Do, 13 Oktober 2005 20:32

Snake

"Malcom XXX" <mXXX [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Sew3f.672$4O1.162 [at] newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Richard Hudson" <Rhudson765 [at] snet.net> wrote in message
> news:4dcsk198rofvc6339p6ol23ug21d34i51m [at] 4ax.com...
>>
>> Does anyone else thing that "John Shocked" is actually a liberal
>> posting this garbage in order to make conservatives look bad?
>
> Conservatives do not need John Shocked's help. They are more than capable
> of making themselves look bad everyday.

LOL. I believe what you describe is "Mary Poppins Syndrome". Seems to be a
common disease nowadays.

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #147709 ]

Do, 13 Oktober 2005 20:56

billones

In article <dik0o2$aj6$1 [at] panix2.panix.com>,
William December Starr <wdstarr [at] panix.com> wrote:
>With regard to Tom's point, accepting Stephen's note that it only
>applies to some religions and believers, let's add that such beliefs
>and believers also depend on disbelief, often of an extremely
>wilful variety -- i.e., "I refuse to believe that X could have
>happened without divine input, therefore the fact that X did happen
>proves that God exists." (This seems, for example, to be George
>Peatty's position with regard to the fact that the universe somehow
>continues to exist from one moment to the next, at least as best I
>can understand him.)

It's also my position, but substitute rainbows for the universe in
general. (But lets leave Noah out of this :)

--
Jeremy Billones
"It's a place used the world over where people can come together to bitch about
movies and share pornography together." This is a much more sophisticated idea
of the Net than we find in high-tech cyberthrillers, where the Net is a place
that makes your computer beep a lot. - Roger Ebert on "Jay & Silent Bob..."

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #147710 ]

Do, 13 Oktober 2005 21:06

billones

In article <dik0r1$au7$1 [at] panix2.panix.com>,
William December Starr <wdstarr [at] panix.com> wrote:
>Please explain how the creation of sapient beings, e.g., humans,
>confers ownership rights upon the creator.

Well, if he condones slavery...

--
Jeremy Billones
"It's a place used the world over where people can come together to bitch about
movies and share pornography together." This is a much more sophisticated idea
of the Net than we find in high-tech cyberthrillers, where the Net is a place
that makes your computer beep a lot. - Roger Ebert on "Jay & Silent Bob..."

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #147712 ]

Do, 13 Oktober 2005 22:01

Snake

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #149957 ]

Sa, 15 Oktober 2005 21:52

Day Brown

George Peatty wrote:
> In article <difdrj$ous$1 [at] panix1.panix.com>, William December Starr says...
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>Further, everything belongs to God, including you and me,
>
>
>>Really? Upon what does he base his claim of ownership?
>
>
> He made it. ...
No He didnt. *SHE* did; the Great Earth Mother. And when people had
faith in Her, there wasnt any war. Which is easy to understand when
you consider how much trouble the demagogue has trying to rile up a
mob or an army by claiming that *he* speaks in *HER* name.

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #149963 ]

So, 16 Oktober 2005 06:01

marika

Day Brown wrote:> No He didnt. *SHE* did; the Great Earth Mother. And
when people had
> faith in Her, there wasnt any war. Which is easy to understand when
> you consider how much trouble the demagogue has trying to rile up a
> mob or an army by claiming that *he* speaks in *HER* name.

lol

mk5000

"the fighting should stop. we have fouht for two and a half years and
the problem is , it doesn't work"--saleh al mutlak

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #149978 ]

Mo, 17 Oktober 2005 02:49

ROBERT NEIL

GOD IS A CONCEPT!!!!!

"Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote in message
news:dbb1f.3212$eW1.2482 [at] okepread04...
>
> "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. How do you test the one time existance of Alexander the Great?
> You can't with the scientific method. 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????????????
>>
>>> 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.
>
>>> 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." What if I started calling you a
> communist, because certain of your views are the same as the communists
> have?
>
>>> 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.....
>
>

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #150066 ]

Do, 20 Oktober 2005 20:25

Day Brown

ROBERT NEIL wrote:
> GOD IS A CONCEPT!!!!!

