To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Bush endorses Creation Science
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Creation / Evolution
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

SoLoved
biggrin.gif And I'm Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer!

(so called because of all the names you always call me)

HaHaHa HoHoHo

and to all a Goodnight!

rolleyes.gif SoLoved
I_AM_TOAD
[COLOR=green]OK, I have one question before I place my opinion here. Is there a page I can read where there are rules? unsure.gif
Grumpy
I_AM_TOAD

There aren't any rules, jump in the pond with both feet.

Actually, we at this forum mostly follow the rules of science and logical debate(though not all of us know what those mean). If you feel you have something to contribute and it follows logical trains of thought, we won't eat you. You don't have to agree with us(get three scientists in a room and they will come up with four mutually exclusive opinions) we just want honest debate.

Good luck.

Grumpy mad.gif
SoLoved
Love your neighbor as yourself.

They will eat you alive if you don't agree with them though.

SoLoved
J. Wensveen
Well, another basic rule that is appreciated: Attack the post, not the poster. as in, personal attacks are not really what we want, we prefer attacking the post itself, as in counter arguments founded in proof that can be reviewed.

Although you may see personal attacks when the counter arguments are not refuted again or the refuted arguments keep coming back again and again.
RealityCheck
Hello I_AM_TOAD, SoLoved.

SOLOVED......More 'innocent' (read 'dishonest') twisting of others words for your own ends? Honest/rational disagreement is one thing; wilful obtuseness/manipulation on the part of those who have NO INTENTION of presenting/debating scientific evidence is another.

I_AM_TOAD....If you have respect for the SCIENTIFIC METHOD for treating/debating the PHYSICAL/NATURAL (as distinct from the METAPHYSICAL/SUPERNATURAL) world around us, then these FORUMS welcome you and stand ready to give you the respect you deserve. If you do proceed to engage in 'honest' debate here, you will quickly see for yourself that the only ones 'eaten alive' (as SoLoved puts it) are those who only come to proselytize and propagandize; types of behaviour which we are NOT obliged to suffer gladly and without demur, as these are, first and foremost, SCIENCE FORUMS.

Best welcoming regards from: RealityCheck.
Jerry Duke
user posted imageChrist Jesus came into the world to save sinners
I took a public speaking course at the University of Georgia in 1981. The syllabus said students were not allowed to speak on religious topics, but were allowed to speak on the Playboy philosophy and Santa Claus. My supervisor advised me to keep my Christian witness low key.

I tried to follow my supervisor's advice. Time after time, the comments about my speeches indicated that I was "too preachy". Feeling defeated, I decided there was nothing to do but ignore the syllabus and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If I got kicked out of the class, at least I would have given it my best effort.

From that point forward the anti-religious criticism ceased. The instructor and other students accepted me for what I was and began to critique my speeches objectively. It was amazing to behold.

Evolution attempts to explain reality without referece to God. It is no surprise to find that it results in folly. Creation Science accepts the reality of God as a given, and applies the scientific method to learn about the things God created. It is no surprise that science validates the truth of the Holy Bible.

Evolution is characterized by false predictions. Its adherents fail to find missing links, require impossible parameters in mathematical models, cite evidence that does not exist, such as the geologic column, human gill slits, Piltdown man, etc. Evolution relies on circular reasoning to hypothesize fabulous ages of history, dating fossils by the strata and the strata by the fossils, and then discards independent evidence that contradicts the hypothesis.

In spite of the fact that evolution has been disproved by science, evolutionists persist. They appear to be blind to the scientific evidence amassed by Creation Science. Their perception of reality is crippled by the assumption that there is no God. When pressed to validate their theory, they recite myths and fables and appeal to the implied authority behind their academic credentials.

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. (I Corinthians 3:18-20)

Belief in evolution appears to be a strong delusion, a curse upon those who have turned away from the truth and chosen to disbelieve in God.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (II Thessalonians 2:11-12)

The temptation to believe in evolution is very strong. Evolution promises to eliminate the need to be accountable to the Creator. Is there a way out of the delusion for evolutionists? Can one that was born blind receive sight? The Bible makes it clear that God has made a way of escape, even from evolutionism.

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (I Corinthians 10:13)

How can a blind person find the way to escape? We are all born blind into a fallen world. It is natural for us to be able to see the things that are condemned to destruciton, but we cannot see the things of the Spirit of God. God provides evidence of things we cannot see to those who humble themselves to seek him with all their heart. This evidence is called faith.

(For we walk by faith, not by sight:) (II Corinthians 5:7)

At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matthew 11:25-30)

Sin is the barrier that separates us from God. The blood of Jesus Christ is the atonement for sin.

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. (I John 3:8)

Evolutionists attempt to hinder people from finding Salvation in Jesus Christ by making false claims of contradictions in the text of the Bible. Most of the claims are simply ill formed opinions running afoul of the Word of God, because the evolutionists perceive themselves to be wiser and more righteous than God. The rest appear to illustrate ignorance of the English language and the facts of science.

In the previous century a group of free thinkers, atheists, modernists, humanists and liberals, tried to win their case against the Bible in court in 1929 and 1939 based on private interpretations of Numbers 11:31-32 which the plaintiff claimed would require each of 2,500,000 Hebrew wanderers to eat 12,266,171 quail after having gathered 97 birds per second for 36 straight hours. The judge decided that the plaintiff did not prove an error in the Bible by his fantastic calculations and that since he was not present to witness the distribution of the quail, the testimony of Moses who was there would be allowed to stand.

In 1939 the same argument about the quail was presented again with a slightly smaller mass of quail being assumed. In this case the New York judge, Hon. Justice Benjamin Shalleck in dismissing the suit said to the plaintiff, "You have wasted the time of this court for a day and a half, and you have failed to prove one single item!" (see That Lawsuit Against the Bible by Harry Rimmer. Eerdmans, 1956)

The evolutionist who turns away from lying and loving lies can find Salvation in Jesus Christ. God gives everyone enough faith to believe in his Son Jesus Christ, but if anyone turns away from Jesus, there is no other Saviour.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

In spite of the false claims of evolutionists, the Holy Bible is true. You can read for yourself the eyewitness accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, the Son of God when he lived in this sinful world for 33 years, was put to death on a cross to pay for your sins, and was raised from the dead three days later. (see Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:9-13)

How to be Saved

.
adoucette
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Oct 6 2005, 06:35 PM)
In spite of the fact that evolution has been disproved by science, evolutionists persist. They appear to be blind to the scientific evidence amassed by Creation Science.
laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

surely you jest.

Arthur
Jerry Duke
Not in the least.

Creation Research Quarterly
QUOTE
○ Published continuously since 1964
○ Peer-reviewed by degreed scientists
○ World-wide circulation
○ Scholarly articles representing the major scientific disciplines
○ Fresh perspectives on science and society as impacted by origins
○ Emphasis on scientific evidence supporting: intelligent design, a recent creation,  and a catastrophic worldwide flood
Kaeroll
Jerry Duke,
I'm not sure about the rest of the posters here, but I personally would appreciate it if you'd stop telling me how to be saved. I was "saved" several years ago, when I had a 'spiritual awakening' of sorts and, after spending my life having Catholic dogma rammed down my throat, saw past the BS and realised God is there, and that it all boils down to love your neighbour and love your God. It'd be nice to see you enter a debate openly, not shielding behind Biblical quotes and threats of hell.
It doesn't belong here, methinks.
Cheers, and have a good day - as said above to our resident toad, I'm attacking the post and not the poster smile.gif
Kaeroll
RealityCheck
Hello everyone.

Isn't anyone going to point out the important difference between 'public speaking' and 'scientific debate'? I would do it myself, but I'm too busy elsewhere at the moment.


RealityCheck.
Jerry Duke
user posted imageChrist Jesus came into the world to save sinners
QUOTE (Kaeroll+Oct 6 2005, 07:08 PM)
Jerry Duke,
I'm not sure about the rest of the posters here, but I personally would appreciate it if you'd stop telling me how to be saved. I was "saved" several years ago, when I had a 'spiritual awakening' of sorts and, after spending my life having Catholic dogma rammed down my throat, saw past the BS and realised God is there, and that it all boils down to love your neighbour and love your God. It'd be nice to see you enter a debate openly, not shielding behind Biblical quotes and threats of hell.
It doesn't belong here, methinks.
Cheers, and have a good day - as said above to our resident toad, I'm attacking the post and not the poster smile.gif
Kaeroll

Who saved you?

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. (Galatians 6:15)

How to be Saved

.
GeneSplicer
No, unfortunately, Jerry Duke is dead serious. For him and similar people with a mythic-central mindset of the world, you have only two choices;

1.) Bow to the will of his god and forsake freewill, the pursuit of knowledge or the ability to question.

2.) Deny his god and suffer the threat of both physical harm and the harm that will be committed by the limitation of the pursuit of knowledge seen as forbidden by his myth.

The subject of inherent sin alone should make any xian with an open or reasonable mind (is there such a thing?) question the fear-filled foundation of the faith. To put it in layman’s terms, the xian faith claims that every human born has sin just by being born. Where did this inherent sin come from? The sins of our forefathers. So, to the xian, it is perfectly acceptable for their deity and them to punish a child for the crimes of the father, a concept reject by any civilized legal system, including that of the U.S., where many of these evangelicals operate from.
Jerry Duke
user posted imageChrist Jesus came into the world to save sinners

Your mythical statement has no effect on the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

1. If you knew the Lord, you would be free to reach your maximum potential instead of being a slave of the devil. If evolutionists were free to question their own theory, it would quickly disappear. There is certainly no lack of brain power. It is simply a matter of being unable to reason when you remove the necessary foundation of truth.

2. You are already condemned. Jesus is the only way to be saved.

3. The legal principle you cite came from the Holy Bible.

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)

How to be Saved

.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE
Your mythical statement has no effect on the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
<br>My statements are real and tangible. As far as the truth of your gospels go, is has been established, here and elsewhere, just how flawed and contradictory your religious tome is.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Your mythical statement has no effect on the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
<br>My statements are real and tangible. As far as the truth of your gospels go, is has been established, here and elsewhere, just how flawed and contradictory your religious tome is.

1. If you knew the Lord, you would be free to reach your maximum potential instead of being a slave of the devil.
<br>Yes, as long as I operated under the premise that the xian god created all, controls all, knows all and everything happens for a reason determined by him. In such a reality, there would be nothing for anyone do other than to perform just as the xian god wished you to.

I prefer to determine as much of my own fate as possible and not live under the constraints of a misinterpreted and outdated myth that rules fearful and fear-filled people like yourself.