>>And you will pay for that.....
A concept for which the rest of us have paid in the justification of
violence. What Joshua did to the Canaanites and Philistines in the
"holy land" we now call genocide.

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #156017 ]

Di, 25 Oktober 2005 03:14

Kees Boer

Ok, I've waited for a while to get involved in this till everyone is done
talking. I'm not sure I have the time to look all over this extensive post
to answer the same question over and over again, i.e. the order of creation
and what have you. I did get this email from a friend of mine and I thought
it addressed some of it. This is my post to this particular subject. I'll
give you guys the last word.

We were having quite a productive day of preaching at Colorado
State when a science professor by the name of Dale decided to
join in the activity. As I was declaring the claims of Christ, he
would occasionally shout, "Prove it!" or "You can't prove any
of this!"

Of course, those of you who have seen me preach before
realize that he was just playing into my hand. I delight
when people challenge me, for it is when truth and error
collide that truth becomes the most evident.

"Sure I can prove it," I asserted.

Dale was delighted that I gave him my attention and
seemed quite confident that he was about to make
the campus preacher look like a moron.

I asked him his name and what he taught. When he told
me he was a science professor, I observed that he had
been trained to "think scientifically." Along that lines, he
asserted that something could only be "proven" if it could
be tested and repeated in a scientific experiment.

It was obvious that if that was the standard, then he was
right - I could not prove anything about Christianity. There
would be no way to put God in a laboratory or to "test
and repeat" such important events of our faith such as
creation or the resurrection.

But can something be "proven" to be true by a
means other than scientific experimentation?

I asked Dale if he had gotten out of bed that morning.
He answered in the affirmative. However, although it was
TRUE that he had gotten out of bed that morning, by
his standard of measurement, he could not "prove" he
had gotten out of bed. In fact, by his standard of "proof,"
he couldn't even "prove" that he had ever been born!

Another student chimed in with a bit of irritation, "Well,
its obvious he has been born! He's standing there, isn't he?"

My point exactly! But before I could make it, Dale was
seeing where this was headed and quickly acknowledged
that, although he believes he was born, there is
no "scientific proof" of it. Obviously, his birth cannot
be tested and repeated!

Thus, we see the importance of definitions. I told Dale (and
all the others who believed "science" is the ultimate
standard of Truth) that their definitions were way to
limiting. They needed to begin to expand their mind and
think outside the confining box of "science" - at
least science as they defined it.

If science if the only means of "proof," what would
this science professor do if his wife asked him to "prove
that you love me"? Go down to the lab, put some
electrodes on his body and measure the response
every time she walked by? Of course not! We "prove"
our love by our actions! Jesus proved His love for
us by dying for us (Romans 5:8). Greater love has
no many than this - that He lay down His life for His friends!

In a criminal trial, do we require that the criminal
repeat his crime before we can find him guilty?
Of course not! We bring in witnesses who testify
of what they saw and then we cross-examine those
witnesses. Based on the testimony of witnesses, a
jury finds the person guilty or not guilty "beyond
all reasonable doubt." Thus, witnesses can be used
to "prove" a historical event to have actually occurred.

The dictionary defines "proof" as "the evidence or
argument that compels the mind to accept an
assertion as true." We must not succumb to the
false assertions that only what can be tested and
repeated in a laboratory is true. Those who have
a worldview of naturalism often believe this, but
when it gets right down to it, they don't really live
this way. We shouldn't either!

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #156019 ]

Di, 25 Oktober 2005 05:08

Koenig

>> asserted that something could only be "proven" if it could
> be tested and repeated in a scientific experiment.
>
> It was obvious that if that was the standard, then he was
> right - I could not prove anything about Christianity. There
> would be no way to put God in a laboratory or to "test
> and repeat" such important events of our faith such as
> creation or the resurrection.

There is more to proving something than repeating it in a controlled
environment.

>
> But can something be "proven" to be true by a
> means other than scientific experimentation?

Yes.

>
> I asked Dale if he had gotten out of bed that morning.
> He answered in the affirmative. However, although it was
> TRUE that he had gotten out of bed that morning, by
> his standard of measurement, he could not "prove" he
> had gotten out of bed.

The proof is in the observation. To be present in front of you he must have
gotten out of bed this morning, as you yourself accept as fact that he
sleeps in a bed each night.

>
> My point exactly! But before I could make it, Dale was
> seeing where this was headed and quickly acknowledged
> that, although he believes he was born, there is
> no "scientific proof" of it. Obviously, his birth cannot
> be tested and repeated!

It doesn't have to be repeated to be accepted as fact.

> this science professor do if his wife asked him to "prove
> that you love me"?

He proves it by continually displaying the attributes of somebody who is
devoted.

> Go down to the lab, put some
> electrodes on his body and measure the response
> every time she walked by? Of course not! We "prove"
> our love by our actions! Jesus proved His love for
> us by dying for us (Romans 5:8). Greater love has
> no many than this - that He lay down His life for His friends!

So you compare the actions of a real, current, verifiable person against the
actions of somebody who has no living witnesses?

>
> In a criminal trial, do we require that the criminal
> repeat his crime before we can find him guilty?
> Of course not! We bring in witnesses who testify
> of what they saw and then we cross-examine those
> witnesses. Based on the testimony of witnesses, a
> jury finds the person guilty or not guilty "beyond
> all reasonable doubt." Thus, witnesses can be used
> to "prove" a historical event to have actually occurred.

All right, bring in your witnesses to the existence of god. A criminal
trial would not convict somebody if the prosecution presented the judge with
a book of letters saying "that guy did it".

>We must not succumb to the
> false assertions that only what can be tested and
> repeated in a laboratory is true.

But we don't take it to the extreme and start accepting things that have not
been proven in any way shape or form, scientific or otherwise - especially
when there is a boatload of evidence contradicting the timeline of humanity
presented in the bible.

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #156023 ]

Di, 25 Oktober 2005 07:24

wdstarr

In article <7Gf7f.20023$eW1.16566 [at] okepread04>,
"Kees Boer" <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> said:

> Dale was delighted that I gave him my attention and
> seemed quite confident that he was about to make
> the campus preacher look like a moron.

It doesn't sound like any action on his part was needed
in order to accomplish that.

--
William December Starr <wdstarr [at] panix.com>

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #156029 ]

Di, 25 Oktober 2005 13:38

The Secretary of HomI[4]

I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to Kees Boer:

> The dictionary defines "proof" as "the evidence or
> argument that compels the mind to accept an
> assertion as true." We must not succumb to the
> false assertions that only what can be tested and
> repeated in a laboratory is true. Those who have
> a worldview of naturalism often believe this, but
> when it gets right down to it, they don't really live
> this way. We shouldn't either!

You don't have to prove the existence of your deity to me, if you want to
believe in a deity. If you want to push your deity on me, on other adults,
or on children, however, you have to give very damn good reasons why anyone
should listen to you in any forum besides either a soapbox crowd or a
newsgroup, and if you want to push "creation science/intelligent design
theory", you have to try even harder (and Xians of the proselytising stripe
want to do /both/ of these things, by definition). The burden is then on
*you* to prove *your* assertions.

--
____________________________________________________________ _______________
Hail Eris! "The personal _is_ political."
Bent Depraved N. Deviant Cock-Smoker, Esq., Superfaggot
"Stupidity excuses nothing. It's only a reason...." -- Phxbrd
Economic Left/Right: -7.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.38
"The whining has just begun." -- John Wentzky
Killfiled by: directory; Anim8rfsk
"It's not nice to misrepresent Mother Nature."

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #156030 ]

Di, 25 Oktober 2005 13:40

Jim Phillips

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Kees Boer wrote:

> Ok, I've waited for a while to get involved in this till everyone is done
> talking. I'm not sure I have the time to look all over this extensive post
> to answer the same question over and over again, i.e. the order of creation
> and what have you. I did get this email from a friend of mine and I thought
> it addressed some of it. This is my post to this particular subject. I'll
> give you guys the last word.

No attempt to explain the contradictions in the 2 creation myths in
Genesis. Your surrender is accepted.

snip long example of how Keers Boer doesn't understand what "science" means.

--
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 #156062 ]

Do, 27 Oktober 2005 03:49

Mac

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:14:43 -0400, "Kees Boer"
<keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote:

I'm going to ask you another way seeing as you dismiss the scientific.
Because it isn't just Christianity you think people are picking on, it
is the whole schmere.