QUOTE
2. You are already condemned. Jesus is the only way to be saved.
<br>Yes, condemned to face the reality of our existence and live for today rather than waste my entire life for the kingdom promised by your myth to come after I die.

I would be dammed or condemned if I operated under the delusion that anyone who dare question my view of the world not only will be punished but also deserves so.

The only thing you and other true believers makes me question Duke is my libertarian view that religion is a personal choice and of no concern to others. Anyone who does pray should ask whatever deity they follow that theist like you are the rare exception rather than the norm.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
2. You are already condemned. Jesus is the only way to be saved.
<br>Yes, condemned to face the reality of our existence and live for today rather than waste my entire life for the kingdom promised by your myth to come after I die.

I would be dammed or condemned if I operated under the delusion that anyone who dare question my view of the world not only will be punished but also deserves so.

The only thing you and other true believers makes me question Duke is my libertarian view that religion is a personal choice and of no concern to others. Anyone who does pray should ask whatever deity they follow that theist like you are the rare exception rather than the norm.

3. The legal principle you cite came from the Holy Bible.
<br>Then there is one contradiction of the xian bible. Thank you for showing me yet another. The principle of original sin is in direct contradiction to this passage.

Jerry Duke
user posted imageChrist Jesus came into the world to save sinners
QUOTE
My statements are real ...
<br>Myth 1: The idea that Christians do not have free will is a myth. We know, as did Jesus, that the will of God is superior to the will of human beings. God does all things for our good, whereas human beings are easily influenced by desires of the flesh.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
My statements are real ...
<br>Myth 1: The idea that Christians do not have free will is a myth. We know, as did Jesus, that the will of God is superior to the will of human beings. God does all things for our good, whereas human beings are easily influenced by desires of the flesh.


QUOTE
3. The legal principle you cite came from the Holy Bible.
... The principle of original sin is in direct contradiction to this passage.
<br>This is not a contradiction. The fact that Adam was a sinner does not negate the fact that all of his children are sinners. To identify with us, God's Son, God in the flesh, also became sin, even though he did not actually commit sin himself, so that he could identify fully with our condition and conquer, once and for all, sin in the flesh.

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:12-21)

How to be Saved

.
adoucette
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Oct 6 2005, 07:04 PM)
Not in the least.

Creation Research Quarterly
QUOTE
○ Published continuously since 1964
○ Peer-reviewed by degreed scientists
○ World-wide circulation
○ Scholarly articles representing the major scientific disciplines
○ Fresh perspectives on science and society as impacted by origins
○ Emphasis on scientific evidence supporting: intelligent design, a recent creation,   and a catastrophic worldwide flood

I could find no articles on the site that were published in any scientific journal.

They appear to be published only in their own quarterly, and the peer review appears limited to their own people.

Not quite what Science is all about.

For anyone interested in the level of these "peer reviewed scholarly articles" I refer you to this one from their site:

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/artic.../40_3/Henry.htm

laugh.gif

Arthur
RealityCheck
Earth calling Jerry Duke, Earth calling Jerry Duke....come in Jerry Duke.....


According to your OWN myths, Jesus on the cross questioned your god's very existence/motives; to wit....

....."....why hast thou forsaken me....".

Also according to your OWN myths, questioning your god's "design"/actions is A MOST DAMNABLE NO NO. Talk about hypocritical double standards and contradictions! Pull the other one!


RealityCheck.
Capn Caveman
I think it's absolutely hilarious that all the people screaming against abortion and contraceptives find so much fault with a theory that boils down to "whoever has the most babies wins"
CC
Grumpy
Jerry Duke quoted

QUOTE
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)


Yet, a couple of minutes study found these passages


Exodus
20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Deuteronomy
5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

23:2 A *** shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Isaiah
14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

This is but one area where the Bible contradicts itself and shows it is not inerrant or without error. This is also why you should cease and desist with you noxious posts. If you cannot make an argument on your own, using this flawed book doesn't help you any. I do not intend to use scripture in my arguments again, I just wanted to point out what a fallacy it is to use the Bible as a dependable source. You can find passages to support anything in that book. Logic and evidence are the only thing we will respect, if you have none of either, don't post at all.

Grumpy mad.gif
Capn Caveman
I couldn't agree more with Grumpy. This is NOT an issue, there is NO debate. All you religious people want is to expand your Bibile study to include the whole world. Another great irony is you should, being traditionalists, remember how bad things get in a theocracy. Spanish Inquisition popped up the very same instant that Spain was ordained a "Christian Nation"
It is morally Wrong to legislate morality and we all know it.
I_AM_TOAD
Oookay! biggrin.gif But are we allowed to swear? wink.gif Sometimes it's impossible to stop.

Thank-you, Grumpy biggrin.gif .

::Frowning:: Hmmm. I don't have very great of a vocabulary, so please excuse me if I misinterpret what you have written.

If you all mean what I think you mean, then here is what I think. (If you don't mean what I think you mean...um...please tell me what you mean. I'm only 14 and not good with the government and related topics)

I'm lazy, so I pasted my response from another forum on the same topic to here.

My theory of creation/evolution:

Alas, these sort of things keep me thinking for days and weeks at a time. In the end, I usually get very confused. I think people should do such things more often. It refreshes one in a strange way. Same with pulling an all-nighter. Everyone needs one once and a while.
"I think that both those theories are true, to an extent. I think that, yes, evolution happened first. It was like that for a while. Then something like God (only reason I am not saying it was is because it's a bit different/not the same fully smile.gif )interfered with time and evolution, creating new things that "came out of nowhere". New species and life, just were! Then evolution continued.

It was some kind of phenomenon, one that cannot be explained by science. Eventually, the history was separated into two "beliefs", God and Evolution!"


That's one of my ideas of what happened. Every once and a while, a phenomenon occures. No scientist can explain it, it goes forgotten! Have you ever thought once in your life, "How did that happen?" or "That's not possible!"?

Personally, I like Buddhism
****

I'm way off, aren't I? biggrin.gif Meh. But, I don't think even one quarter of the Bible is true, so other people shouldn't have to learn it. Oh, and I also agree with Grumpy all the way.

Garr.
Grumpy
To I_AM_TOAD

If you were to believe that God said"Let there be light..." and the Big Bang occured, setting the natural laws so that the universe evolved, our solar system formed and life began and evolved on Earth as the scientists have discovered I would have no reason or method to disagree or prove you wrong. Such a God would be more omnipotent and allseeing than one who had to correct the course of events from time to time.

The Bible and religion are not scientific in character. They are concerned with social and theological instruction. To try to use the Bible as a biology book describing the evolution of life on Earth makes no more sense than using it to instruct you on heart surgery. ID/CS are examples of this type of misuse.

I, personally, see nothing in nature that requires a supernatural explanation. Everything we see in the universe and all the life we see on Earth can be explained by natural processes. While we may not understand everything and may never have complete evidence of all the steps in the evolution of life we have a very large amount of evidence supporting our theories. Dinosaurs, fish, primates and birds have extensive fossil records documenting the changes in species over time. There are gaps in the fossil record but many intermediate species have been found.

I do not feel it to be my business to tell you what to believe concerning religion. Nor would I try to influence you in those matters by telling you what I believe and why. Some things in life are better decided on our own after much thought. Continue to think, read and study. Give yourself time to make such decisions, you(with luck) have many years ahead and,by your post, you seem rather intellegent. Make your own choices, never let others push you through fear or coersion.

I and others on this forum will try to answer your questions to the best of our ability and understanding. Continue to post, we're all amateurs here.

Grumpy mad.gif

GeneSplicer
QUOTE
Myth 1: The idea that Christians do not have free will is a myth. We know, as did Jesus, that the will of God is superior to the will of human beings. God does all things for our good, whereas human beings are easily influenced by desires of the flesh.
<br>Once you become a xian, in theory you commit to living by the will of the xian god. Once you are living by the will and wishes of another, you no longer have free will unless you violate the commitment. No big deal really. In the xian faith, all you have to do is ask for forgiveness after indulging in “sin” and all is forgiven.

If you buy into the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-controlling claim of the xian faith, then any perception of free will is an illusion. Your god has planed every aspect of your life for you.

As far as the desires of the flesh goes, typical how the xians take an aspect of humanity and attempt to turn it into something evil. How pompous and sanctimonious does one have to be to believe that they can denounce such a basic component of what it means to be human?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Myth 1: The idea that Christians do not have free will is a myth. We know, as did Jesus, that the will of God is superior to the will of human beings. God does all things for our good, whereas human beings are easily influenced by desires of the flesh.
<br>Once you become a xian, in theory you commit to living by the will of the xian god. Once you are living by the will and wishes of another, you no longer have free will unless you violate the commitment. No big deal really. In the xian faith, all you have to do is ask for forgiveness after indulging in “sin” and all is forgiven.

If you buy into the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-controlling claim of the xian faith, then any perception of free will is an illusion. Your god has planed every aspect of your life for you.

As far as the desires of the flesh goes, typical how the xians take an aspect of humanity and attempt to turn it into something evil. How pompous and sanctimonious does one have to be to believe that they can denounce such a basic component of what it means to be human?

This is not a contradiction. The fact that Adam was a sinner does not negate the fact that all of his children are sinners. To identify with us, God's Son, God in the flesh, also became sin, even though he did not actually commit sin himself, so that he could identify fully with our condition and conquer, once and for all, sin in the flesh.
<br>A further contradiction is this very statement. Everyone is supposed to be born in sin, yet you just stated that Jesus conquered sin once and for all. This mean everyone from that point on is sin free. Job done Big J. Care to keep providing more contradictions Duke?


Guest
QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Oct 6 2005, 07:13 PM)
Who saved you?
Certainly not a handful of Biblical quotes taken out of context to scare me. That's a sure way to turn people away from Christianity.

GeneSplicer, is it worth pointing out the contradictions in Mr Duke's posts? I doubt, somehow, he will choose to follow your train of thought.
J. Wensveen
just an oldie I found recently again:

QUOTE

The Dangers of Thinking

It started out innocently enough.

I began to think at parties now and then -- to loosen up.

Inevitably, though, one thought led to another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker.

I began to think alone -- "to relax," I told myself -- but I knew it wasn't true.

Thinking became more and more important to me, and finally I was thinking all the time.

That was when things began to sour at home.

One evening I had turned off the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life.

She spent that night at her mother's.

Then, I began to think on the job.

I knew that thinking and employment don't mix, but I couldn't stop myself.

I began to avoid friends at lunchtime so I could read Thoreau and Kafka. I would return to the office dizzied and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing here?"