You forget there is a whole world out there. In the middle east it is
a complete reality to many of them for their Muslin God, and their
writings. Many of them are so sure, so completely, utterly, no double
about sure that their God is the only God and their religion is the
only that is true, and how can anyone actually think Jesus was the
messiah, why, the evidence for the Muslim God and the Muslim writing
is all about them it doesn't make any sense to believe in Christ.

OK now lets plop us down in Asia and.... Blinders on. WE all, just by
realizing the universe exists and that it has rules and life evolved
that there is something at work in the cosmos, Christians argue for
"intelligent design". Well guess what - this science and proof minded
old boy here agrees with it - yeah, there's something going on not
just pure chance. .BUT - a bug "but" here - you can't go beyond that.
People invent Gods so they no longer have to wonder.. Perhaps we're
not even supposed to think about it all. If there was one little bit
of proof.. some statistic that when a plane crashes more Christians
survive, or those who worship harder.. Nothing, no reward. The
Catholics even invented a miracle in Mother Teresa to stop a sinking
ship, what with the Priests and sex with Chi;ldren controversy in the
fore front.

So now I'll ask you - they've "heard the word", but those darned
Muslims don't get it and stay Muslim and dismiss Jesus - are they all
going to hell now? Buddhists too? Going to hell - they've "heard the
word" of Jesus after all and choose to ignore it.

Jesus was not even written about until how many years after his death?
40? 50? I'll tell you what, after 5 years a fish story through
re-telling doubles the fish's size. After to years he was even
bigger. After 50 years the darned fish would be walking on water and
rising from the dead..

....B.M.

-- It's all one big Urban myth..

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #158263 ]

Fr, 28 Oktober 2005 18:09

Day Brown

Mac wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:14:43 -0400, "Kees Boer"
> <keesboer [at] integrity-computing.net> wrote:
>
> I'm going to ask you another way seeing as you dismiss the scientific.
> Because it isn't just Christianity you think people are picking on, it
> is the whole schmere.
>
> You forget there is a whole world out there. In the middle east it is
> a complete reality to many of them for their Muslin God, and their
> writings. Many of them are so sure, so completely, utterly, no double
> about sure that their God is the only God and their religion is the
> only that is true, and how can anyone actually think Jesus was the
> messiah, why, the evidence for the Muslim God and the Muslim writing
> is all about them it doesn't make any sense to believe in Christ.
>
> OK now lets plop us down in Asia and.... Blinders on. WE all, just by
> realizing the universe exists and that it has rules and life evolved
> that there is something at work in the cosmos, Christians argue for
> "intelligent design". Well guess what - this science and proof minded
> old boy here agrees with it - yeah, there's something going on not
> just pure chance. .BUT - a bug "but" here - you can't go beyond that.
> People invent Gods so they no longer have to wonder.. Perhaps we're
> not even supposed to think about it all. If there was one little bit
> of proof.. some statistic that when a plane crashes more Christians
> survive, or those who worship harder.. Nothing, no reward. The
> Catholics even invented a miracle in Mother Teresa to stop a sinking
> ship, what with the Priests and sex with Chi;ldren controversy in the
> fore front.
>
> So now I'll ask you - they've "heard the word", but those darned
> Muslims don't get it and stay Muslim and dismiss Jesus - are they all
> going to hell now? Buddhists too? Going to hell - they've "heard the
> word" of Jesus after all and choose to ignore it.
>
> Jesus was not even written about until how many years after his death?
> 40? 50? I'll tell you what, after 5 years a fish story through
> re-telling doubles the fish's size. After to years he was even
> bigger. After 50 years the darned fish would be walking on water and
> rising from the dead..
>
> ....B.M.
>
> -- It's all one big Urban myth..
In the Vedas, Arjuna is told that some of what he sees are forms that
were created and animated by the divine, which exist solely as a
challenge. Like the monsters in a 3D video game. And indeed, 18th cent
Bengali Saint Ramprasad, with complete access to the canon, tells us
that everything we see is part of a "projected matrix" out of the mind
of Kali (his monotheistic concept of the divine).