One day the boss called me in. He said, "Listen, I like you, and it hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job."

This gave me a lot to think about.

I came home early after my conversation with the boss.

"Honey," I confessed, "I've been thinking..."

"I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!"

"But Honey, surely it's not that serious."

"It is serious," she said, lower lip aquiver. "You think as much as college professors, and college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on thinking, we won't have any money!"

"That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently.

She exploded in tears of rage and frustration, but I was in no mood to deal with the emotional drama.

"I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door.

I headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche.

I roared into the parking lot with NPR on the radio and ran up to the big glass doors ... They didn't open.

The library was closed.

To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that night.

Leaning on the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra, a poster caught my eye. "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?" it asked.

You probably recognize that line.

It comes from the standard Thinker's Anonymous poster.


Which is why I am what I am today: a recovering thinker.

I never miss a TA meeting.

At each meeting we watch a non-educational video; last week it was "Porky's." Then we share experiences about how we avoided thinking since the last meeting.

I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home.

Life just seemed...easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking.

I think the road to recovery is nearly complete for me.

Today, I registered to vote as a Republican.


<br>
GeneSplicer
QUOTE
GeneSplicer, is it worth pointing out the contradictions in Mr Duke's posts? I doubt, somehow, he will choose to follow your train of thought.
<br>Guest, you are absolutely correct, but I respond and post my arguments against the likes of Duke not for Duke but for those who read this thread.

There may be some who are truly seeking to discuss or research this issue. The claims of Duke, SoLoved and newguy and their respective “resources” may serve to do nothing more than confuse readers and cloud the issue, especially if the readers are younger and just forming their opinions or ability to rationally think.

At the very least, I hope anyone who reads this thread is challenged to think critically and rationally about this topic.

There’s also the point of not letting this claptrap go unchallenged.
Kaeroll
Whoops, that was me; keep forgetting to login. Sorry bout that.
I_AM_TOAD
Thank-you, Grumpy, for writing that you believe i'm intelligent (Which I am). Most poeple do not understand me and think I'm crazy biggrin.gif .

Hmmm... I think that MOST things can be explained by rules of SCIENCE. Though, think for a minute, really think. There are things like the Bumblebee, how it shouldn't be able to fly and What Is the Universe in? Where is the edge of the Universe, if there is one.? Like, the Universe has to be in SOMETHING...doesn't it? Maybe we are just really really REALLY REALLY miniscule and we are just inside of somekind of experiment that went wrong. Like that Simpson's episode where Lisa creates life or the end of Men in Black where it zooms out to make it look like the universe is in a marble. Crazy, complinimicated things such as that. I don't really believe that, though. Just a bit.

Perhaps, another planet conducted an experiment on Earth, it failed and they all ran away like wimps. Or they transfered exhiled species from their planet to ours? Maybe, maybe.? Well there is a tribe (Location: I forget) that remained sepereate from the rest of the world for centuries. Eventually, they let the world know what they were doing. Every 75 years, they would have a HUGE celebreation in a certain direction in the night sky. There are two planets (or stars, I'm not sure) that cannot be seen by the human eyes, located in that spot, which is what they were celebrating. They are closest to us every 75 years. How did they know? (creepy) They were doing this long before they used any sort of technology, such as telecopes. Weird, huh?!

I am well educated in the subject of space and have quite an extensive knowlege on it. (I COULD tell you my IQ, but why bother? biggrin.gif ) Before the Big Bang (theory) occured, we didn't exist and (even though most people reading this already know) there was a small hot condensed ball(where? I don't know.) which later exploded and grew from something the size of a football to something larger than a GALAXY in aproximately 4 seconds. It expanded (blah...blah...blah) to it's present day size. Where can something the size of our UNIVERSE be? Doesn't that make you think?

It had to be inside of something..? ::does a wierd sort of sway:: BRAIN OVERLOAD!!....


I think it is humerous in a way that the Bible beliefs are gradually being proven wrong by scientific evidense. Statements and "history" from the Bible have been studied for...I don't know how long since I don't study it. I'll just put...a very long time. biggrin.gif All of those people, in a way, wasted their time.

I've thought about this: In the Bible, I think it says that God created the first HUMAN beings. Umm...Adam and Eve I guessing. God is usually depicted as a HUMAN in Movies, Shows and who knows what else. Human and Human. See what I mean?....It's a bit difficult to put in words that would make sense to anyone but myself biggrin.gif .


AND ANOTHER THING!...

WHERE is God? (HUGE "if" he exists) He has to be somewhere!!! I, myself, find it VERY difficult to believe something if you cannot place it! You can't just think something exists....It's not logical, It isn't scientific!!

::very deep breath::

Grumpy, I'll take your advice/opinion and decide on a religion when I learn about more. I might not even then, I'll most likely put together all of the facts I can find on the life begining and scientists theories and believe that. (Difficult to expain)

(I can't believe I wrote that much! biggrin.gif laugh.gif ) I hope I didn't offend any one person who read this. smile.gif
J. Wensveen
Leave the whereabouts of God to the Stringhypothists. If the sting-hypothis has any truth to it, it will mean that there are paralel dimensions, and according that story, for every possible concievable option, there is a universe where this is true. Therefore there will also be one where God resides. biggrin.gif

I_AM_TOAD

huh.gif ... huh.gif ................ huh.gif ?

Um. I don't quite understand that......BUUUUT, I'll read about it online...when I feel like it. tongue.gif (Never heard or read about the "STRING-HYPOTHESIS" before now)


Hmmmmm. :Takes a breath: HHHHhhhhmmmmmm....
adoucette
QUOTE (I_AM_TOAD+Oct 10 2005, 01:52 AM)

Thank-you, Grumpy, for writing that you believe i'm intelligent (Which I am). Most poeple do not understand me and think I'm crazy biggrin.gif .

<br>If MOST people think you are crazy you should consider the possibility that they are correct.

laugh.gif

QUOTE
I think that MOST things can be explained by rules of SCIENCE. Though, think for a minute, really think. There are things like the Bumblebee, how it shouldn't be able to fly
<br>Urban Legend. If their muscles worked like ours they couldn't, but they don't.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I think that MOST things can be explained by rules of SCIENCE. Though, think for a minute, really think. There are things like the Bumblebee, how it shouldn't be able to fly
<br>Urban Legend. If their muscles worked like ours they couldn't, but they don't.

Well there is a tribe (Location: I forget) that remained sepereate from the rest of the world for centuries...
<br>Hmmm? Never heard of such a tribe, any other identifying info to help locate said tribe?

QUOTE
I am well educated in the subject of space and have quite an extensive knowlege on it. (I COULD tell you my IQ, but why bother? biggrin.gif ) Before the Big Bang (theory) occured, we didn't exist and (even though most people reading this already know) there was a small hot condensed ball(where? I don't know.) which later exploded and grew from something the size of a football to something larger than a GALAXY in aproximately 4 seconds.
<br>Not my area of expertise, but if it grew to Galaxy size in 4 seconds then it was growing substantially faster than the speed of light.

I thought that was a No No.

Please explain the scientific rational that allows either matter or energy to exceed the posted speed limit.

While you say:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I am well educated in the subject of space and have quite an extensive knowlege on it. (I COULD tell you my IQ, but why bother? biggrin.gif ) Before the Big Bang (theory) occured, we didn't exist and (even though most people reading this already know) there was a small hot condensed ball(where? I don't know.) which later exploded and grew from something the size of a football to something larger than a GALAXY in aproximately 4 seconds.
<br>Not my area of expertise, but if it grew to Galaxy size in 4 seconds then it was growing substantially faster than the speed of light.

I thought that was a No No.

Please explain the scientific rational that allows either matter or energy to exceed the posted speed limit.

While you say:
Where can something the size of our UNIVERSE be?
<br>You then say:

QUOTE
WHERE is God? (HUGE "if" he exists) He has to be somewhere!!! I, myself,  find it VERY difficult to believe something if you cannot place it! You can't just think something exists....It's not logical, It isn't scientific!!
<br>You can't place the Universe but I suspect that you believe IT exists.

We're sort of like the very tiny lice that live on a flea that lives on an Elephant. To the lice the flea is massively huge and the size of the elephant is simply mind-boggling. Yet he has it from other lice that he trusts that there are lots of elephants, but the idea that elephants are relatively smaller to the "universe" they live in than the lice are relative to the flea, is simply to hard for a microscopic louse to swallow.

Arthur


J. Wensveen
QUOTE (I_AM_TOAD+Oct 10 2005, 03:44 PM)
huh.gif ... huh.gif ................ huh.gif ?

Um. I don't quite understand that......BUUUUT, I'll read about it online...when I feel like it. tongue.gif (Never heard or read about the "STRING-HYPOTHESIS" before now)


Hmmmmm. :Takes a breath: HHHHhhhhmmmmmm....
look it up under String Theory. Although it is a Theory in Mathematics, it is still a Hypothesis in Physics.

If you are into Terry Pratchett (discworld novels), you should one day read the three "The Globe"books. The 3rd one has a nice explanation of the basic idea on String-Theory in reference to time travel.
I_AM_TOAD
adoucette,

wacko.gif wacko.gif wacko.gif blink.gif Yes, completely insane laugh.gif .

Oh, I didn't know that the Bumblebee thing wasn't true. My mistake, sorry!

Sorry, I don't have more info. I read about that tribe SOMEWHERE. I know I did. Hmh, just can't remember.(I have a REALLY HORRIBLE memory biggrin.gif tongue.gif )I'll look for it.

The speed of the explosion is one of the flaws of the Big Band theory. It's being debated and stuff. I don’t understand what you mean by “Scientific Rational”. I haven’t done that in school yet. But here is some information that I found on-line (Straight from the websites)that could give you your answer:

“A speed near the speed of light is inadequate for mass to escape the tremendous gravitational field at time zero in the Big Bang theory. The matter would simply decelerate sharply and collapse back onto itself again. The speed of light is much less than the escape velocity needed for matter during the Big Bang explosion. The Big Bang would simply give a big burp or big beluga and collapse back again. The energy would be changed back into mass. This condition is witnessed daily in observing the sun. Giant explosions called sunspots on the sun blast material hundreds of thousands of miles (km) into space only to decelerate and collapse back into the sun again. Radiation and light escape from the sun but matter cannot.
One cosmologist has suggested that the material forming our universe blasted out from the "Big Bang" at a speed greater than the speed of light. At least this guy can see the speed of light as a barrier to the expanding universe theory. However, having matter move at a greater speed than the speed of light is totally devoid of any theoretical formulas, violates Dr. Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity, and lacks astronomical observations to prove it. Nothing in the universe has been shown to travel at a speed greater than the speed of light except some forms of radiation. These scientists are going at the problem backwards. The scientific formulas and laws must be developed to support the theory before the theory is accepted. Instead, the scientific community has accepted the Big Bang Theory without any supporting science or supporting observations. Now they are simply throwing out any wild idea imaginable in hopes of saving the Big Bang Theory from collapse.”
www.biblelife.org/bigbang.html

“The oldest and perhaps best known problem of Big Bang Theory is that of the singularity. At the first instant of the Big Bang universe, in which its density and temperature were infinitely high, is what is known to mathematicians as a singularity. That situation is considered to be a breakdown of theory. That is, it cannot be assumed that the laws of physics as we know them can apply to that event, thus presenting serious questions about it.
In addition, the postulated creation of the entire mass and energy of the universe out of nothing in the first instant of time, seems to represent an extreme violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy.
According to prevailing theory, before that instant, space and time did not exist. Although to some, who confuse their religious ideas with science, this is seen as a reasonable interpretation of their religious beliefs, to others the beginning of space and time might represent a significant problem.
If there were a Big Bang, it would seem that events during the first instant of time would involve the instantaneous acceleration of the enormous number of particles (the entire mass) of the universe to relativistic velocity; and some variations of Big Bang Theory postulate velocities well above the speed of light. Because the acceleration of even a minute particle to the speed of light requires an infinite amount of energy, the Big Bang might have required on the order of an infinity times and infinity of ergs; not to mention the additional energy that would be required to overcome the gravitational attraction of the entire mass of the universe.
It has been suggested that this singularity problem can be solved by postulating a universe of zero net energy;(2) a universe wherein the positive kinetic energy, the potential energy, and the Einsteinian equivalent energy of the mass of the universe is equal and opposite to the negative energy of gravity. Somehow, if the universe is to collapse in the future as some believe, all the energy that was expended in the birth and expansion of the Big Bang universe was only borrowed; someday to be paid back. However, that doesn't provide an adequate explanation for the source of the energy requirement described above.”
www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.html

“Those who have studied the Bible already knew there was a creation event; that God created something (in fact, everything) from nothing. But was there actually a "big bang"? Is there any biblical evidence of such an occurrence? The Psalmist wrote, "By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. He gathers the waters of the sea into jars; he puts the deep into storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the people of the world revere him. For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm" (Ps. 33:6-9). It is by the Word of the Lord that creation took place. Again we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life..." (John 1:1-4). All life came from the Word, who is Jesus. God sent forth His Word and the world came into being. He spoke and there was life. The Scriptures are clear that when God speaks, things happen. Isaiah wrote, "As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it" (Is. 55:10).”
www.leaderu.com/science/mondore-bigbang.html
“Here are several facts about quasars which help disprove the speed theory:
1 - If the speed theory is correct, quasars are far too bright. The fact that quasars can be seen through optical telescopes, yet are supposed to so far away, violates the inverse-square law. They just could not possibly be so far away, and yet so bright.—p. 40.
2 - If the speed theory is true, quasars travel too fast, and some go faster than the speed of light!
[1] 16 percent. In 1962, a quasar was found which, according to the speed theory, is moving away from us at the amazing velocity of 16 percent of the speed of light! This just cannot be true, and thus disproves the speed theory of redshift.—pp. 40-41.
[2] 200-300 percent. Since then, quasars have been found with speed theory redshifts of 200 and 300 percent of the speed of light! If the speed theory were correct, this would be recession speeds exceeding 90 percent of the speed of light!—p. 41.
[3] 350-400 percent. In 1973, a quasar was found which had a speed redshift of 350 percent. In 1986, one had more than 400 percent! If the speed theory were true, these quasars would be fantastic distances of 15 billion light-years away, and traveling outward at impossibly high speeds. Since then more "4 redshifts" have been found.—pp. 41-42.
[4] Eight times faster than the speed of light. Three quasars have been found which, according to the speed theory of redshift, would be moving eight times faster than the speed of light! As of 1990, over thirty faster-than-light quasars have been found.—pp. 42-43.
[5] Light, matter, and gravity. It is a known fact that gravity from the sun actually bends light rays from stars.—p. 43.
Summary
Evolutionists cling to the speed theory of redshift, in an effort to support their idea that outward pushing gas made an expanding universe of outward rushing stars. But new discoveries have produced the ridiculous situation that, if the theory is correct, the most distant stars are said to be traveling faster than the speed of light! Energy loss from gravity pull, distance traveled, and sideways movement of stars provide a far better explanation of the redshift.”
www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-ma3.html

If these websites do not work, go to google, type in “The Big Bang theory (speed of the explosion)”. Look at the bottoms of the results and match the websites. You will need to go to the second page as well. biggrin.gif

So much writing. ...blah...blah...blah... biggrin.gif tongue.gif ( I might have messed up in the stuff above tongue.gif )
I_AM_TOAD
By the way, people, just call me Toad. (You know, the little mushroom dude off of Mario with the white red-pokadotted head? If you don't....you were deprived as a kid biggrin.gif tongue.gif )

J. Wensveen,

Eah, I haven’t’ gotten around to looking up the String Theory yet. I’ll try that when I do, though! biggrin.gif

Where can I buy those? I don’t want to look up the theory online because it’s always different in every website and I most likely won’t get an accurate idea of it. dry.gif Dumb websites... biggrin.gif .


cool.gif <- I want his sunglasses! They are coo! (Yes, without a "l")
birdan
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 10 2005, 04:13 PM)

QUOTE
I am well educated in the subject of space and have quite an extensive knowlege on it. (I COULD tell you my IQ, but why bother? biggrin.gif ) Before the Big Bang (theory) occured, we didn't exist and (even though most people reading this already know) there was a small hot condensed ball(where? I don't know.) which later exploded and grew from something the size of a football to something larger than a GALAXY in aproximately 4 seconds.
<br>Not my area of expertise, but if it grew to Galaxy size in 4 seconds then it was growing substantially faster than the speed of light.

I thought that was a No No.

Please explain the scientific rational that allows either matter or energy to exceed the posted speed limit.


Been awhile since I've read up on this (inflationary theory), but the 'speed limit' is not violated because space was expanding too. Picture a photon traveling on the surface of a balloon at the speed of light, but the ballon itself is inflating very, very rapidly. So, while the photon has only gone the speed of light from point A to point B, those two points are much further away than that. I believe it was something like 10E-38 seconds after the 'big bang' to 10E-25 seconds that the universe expanding from said football to about 300,000 light years diameter (lots less than 4 seconds). Something to do with tickling a Higgs boson hard enough in just the right spot ....
Kaeroll
So Higgs bosons are ticklish, eh? Never knew that...

...or that they even existed. biggrin.gif Learn something new every day.
J. Wensveen
well, considering that at CERN they have alot of ideas about the status of energy from the Big Bang, you could follow one of their hypothesis that what was expanding first was only energy mostly, that took some time before it became mass. So there would not have been any gravity in the beginning.
birdan
toad -

QUOTE (I_AM_TOAD+Oct 10 2005, 08:10 PM)

Where can I buy those? I don’t want to look up the theory online because it’s always different in every website and I most likely won’t get an accurate idea of it. dry.gif  Dumb websites... biggrin.gif .

<br>Try the following books:

The Elegent Universe (Also a PBS TV mini-series. Check your library's video section)
How the Universe Got Its Spots
The Dancing Wu Li Masters

You'll have to go to Amazon to look up the authors. I'm terrible with names.
birdan
QUOTE (Kaeroll+Oct 10 2005, 08:43 PM)
So Higgs bosons are ticklish, eh? Never knew that...

...or that they even existed. biggrin.gif Learn something new every day.

Kaeroll -

Yes, the Higgs boson is a ticklish subject these days.
newguy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 6 2005, 08:59 PM)
Jerry Duke quoted

QUOTE
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)
<br>Yet, a couple of minutes study found these passages


Exodus
20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Deuteronomy
5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,

23:2 A *** shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Isaiah
14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

This is but one area where the Bible contradicts itself and shows it is not inerrant or without error. This is also why you should cease and desist with you noxious posts. If you cannot make an argument on your own, using this flawed book doesn't help you any. I do not intend to use scripture in my arguments again, I just wanted to point out what a fallacy it is to use the Bible as a dependable source. You can find passages to support anything in that book. Logic and evidence are the only thing we will respect, if you have none of either, don't post at all.

Grumpy mad.gif
Wrong AGAIN, Grumps. I hope you were sincere when you said: "I do not intend to use scripture in my arguments again..."(Didn't you mean "misuse scripture"?)

Let's "finish the sentence" on some of your "quotes"(misquotes):

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6)

Wow! That takes on a whole new meaning when you include verse 6, doesn't it? Why did you stop at verse 5? Because you're a "snake", that's why. The implications of this passage and the passage from Deuteronomy 5:9 that you similarly "misquoted"(should have included verse 10, you "snake") are thus:

Those that follow in the sins of their fathers receive judgment, whereas those who forsake the sins of their fathers receive mercy. There are many examples of this throughout scripture...I'll only reference one now for time's sake. Grumpy and his misquided followers, I would suggest that you read II Chronicles chapters 29 through 31 in their entirety. I will now only quote you a couple of relevant portions from these chapters:

"Now be ye not stiffnecked, as your fathers were, but yield yourselves unto the Lord, and enter into his sanctuary, which he hath sanctified for ever: and serve the Lord your God, that the fierceness of his wrath may turn away from you. For if ye turn again unto the Lord, your brethren and your children shall find compassion before them that lead them captive, so that they shall come again into this land: for the Lord your God is gracious and merciful, and will not turn away his face from you, if ye return unto him."(II Chronicles 30:8-9)

Why did the children of Israel need to "yield themselves unto the Lord", "turn again unto the Lord", and "return unto him"? Simple. They were following in the "sins of their fathers" up until that point. Those who continue to do that get the aforementioned "judgment", whereas those who "turn from the sins of their fathers" get the aforementioned "mercy". Pretty simple, huh? In this case, the children of Israel decided to "turn" and here is some of the evidence of that "turning":

"Now when all this was finished, all Israel that were present there went out to the cities of Judah, and brake down the images in pieces, and cut down the groves, and threw down the high places and the altars out of all Judah and Benjamin, in Ephraim also and Manasseh, until they had utterly destroyed them all. Then the children of Israel returned, every man to his possesion, into their own cities."(II Chronicles 31:1)

See that, Grumps? When they destroyed the "graven images", they received "mercy" and "compassion", didn't they? They weren't "judged" at all for the sins of their fathers once they stopped committing the same sins themselves, were they? Of course not. SO WHERE'S THE CONTRADICTION?!? What the matter? Cat got your tongue? No. That's right. In your ridiculous "evolutionary scheme" YOU got the cat's tongue, didn't you? To quote you: "Here kitty, kitty." Your other "misquotes" would be covered by this same principle:

Those who continue in the sins of their fathers receive judgment, whereas those who forsake the sins of their fathers receive mercy. Got it? Probably not.
newguy
QUOTE (Capn Caveman+Oct 6 2005, 09:17 PM)
It is morally Wrong to legislate morality and we all know it.