They are also well aware of Kharma, which is why Murphy's law works. In
the Vedas, these forms which challenge you are called "Avatars". Thing
about an Avatar, like for example a Fundy, is that while you can learn
from an Avatar, you cant teach one anything. Their programming is just
too limited.

Re: Homosexual Intent of Scifi Channel for your Kids #2 [message #159964 ]

Sa, 29 Oktober 2005 21:33

Fritz

Kees Boer wrote:

> Ok, I've waited for a while to get involved in this till everyone is done
> talking. I'm not sure I have the time to look all over this extensive post
> to answer the same question over and over again, i.e. the order of creation
> and what have you. I did get this email from a friend of mine and I thought
> it addressed some of it. This is my post to this particular subject. I'll
> give you guys the last word.
>
> We were having quite a productive day of preaching at Colorado
> State when a science professor by the name of Dale decided to
> join in the activity. As I was declaring the claims of Christ, he
> would occasionally shout, "Prove it!" or "You can't prove any
> of this!"
>
> Of course, those of you who have seen me preach before
> realize that he was just playing into my hand. I delight
> when people challenge me, for it is when truth and error
> collide that truth becomes the most evident.
>
> "Sure I can prove it," I asserted.
>
> Dale was delighted that I gave him my attention and
> seemed quite confident that he was about to make
> the campus preacher look like a moron.
>
> I asked him his name and what he taught. When he told
> me he was a science professor, I observed that he had
> been trained to "think scientifically." Along that lines, he
> asserted that something could only be "proven" if it could
> be tested and repeated in a scientific experiment.
>
> It was obvious that if that was the standard, then he was
> right - I could not prove anything about Christianity. There
> would be no way to put God in a laboratory or to "test
> and repeat" such important events of our faith such as
> creation or the resurrection.
>
> But can something be "proven" to be true by a
> means other than scientific experimentation?
>
> I asked Dale if he had gotten out of bed that morning.
> He answered in the affirmative. However, although it was
> TRUE that he had gotten out of bed that morning, by
> his standard of measurement, he could not "prove" he
> had gotten out of bed. In fact, by his standard of "proof,"
> he couldn't even "prove" that he had ever been born!
>
> Another student chimed in with a bit of irritation, "Well,
> its obvious he has been born! He's standing there, isn't he?"
>
> My point exactly! But before I could make it, Dale was
> seeing where this was headed and quickly acknowledged
> that, although he believes he was born, there is
> no "scientific proof" of it. Obviously, his birth cannot
> be tested and repeated!
>
> Thus, we see the importance of definitions. I told Dale (and
> all the others who believed "science" is the ultimate
> standard of Truth) that their definitions were way to
> limiting. They needed to begin to expand their mind and
> think outside the confining box of "science" - at
> least science as they defined it.
>
> If science if the only means of "proof," what would
> this science professor do if his wife asked him to "prove
> that you love me"? Go down to the lab, put some
> electrodes on his body and measure the response
> every time she walked by? Of course not! We "prove"
> our love by our actions! Jesus proved His love for
> us by dying for us (Romans 5:8). Greater love has
> no many than this - that He lay down His life for His friends!
>
> In a criminal trial, do we require that the criminal
> repeat his crime before we can find him guilty?
> Of course not! We bring in witnesses who testify
> of what they saw and then we cross-examine those
> witnesses. Based on the testimony of witnesses, a
> jury finds the person guilty or not guilty "beyond
> all reasonable doubt." Thus, witnesses can be used
> to "prove" a historical event to have actually occurred.
>
> The dictionary defines "proof" as "the evidence or
> argument that compels the mind to accept an
> assertion as true." We must not succumb to the
> false assertions that only what can be tested and
> repeated in a laboratory is true. Those who have
> a worldview of naturalism often believe this, but
> when it gets right down to it, they don't really live
> this way. We shouldn't either!

Of course, none of this proves there is a God.

It's all just a, not so clever, use of word manipulation..

-- Fritz ...

To study theology is to study nothing.

Seiten (14): [ « < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14]

Vorheriges Thema:	Way to go Takei, is Bakula next?
Nächstes Thema:	A real ST post - Starship Exeter

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 19 16:31:48 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,12112 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.