Capn Caveman: All "legislation" is someone's "morality" and we all know it.
Grumpy
To new guy

QUOTE
See that, Grumps? When they destroyed the "graven images", they received "mercy" and "compassion", didn't they? They weren't "judged" at all for the sins of their fathers once they stopped committing the same sins themselves, were they? Of course not. SO WHERE'S THE CONTRADICTION?!? What the matter? Cat got your tongue? No. That's right. In your ridiculous "evolutionary scheme" YOU got the cat's tongue, didn't you? To quote you: "Here kitty, kitty." Your other "misquotes" would be covered by this same principle:


And just which graven images would they destroy if their father was not married to their mother???

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
See that, Grumps? When they destroyed the "graven images", they received "mercy" and "compassion", didn't they? They weren't "judged" at all for the sins of their fathers once they stopped committing the same sins themselves, were they? Of course not. SO WHERE'S THE CONTRADICTION?!? What the matter? Cat got your tongue? No. That's right. In your ridiculous "evolutionary scheme" YOU got the cat's tongue, didn't you? To quote you: "Here kitty, kitty." Your other "misquotes" would be covered by this same principle:


And just which graven images would they destroy if their father was not married to their mother???

Deutoronomy
23:2 A bast--d shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

<br>Thats 10 generations of sanctions against inocent children.

QUOTE
Isaiah
14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.
<br>It's kind of hard to destroy graven images and repent if your DEAD, you idiot.

This is but one area where the Bible contradicts itself and shows it is not inerrant or without error. This is also why you should cease and desist with you noxious posts. If you cannot make an argument on your own, using this flawed book doesn't help you any. I do not intend to use scripture in my arguments again, I just wanted to point out what a fallacy it is to use the Bible as a dependable source. You can find passages to support anything in that book. Logic and evidence are the only thing we will respect, if you have none of either, don't post at all.

I had not intended to use the Bible passages as ammo again however, with some people, it is the only thing to use. His misuse of scripture is no more accurate than his misuse of bold letters and quotation marks. It seem, in my evolutionary scheme, he evidently recieved the manners of a monkey in the zoo, throwing his fecal matter at everyone. He should emulate the manners of the chimps and gorillas,his distant uncles, who know how to behave much better.


I could care less what you think of me or what names you call me, your own misery in your private hell on Earth are worse than anything I would wish on even such a sorry example of humanity as yourself.

Grumpy mad.gif

RealityCheck
Hello newguy.

1) Regarding yours and Grumpy's respective interpretation of the relevant passage from (Exodus 20:4-6):

“.....for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."


I humbly submit that Grumpy understood correctly, because you will note that the passage CLEARLY puts the people of the time into TWO camps:

- those that ‘hate’ ‘god’; and...

- those that ‘love’ ‘god’ and keep his commandments.


In this light, an OBJECTIVE reading of the above-quoted passage shows clearly that:

- those who ‘love etc.’ god’ will be ‘shewn’ mercy, while...

- those that ‘hate’ ‘god’ will also have the iniquities of the fathers visited upon their progeny unto the 3rd & 4th generation by that ‘jealous god’.


2) Regarding your reply to Capn Caveman...

QUOTE newguy: "All "legislation" is someone's "morality" and we all know it."

Proper or 'natural justice' legislation springs from and addresses the objective human condition and interactions; whereas improper or 'unnatural justice' legislation springs from religious dogma and despotic regimes. Then of course there is the 'economic'/'bureaucratic' legislation, which merely codify/regulate the trade-conventions/usage as well as taxation matters.

Morality tends over time to be weeded out of legislation in any truly free/democratic society as the dynamics of that society produce the 'norms' of personal, business and national duties/responsibilities (which can be 'common law' well in advance of actual official regulation/legislation).


RealityCheck.
.
newguy
RealityCheck: As much as I enjoy your new tone in your recent posts, I still heartily disagree with what you just wrote. Whereas there are "two camps", to quote you, those who "hate God" demonstrate their "hate" by following in the "sins of their fathers"(unless they had righteous fathers and are just sinning on their own), in this specific case, namely "bowing to idols". When they are willing to "turn" from these aforementioned sins and "keep God's commandments" , they receive mercy. If they aren't willing to "turn", they receive judgment. Those who "love God and are keeping His commandments"(in this specific case, NOT "bowing to idols") would include both those whose fathers' walked in righteousness before they did and those who "turned" from the sins of their fathers and are now walking righteously themselves. That is the point I was trying to make.

As far as the topic of "legislating morality" is concerned: Wouldn't you agree that many of the topics that are hotly debated have "morals" at their center? Some obvious examples would be abortion(One would say: "Keep your laws off of my body!", while another would say: "You're killing an innocent child!"...notice Grumpy apparently hasn't been bothered by this "loss of innocent life"), stem-cell research, "gay" marriage, etc. I don't know, realistically, how one could separate "morals" from these and many other debates, especially when one may have to "support with their tax dollars" something that they personally find "morally repugnant". Being forced to "support" something you totally disagree with(which ever side of the debate you find yourself on), I think, would be an infringement upon someone's "morals" and unless "laws" are done away with completely, someone's "morals" are going to become "legislation". This is all part of the voting process...many, if not all, people "vote with their conscience", so to speak. What do you think? I should have clarified which type of "legislation" I was referring to in my previous post. I think you know which type of "legislation" I am referring to now.
adoucette
QUOTE (newguy+Oct 11 2005, 02:46 PM)
Wouldn't you agree that many of the topics that are hotly debated have "morals" at their center? Some obvious examples would be abortion(One would say: "Keep your laws off of my body!", while another would say: "You're killing an innocent child!"...notice Grumpy apparently hasn't been bothered by this "loss of innocent life"), stem-cell research, "gay" marriage, etc. I don't know, realistically, how one could separate "morals" from these and many other debates, especially when one may have to "support with their tax dollars" something that they personally find "morally repugnant". Being forced to "support" something you totally disagree with(which ever side of the debate you find yourself on), I think, would be an infringement upon someone's "morals" and unless "laws" are done away with completely, someone's "morals" are going to become "legislation". This is all part of the voting process...many, if not all, people "vote with their conscience", so to speak.
I'm curious how you associate your examples with "supporting (things morally repugnant to you) with your tax dollars"

Roe V Wade does not provide funding for abortion.
Gay marriage laws don't provide subsidies for getting married (depending on the tax laws (which tend to change over time) there is often a "marriage penalty").
Allowing Stem cell research is not the same as funding the research.

Arthur


GeneSplicer
QUOTE
As far as the topic of "legislating morality" is concerned: Wouldn't you agree that many of the topics that are hotly debated have "morals" at their center? Some obvious examples would be abortion(One would say: "Keep your laws off of my body!", while another would say: "You're killing an innocent child!"...notice Grumpy apparently hasn't been bothered by this "loss of innocent life"), stem-cell research, "gay" marriage, etc.
<br>Unless you are going to remove the right of an individual to do with their body as they please or the right to privacy, then you have no say-so in the matter. You may not like what someone else does just as someone else may not like you preaching a myth, but such is the case in a free society.

Contrary to what theist like you claim, marriage has nothing to do with any religion. Marriage is simply a contract between two individuals, hence why if the contract is violated, the damaged party can seek damages. Theist claim that marriage is their domain, but like many things that xian bible claims, marriage and social unions predate the xian mythos. Since marriage is nothing more than a contract, it may be engaged by anyone who wishes to engage in such a contract and is legally able to do so (age, mental state, etc.)

If you believe that the 16 cells or a few thousand cells make up a human, then you are not rational.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
As far as the topic of "legislating morality" is concerned: Wouldn't you agree that many of the topics that are hotly debated have "morals" at their center? Some obvious examples would be abortion(One would say: "Keep your laws off of my body!", while another would say: "You're killing an innocent child!"...notice Grumpy apparently hasn't been bothered by this "loss of innocent life"), stem-cell research, "gay" marriage, etc.
<br>Unless you are going to remove the right of an individual to do with their body as they please or the right to privacy, then you have no say-so in the matter. You may not like what someone else does just as someone else may not like you preaching a myth, but such is the case in a free society.

Contrary to what theist like you claim, marriage has nothing to do with any religion. Marriage is simply a contract between two individuals, hence why if the contract is violated, the damaged party can seek damages. Theist claim that marriage is their domain, but like many things that xian bible claims, marriage and social unions predate the xian mythos. Since marriage is nothing more than a contract, it may be engaged by anyone who wishes to engage in such a contract and is legally able to do so (age, mental state, etc.)

If you believe that the 16 cells or a few thousand cells make up a human, then you are not rational.

I don't know, realistically, how one could separate "morals" from these and many other debates, especially when one may have to "support with their tax dollars" something that they personally find "morally repugnant".
<br>Moral are subjective. Many find anyone who wishes to know or control what one does in private to be morality repugnant, yet you, SoLoved and duke care nothing of that.

QUOTE
Being forced to "support" something you totally disagree with(which ever side of the debate you find yourself on), I think, would be an infringement upon someone's "morals" and unless "laws" are done away with completely, someone's "morals" are going to become "legislation". This is all part of the voting process...many, if not all, people "vote with their conscience", so to speak. What do you think? I should have clarified which type of "legislation" I was referring to in my previous post. I think you know which type of "legislation" I am referring to now.
<br>And how are you being force to support marriage open to all? Are you paying for their marriage? Or is it the fact that they will get the benefit tax-wise?

Right now, all stem cell research is private and not federally funded. No tax support there.

If you think that having to put up with other people engaging in activity you see as repulsive is supporting them, then I predict you will be living in a world of hurt.

There are many actives I find repulsive, in bad taste or a prime example of uncivilized behavior (mobile boom-boxes, corner preachers, tax-free politically involved churches, “activists”, etc) but recognizing the freedoms of others and living by a set of standards based on personal freedoms requires one to reasonably live and let live. Anything short of that mean intrusion into the lives of others.

I dare say that mindsets like yours are fear-based. If people were brave enough to accept the responsibility of true freedom and did not fear anything different simple because of the difference, your ideology would be abandoned. It must use fear to control and operate and I think you realized that without fear, you loose members and control.

Proof of such is the hatred and preaching of damnation you, duke and soloved engaged in not to mention the veiled threat of anyone who is not a follower of your myth will eventual be punished while you will be proven righteous.

Sanctimonious mystics.
Capn Caveman
Newguy-
This is the primary problem. You can legislate with yourt brain, or you can legislate with your "morals". Legislating with your brain is taking into consideration that not all people think like you. That there may be people who find your idea of morality as repugnant as you do theirs.
The constitutional way to go about it is to allow everyone the freedom to believe as they will. Separation of church and state-- THE fundamental constitutional freedom.
You simply say "this is too personal, it's not our business"
Not "This is a personal choice, and they're using it to sin! Stop them!"

Less gov't the better. I mean you ARE a republican aren't you?

To bring it back, the reason Science does such a great job of mapping reality is the fact that is objective. The whole picture is taken into accoount. Not just "Whoa, that's complex, and nature seems so dumb..."

You know?

Grumpy
To new guy

I notice no response to my last post. Are you avoiding uncomfortable truths?

Grumpy mad.gif
newguy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 11 2005, 04:43 PM)
To new guy

I notice no response to my last post. Are you avoiding uncomfortable truths?

Grumpy mad.gif

Grumpy: I'm not "avoiding" anything...they're certainly NOT "truths". Let's start with your "quote" from Deuteronomy:

"A b*stard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord."(Deut. 23:2)

First of all, I'm not sure which "quote" the following statement of yours was linked to, as it appeared wedged between two other quotes.

"And just what graven images would they destroy if their father was not married to their mother???"

As I said, that statement of yours appeared wedged between two quotes...one had to do with "graven images" and the other had to do with "b*stards", so I'm not sure which quote to apply your statement to, as it could easily pertain to both. I'll "assume"(correct me if I make the wrong "assumption") that you think the word "b*stard" has to do primarily with one born out of wedlock and therefore your "their father was not married to their mother" statement. IF this is what you are implying, THEN I would suggest that you look up the word that is translated as "b*stard" in a Hebrew lexicon or concordance. In the original Hebrew it reads:

mamzer - from an unused root meaning to alienate; a mongrel, i.e. born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother: - b*stard.

This being the case, the portion of scripture you "quoted" could easily read:

"A child born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord."(Deuteronomy 23:2)

God's desire for the "Jewish nation"(I will inevitably need to give a Biblical description, sometime in the future, of what a true "Jew" is and isn't) was that they would properly represent Him here on this earth. He desired a pure, holy people that were totally set apart and consecrated unto Him. Therefore the Jewish/heathen "mixture" would be a departure from God's desire, unless the heathen "converted" and became a true "Jew" in the Biblical sense of the word. The denunciation of this type of "mixture" was at least as much a part of God's decree as the "offspring" of this type of "mixture". You can see how the "flipside" of this "mixture" affected the Apostle Paul and Timothy in the New Testament:

"Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek."(Acts 16:1-3)

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that you started your Old Testament "quote" where you did. I thought for sure you would have included verse 1 as well:

"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. A b*stard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord."(Deuteronomy 23:1-2)

God did make provision for both the "eunuch" or "he that hath his privy member cut off" and the "b*stard" or "son of a stranger" to be part of his congregation in spite of the sins of their parents:

"Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people."(Isaiah 56:3-7)

Look up the word "stranger" as in "son of the stranger" in the original Hebrew and you will find the following definition:

nekar - foreign, or a foreigner, or heathendom: - alien, strange(+ -er).

Apparently, God is telling the same "eunuchs" and "b*stards" or "sons of foreigners or heathens" that they are most certainly welcome in His house if they "take hold of His covenant". It is also interesting to note that this is the same portion of scripture(Isaiah 56:3-7) that Jesus "quoted" from when He drove the moneychangers and sellers out of God's temple.

"And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves."(Mark 11:15-17)

This selling and moneychanging was taking place in the "court of the Gentiles". God desired His house to be a "house of prayer for all nations" and this included being a "house" for the aforementioned "eunuchs" and "b*stards" or "sons of a stranger" that "took hold of His covenant". Jesus was so zealous to see these "eunuchs" and "b*stards", as well as others, have their rightful place in God's house that He "cleansed the temple" of the moneychangers and sellers. So in light of all this, the "b*stards" are not paying for the sins of their fathers after all, are they? As I said, I believe the portion of scripture that you "quoted" from Deuteronomy is speaking at least as much to the "mixed couple", so to speak, as to their "offspring" and their "offspring" can most definitely enter into "God's house" as long as they are willing to "take hold of His covenant". Conversely, if they are not willing to "take hold of His covenant", then they have no rightful place in His house and truly are "b*stards" or "illegitimate children"(NOT having God as their "Father"), in another sense of the word. Hope that answers half of your question...I'll get to the other half when I have more time. By the way, I noticed you didn't respond to my remark about "abortion". What do you think about those "innocents"?

P.S. I'd better mention this now... "Mixed marriages" were merely a natural example being used by God to denounce "spiritual mixture". I'll elaborate on that, if need be.
GeneSplicer
This is another aspect of the xian religion that I find abhorrent; god’s chosen race. The definition of racism is the belief in the inherent superiority or inferiority of one race or races to another race or races. Once you have on race marked as the chosen of a god or diet, then all others become less than the chosen.
I_AM_TOAD
huh.gif unsure.gif

I thought that a B@stard is a illegitimate child. .?

I'm sure that there are other meanings for the word, though! Each country has different meanings for words. It could also depend on what AGE the word was used. Word definitions are changed over periods of time.....aren't they? Who knows how much it has changed since...um...I guess the first written Bible.?. unsure.gif It could have a whole different meaning, now. tongue.gif .

B-b-bu-but I-I-'m not on anyones side so don't attack me! please :nervous smile:

::people are very angry at each other:: ABSUM!



:in an agreeing and surprised voice:(Yes that IS a very large amount of corn)
I_AM_TOAD
OAH, SH*&!!

I'm supposed to look for some info on that tribe, aren't I!!?

I'll look for it, like right after I post this.!!





Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules - If I were you, I wouldn't walk in front of any catapults. (What Great Advice!)

Grumpy
To Newguy

And the dead guys??

Grumpy mad.gif
RealityCheck
Hello newguy.

1) Again regarding your respective interpretation of the relevant passage from (Exodus 20:4-6):

“.....for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

Again, you will note that the passage CLEARLY puts the people of the time into TWO camps:

- those that ‘hate’ ‘god’; and...

- those that ‘love’ ‘god’ and keep his commandments.


Again, an OBJECTIVE reading of the above-quoted passage shows clearly that:

- those who ‘love etc.’ god’ will be ‘shewn’ mercy, while...

- those that ‘hate’ ‘god’ will also have the iniquities of the fathers visited upon their progeny unto the 3rd & 4th generation by that ‘jealous god’.

ALL YOUR FURTHER ATTEMPTS TO ‘QUALIFY’ THAT CLEAR MEANING TO FIT YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION ARE INVALID, AS THE CASE FOR SUCH ATTEMPTS IS PREDICATED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ONLY “CHOICE” IN THIS CASE FOR THE ‘CHILDREN’ IS TO EITHER:

- BOW TO IDOLS AND SO ESCHEW “GOD’s COMMANDMENTS” (and be punished); or...

- NOT BOW TO IDOLS AND SO KEEP “GOD’s COMMANDMENTS” (and be rewarded).

THIS ‘BLACK-AND-WHITE’ ('us'-and-'them') VIEW OF THINGS IS RENDERED A NON-SEQUITUR because IT DOES NOT ALLOW for those ‘children’ who wished to:

- BOW TO NEITHER ‘GODS’ NOR’ IDOLS...and wish ONLY to be FREE PEOPLE IN A FREE SOCIETY OF RATIONAL BEINGS working together TO DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT IS RIGHT AND AND WRONG for themselves; WITHOUT the ‘debilitating superstition’ born of ignorance, and ‘unreasoning fear’ inculcated by preachers/priests serving one ‘god’ or other for their own ends....

....in which case THESE ‘children’ must be both REWARDED for not bowing to ‘idols’; AND PUNISHED for not ‘loving god’.

See the contradictive perils of PROSCRIPTIVE RELIGIOUS TEXTS BASED ON A WORLD VIEW THAT IS DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY AND THE HUMAN CONDITION?...especially when those texts are DATED and DIVISIVE and JUST PLAIN WRONG/IRRELEVANT in situations where the ‘religious cure’ is NOT NEEDED by individuals who have the integrity and the strength of character and the intelligence to arrive at “right and wrong” decisions among themselves in a humane and just society based on objective realities rather than superstitious/religious dogma.


2) Regarding your statement.... ‘All "legislation" is someone's "morality" and we all know it.’

Your attempt to justify it by saying...

QUOTE newguy: ‘As far as the topic of "legislating morality" is concerned: Wouldn't you agree that many of the topics that are hotly debated have "morals" at their center? Some obvious examples would be abortion(One would say: "Keep your laws off of my body!", while another would say: "You're killing an innocent child!"’

You may notice that there is a VAST GULF between THE DEBATE surrounding a topic, and THE LEGISLATION WHICH EMERGES from that debate. For decades in Ireland, for example, the debate was STIFLED and RELIGIOUS MORALITY imposed because of the power of the clergy; Whereas in country’s where the powers of church and state are TRULY separated, the people are ‘free’ to arrive at legislation which takes into account THE REALITIES OF THE HUMAN CONDITION, and so may result in legislation DIFFERENT from those elsewhere resulting from RELIGIOUS MORALITY. In short, while ‘morals’ are an unavoidable element in the ‘DEBATE’, they are NOT unavoidable elements of the resulting ‘LEGISLATION’.


By the way, my new 'tone' was adopted in the first instance in an attempt to 'get through' to the reasoning/comprehension (not preaching/proselytizing) faculties of SoLoved. I was also trying the same in your case. The principle being that 'you catch more flies with honey than with "logic"' (replacing "vinegar" with "logic" here constitutes humorous paraphrasing, SoLoved. hehehe). The jury is still out on whether my attempts in either case will meet with ANY degree of success.


RealityCheck.
.
newguy
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Oct 11 2005, 07:41 PM)
This is another aspect of the xian religion that I find abhorrent; god’s chosen race.  The definition of racism is the belief in the inherent superiority or inferiority of one race or races to another race or races.  Once you have on race marked as the chosen of a god or diet, then all others become less than the chosen.

GeneSplicer: I kind of anticipated this type of response(I'm not mocking) and therefore never used any terms such as "chosen race". I know that there are many professing believers that believe this nonsense, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that God has "chosen" a particular race. The Bible clearly states that those who are "chosen" are "chosen" in Christ. The invitation to be "in Christ" is given to all...I will elaborate much more on this, if need be.
newguy
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 11 2005, 10:48 PM)
Hello newguy.

1) Again regarding your respective interpretation of the relevant passage from (Exodus 20:4-6):

“.....for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

Again, you will note that the passage CLEARLY puts the people of the time into TWO camps:

- those that ‘hate’  ‘god’; and...

- those that ‘love’  ‘god’ and keep his commandments.


Again, an OBJECTIVE reading of the above-quoted passage shows clearly that:

- those who ‘love etc.’ god’ will be ‘shewn’ mercy, while...

- those that ‘hate’ ‘god’ will also have the iniquities of the fathers visited upon their progeny unto the 3rd & 4th generation by that ‘jealous god’.

ALL YOUR FURTHER ATTEMPTS TO ‘QUALIFY’ THAT CLEAR MEANING TO FIT YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION ARE INVALID, AS THE CASE FOR SUCH ATTEMPTS IS PREDICATED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ONLY “CHOICE” IN THIS CASE FOR THE ‘CHILDREN’ IS TO EITHER:

- BOW TO IDOLS AND SO ESCHEW “GOD’s COMMANDMENTS” (and be punished); or...

- NOT BOW TO IDOLS AND SO KEEP “GOD’s COMMANDMENTS” (and be rewarded).

THIS  ‘BLACK-AND-WHITE’ ('us'-and-'them') VIEW OF THINGS IS RENDERED A NON-SEQUITUR because IT DOES NOT ALLOW for those ‘children’ who wished to:

- BOW TO NEITHER ‘GODS’ NOR’ IDOLS...and wish ONLY to be FREE PEOPLE IN A FREE SOCIETY OF RATIONAL BEINGS working together TO DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT IS RIGHT AND AND WRONG for themselves; WITHOUT the ‘debilitating superstition’ born of ignorance, and ‘unreasoning fear’ inculcated by preachers/priests serving one ‘god’ or other for their own ends....

....in which case THESE ‘children’ must be both REWARDED for not bowing to ‘idols’; AND  PUNISHED for not ‘loving god’.

See the contradictive perils of PROSCRIPTIVE RELIGIOUS TEXTS BASED ON A WORLD VIEW THAT IS DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY AND THE HUMAN CONDITION?...especially when those texts are DATED and DIVISIVE and JUST PLAIN WRONG/IRRELEVANT in situations where the ‘religious cure’ is NOT NEEDED by individuals who have the integrity and the strength of character and the intelligence to arrive at “right and wrong” decisions among themselves in a humane and just society based on objective realities rather than superstitious/religious dogma.

RealityCheck: Forgive me if I don't answer things in the order that you post them...

Once again, regarding your "new" tone, I hope it lasts. Although the probabilties of us ever coming to an agreement are slim, at least I hope we can present our views in a civil manner.

I should probably state a thing or two, just for the record and for future reference. First of all, lest I be generally clumped together with others, my personal "fight", if I can use that word, is not really related to the areas of politics or schooling. I will admit that at times I overlap into those "arenas", but they are not my main "battlefield". Whatever any of you think of me, my only real concern is the souls of men. I understand your position on that topic and realize that your position is not likely to change, but that is what I'm about nonetheless. And, believe it or not, I'm not "bitter", as someone suggested, nor "miserable"...I'm quite happy, aside from the fact that I do genuinely grieve for the plight of mankind, whether you or anyone else can ever understand or appreciate that. Somebody also recently asked if I'm a "republican". I'm not. I'm not a "democrat" either. I'm a Christian. That is the only "party" that I pledge my allegiance to and whoever is closer to that party I will lean towards. This by no means indicates that I support what is known as the "Christian right" over here in the States. As some have said, and I agree to a large extent, much of what comes from the so-called "Christian right" is neither "Christian" nor "right". In addition, by no means do I believe for even a nanosecond that our President over here in the States is a "Christian"...if he was, many would probably hate him even more than they do now. I know many view him as such and therefore assume that his positions dictate how a Christian thinks or behaves, but I am not numbered in that camp. All that was just for the record...you can draw any conclusions from it that you'd like.

Finally(at least for now), regarding your "debilitating superstition born of ignorance, and unreasoning fear inculcated by preachers/priests serving one 'god' or other for their own ends" statement:

Aren't you forgetting that the passage of scripture that we are discussing was spoken by God Himself to a very large congregation of people that were assembled together at Mount Sinai? "Preachers/priests" had nothing to do with it whatsoever:

"And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die. And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold."(Exodus 20:18-23)

In light of this, I heartily disagree that the people had the third option of "bowing to neither God nor idols". They were certainly accountable for what they had seen...not only here, but also in their travels that led them to this place of a personal encounter with God Himself. Now I assume that this will be immediately relegated to the dungeon of "myth"...nonetheless, those of us who have had personal encounters with God ourselves, know this to be true.
RealityCheck
Hello newguy.


1) Regarding your statement clarifying your 'personal' position.

Understood and respected. Everyone is entitled to their PERSONAL stance; ONLY WHERE THAT STANCE IS ATTEMPTED TO BE OFFENSIVELY and/or INAPPROPRIATELY and/or ANNOYINGLY and/or IMPORTUNELY foisted on others AGAINST THEIR WISHES does that respect END.


2) Regarding your contention that “the passage of scripture that we are discussing was spoken by God Himself to a very large congregation of people that were assembled together at Mount Sinai? "Preachers/priests" had nothing to do with it whatsoever:”

Even allowing (which I don’t) that ‘god himself’ spoke those words to a congregation :-

- Your statement that "Preachers/priests" had nothing to do with it whatsoever” would contend THAT ALL PEOPLE THROUGHOUT ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY since that purported ‘speech’ by ‘god’ WOULD THEN HAVE PERFECT INFORMATION OF IT without resort to ‘texts’/’minutes’ of same COMPILED/REPRODUCED/PROMULGATED by ‘his’ PREACHERS and PRIESTS to those not present and to later generations. Since this contention is patently absurd, then so is your insistence that preachers and priests play/played no role in the matter; and...

- The ‘eyewitness’ status and the ‘choices’ made (love ‘god’ and eschew idols/hate ‘god’ and keep idols) BY ALL THOSE ‘FATHERS’ PRESENT has NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE ‘BORN’ AFTERWARDS TO THOSE FATHERS.....since MANY of those ‘unto 3rd & 4th gen etc.’ HAD ANOTHER CHOICE...namely, to wish to have nothing to do with EITHER ‘gods’ OR ‘idols’...and most recently wish EVEN LESS to have ANYTHING to do with all these MAD MULLAHS/PREACHERS/PRIESTS whose activities so endanger the sanity and very existence of many of us and our children! So your interpretation/spin is again A NON-SEQUITUR and ABSURD in the light of reason and free will.


Please don’t waste any more of the time and goodwill of those here by continued ‘religious-spinning’ of yourself and your scriptures. While it may entertain, it does not convince/convert. Give it up and get a life, is my suggestion to you as a concerned fellow human being. Honestly, you would try the patience of a saint with this futile attempt at proselytizing...and ‘lord knows’ (irony, SoLoved) I am neither saint nor demon, merely a decent human being whose patience and tolerance is not unlimited when it comes to suffering fools gladly...be those fools of the religious or garden variety.


RealityCheck.
PS: It is apparent that my ‘change-of-tone’ efforts have not been efficacious in your case; hence the less restrained tone of that last paragraph. Pity.
.
newguy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Oct 11 2005, 09:54 PM)
To Newguy

And the dead guys??

Grumpy mad.gif

Grumpy: To those who might have missed it, the "dead guys" you are referring to are found in the following portion of scripture that you "quoted" to me:

"Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities."(Isaiah 14:12)

First of all, let's properly identify who the "his" is in "his children" by simply going back 8 verses:

"That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!"
(Isaiah 14:4)


The "his" is "the king of Babylon".

Secondly, let's get some sort of time-frame as to when this was spoken. This particular passage of scripture was penned somewhere around 712 B.C., which can be traced by researching the year in which king Ahaz died.

"In the year that king Ahaz died was this burden."(Isaiah 14:28)

The actual long-prophesied destruction of Babylon took place around the year 538 B.C. according to historians. This means that there was approximately 174 years of "advance warning" given to the Babylonians. Seems to me that that would be enough time to "make things right". Wouldn't you agree? In addition, this wasn't the only "advance warning", by any means. A similar "advance warning" was given by the prophet Jeremiah, for example, in the year 595 B.C., as is recorded in Jeremiah chapter 51. During this latter "warning", God went so far as to tell the people to leave Babylon, lest they be destroyed with her. Here are some examples of this:

"Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul: be not cut off in her iniquity; for this is the time of the Lord's vengeance; he will render to her a recompense."(Jeremiah 51:6)

"My people, go ye out of the midst of her, and deliver ye every man his soul from the fierce anger of the Lord."(Jeremiah 51:45)

To understand some of the motivators for the Lord's "vengeance", "recompense" or "fierce anger", you can simply read all of Jeremiah chapter 51, for starters. In addition, not only did God give ample "advance warning" to "flee out of the midst of Babylon", but he also foretold exactly by whose hands the Babylonians would be destroyed.

"Prepare against her the nations with the kings of the Medes, the captains thereof, and all the rulers thereof, and all the land of his dominion."(Jeremiah 51:28)

"Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it."(Isaiah 13:17)

By the way, this area of perfectly-fulfilled, historically-proven, prophecy has yet to be addressed, at least to my knowledge, by any on your side of the argument in this forum. The prophet Daniel tells us, and history supports, that the kingdom of Babylon was indeed overthrown by the Medes somewhere around the year 538 B.C.

"In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old."(Daniel 5:30-31)

Not only did God give "advance warning" to "flee out of the midst of Babylon" and by whom it would be overthrown, but He also gave them the "time-frame" in which this overthrow would take place. Come on, now. How much more does one need?!? Belshazzar was the grandson of King Nebuchadnezzar and God accurately foretold, some 60 years earlier in around 598 B.C., that the kingdom of Babylon would fall during his reign as recorded in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah:

"And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son's son, until the very time of his land come: and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him."(Jeremiah 27:6-7)

It seems to me, thus far, that everyone who was "slaughtered" in the destruction of Babylon, could have escaped, had they simply heeded the warnings of God through His prophets. Belshazzar, who was the king of Babylon at the time of its destruction, was more accountable than all of the rest. He had already seen God's humbling of his grandfather Nebuchadnezzar as recorded in Daniel chapter 4. Here's a portion of that humbling:

"The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws. And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?...Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase."(Daniel 4:33-35, 37)

In spite of all this knowledge, Belshazzar went so far in his sins as to drink wine out of the vessels that were taken from the temple in Jerusalem and praise the gods of gold, silver, brass, iron, wood and stone(see Daniel 5:1-4) with them. Then came the famous "handwriting on the wall"...I think you know the rest of the story. God, Who "declares the end from the beginning" knew that the people of Babylon would never change and simply had them "slaughtered" at the appointed time. This may seem "cruel" to you because apparently you don't understand the concept of "justice" or "judgment". This same type of "justice" or "judgment" will be meted out at the return of Christ.

"And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. And he called his ten servants, and delivered unto them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."(Luke 19:11-27)

That, by the way, was Jesus speaking. I, for one, fully intend to "Occupy until He comes" and to "go for souls". As with the Babylonians, you have all been given "advance warning" as to the fate of those Who reject the Lordship of Jesus Christ over their lives. You told me in a previous post that I don't know Who Jesus Christ is. Yes, I do. He's an "austere man" Who expects what He's given us back "with interest", spiritually speaking. That's all, for now...
newguy
RealityCheck: Have it your way. I could, once again, answer what you just posted from a scriptural perspective, but it is obvious that you are not interested in any such answers. I'll honor your choice. That by no means indicates that I will not continue to incorporate scriptures into future posts on this or other forums. Since you are not interested in this type of dialogue with me, then please try to refrain from personally addressing me in future posts, as much as is possible. Thank you.
RealityCheck
Hello newguy.

1) Regarding your refusal to answer my straightforward questions.

More evasion on your part....has the 'mantle of evasion' passed officially from SoLoved to you?

If not, then please answer the accusations of inconsistency/irrelevance I made in my above post.

And try 'for heavens' sake' (irony, SoLoved) to answer with a modicum of consistency/coherence that does not ultimately depend on an 'effluence' of scriptural gobbledegook from a 'text' whose provenance, relevance and objective veracity is so eminently and rightly questioned by any reasonable person TODAY.


2) Regarding your wish that I refrain from addressing you as much as possible.

Who are YOU to even SUGGEST that I leave YOU alone?...WHEN YOUR WHOLE LIFE IS PREDICATED ON THE IMPOSITION OF YOURSELF and YOUR 'GARBAGE' on people WHO TOO WISH TO BE LEFT ALONE....in this case, BY YOU.

Or are THEIR wishes/rights NOT AS VALID/RESPECTABLE AS YOURS when it comes to YOU foisting YOURSELF and your DELUSIONS on THEM?


RealityCheck.
.
Grumpy
To new guy

I know what justice is. I know what judgment is. I could site chapter and verse from the Bible where God's judgment is not justice,but you would cite other chapter and verse saying I was wrong. The funny thing is that according to the scripture we could both be correct. The Old Testament(the Torah) is full of injustice and misjudgment. The problem stems from the centuries which passed between the events depicted and the writing of the books. They are not consistent(even in the same book) they are full of injustice(in the human sense, I don't care what justification you or your God care to make) they tolerate evils such as slavery, incest, misogyny, racism, genocide, multiple marriages and concubines for the men and instant divorce,second class citizenship, and death by stoning of any woman who tried to do the same.

For these and other reasons I (and others) reject this flawed document as the collective superstitions of the Jewish people, not accurate history and certainly not accurate science. I (and others) also reject any supernatural claims made by you or your God, don't care what you think about that and don't really want to hear such superstitious garbage on any subject except the discussion of the CSBS/ID vs. Evolution debate. That's what these forums(fori) are basically about. Go, save the lives of those who choose to tune into that sick, twisted web site of yours(you should learn about sugar as opposed to vinegar as a lure. Give them the good side first.) As for trying to prove ANYTHING to me about the universe using the Bible is futile, I don't believe you.

Grumpy mad.gif
newguy
Grumpy: Typical, much expected response. Every time you "misquote" and I "straighten it out", you suddenly don't want the Bible referenced any more. Like I said to RealityCheck, have it your way.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE
GeneSplicer: I kind of anticipated this type of response(I'm not mocking) and therefore never used any terms such as "chosen race".
<br>You don’t need to use the term and I’m sure there are many sticky topics you anticipate but wish to avoid.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
GeneSplicer: I kind of anticipated this type of response(I'm not mocking) and therefore never used any terms such as "chosen race".
<br>You don’t need to use the term and I’m sure there are many sticky topics you anticipate but wish to avoid.

I know that there are many professing believers that believe this nonsense, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that God has "chosen" a particular race. The Bible clearly states that those who are "chosen" are "chosen" in Christ. The invitation to be "in Christ" is given to all...I will elaborate much more on this, if need be.
<br>The simple fact is that many orthodox Jewish leaders and the community at large make such a claim. Your claims are nonsensical. How can a people who do not belive that Jesus was the Christ and that the Christ is yet to be born be “chosen” in or by him?

Spin it as much as you wish newguy, the simple fact is that the xian bible makes the claim that the xian god has chosen the Jewish race. Orthodox Jewish leaders and the community at large (both Jews and non-Jews) make this claim to this day.

Even more nonsensical is the practice of linking religious identity to race and it is custom with Orthodox Jews. As a result of this, it is common to be called anti-Semitic if one questions the Jewish faith because the faith and the race are inexorably linked in their view.
newguy
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Oct 12 2005, 02:43 PM)
QUOTE
GeneSplicer: I kind of anticipated this type of response(I'm not mocking) and therefore never used any terms such as "chosen race".
<br>You don’t need to use the term and I’m sure there are many sticky topics you anticipate but wish to avoid.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
GeneSplicer: I kind of anticipated this type of response(I'm not mocking) and therefore never used any terms such as "chosen race".
<br>You don’t need to use the term and I’m sure there are many sticky topics you anticipate but wish to avoid.

I know that there are many professing believers that believe this nonsense, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that God has "chosen" a particular race. The Bible clearly states that those who are "chosen" are "chosen" in Christ. The invitation to be "in Christ" is given to all...I will elaborate much more on this, if need be.
<br>The simple fact is that many orthodox Jewish leaders and the community at large make such a claim. Your claims are nonsensical. How can a people who do not belive that Jesus was the Christ and that the Christ is yet to be born be “chosen” in or by him?

Spin it as much as you wish newguy, the simple fact is that the xian bible makes the claim that the xian god has chosen the Jewish race. Orthodox Jewish leaders and the community at large (both Jews and non-Jews) make this claim to this day.

Even more nonsensical is the practice of linking religious identity to race and it is custom with Orthodox Jews. As a result of this, it is common to be called anti-Semitic if one questions the Jewish faith because the faith and the race are inexorably linked in their view.
GeneSplicer: This is neither a "sticky topic" nor do I "wish to avoid it". As I said, "nowhere" in the Bible does it say that God has "chosen" a particular race. I know there are many groups of people that believe this, but their beliefs are Biblically unfounded. One of the scriptures that the Jews misuse to make themselves the "chosen people" is the following:

"And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."(Exodus 19:3-6)

This was, and is, an "if/then" agreement. "If" the nation of Israel obeyed God's voice indeed, and "if" the nation of Israel kept God's covenant, "then", and only "then" would they be God's "peculiar treasure" and "an holy nation". History bears record that, for the most part, the nation of Israel never really kept their part of the covenant, except on limited occasions as a group, and other occasions as individuals. The Bible makes it clear fhat the "the Israel of God"(Galatians 6:16) is comprised of both Jews and Gentiles that believe in and follow Jesus Christ(Galatians 3:26-29. Romans 2:28-29, etc., etc.).

As far as "anti-Semitism" is concerned... For starters, the word "Semitic" finds its origins in the name of one of Noah's sons, "Shem". God promised that "he shall dwell in the tents of Shem"(Genesis 9:27) and He did just that, for Abraham was a direct descendant of Shem(Genesis 11:10-26) and Jesus Christ is the promised "seed of Abraham"(Matthew 1:1, Hebrews 2:16, etc., etc.). Spiritually speaking, a true "Semite" is a believer in and follower of Jesus Christ. That would, in essence, make all of you that scorn Him and His followers "anti-Semitic" as well as "anti-Christ".
adoucette
QUOTE (newguy+Oct 12 2005, 03:18 PM)
One of the scriptures that the Jews misuse to make themselves the "chosen people" is the following:

"And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."(Exodus 19:3-6)

This was, and is, an "if/then" agreement. "If" the nation of Israel obeyed God's voice indeed, and "if" the nation of Israel kept God's covenant, "then", and only "then" would they be God's "peculiar treasure" and "an holy nation". History bears record that, for the most part, the nation of Israel never really kept their part of the covenant, except on limited occasions as a group, and other occasions as individuals. The Bible makes it clear fhat the "the Israel of God"(Galatians 6:16) is comprised of both Jews and Gentiles that believe in and follow Jesus Christ(Galatians 3:26-29. Romans 2:28-29, etc., etc.).

Well lets see:

If Noah's small band is where all people of the world came from, then everyone is a member of the group "the children of Israel"

And based on this passage:

Those that "keep my covenant" will in fact be "above all people".

Which certainly SOUNDS the same as "the chosen people"

And then there is the part:
QUOTE
History bears record that, for the most part, the nation of Israel never really kept their part of the covenant, except on limited occasions as a group, and other occasions as individuals
<br>So you keep track of how individual Jews behave?

When do you find the time?

Or are you really God and you are just playing with us?

Come on, come clean, if you are God, just tell us.

Arthur



newguy
QUOTE (adoucette+Oct 12 2005, 03:47 PM)
QUOTE (newguy+Oct 12 2005, 03:18 PM)
One of the scriptures that the Jews misuse to make themselves the "chosen people" is the following:

"And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.  Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.  These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."(Exodus 19:3-6)

This was, and is, an "if/then" agreement.  "If" the nation of Israel obeyed God's voice indeed, and "if" the nation of Israel kept God's covenant, "then", and only "then" would they be God's "peculiar treasure" and "an holy nation".  History bears record that, for the most part, the nation of Israel never really kept their part of the covenant, except on limited occasions as a group, and other occasions as individuals.  The Bible makes it clear fhat the "the Israel of God"(Galatians 6:16) is comprised of both Jews and Gentiles that believe in and follow Jesus Christ(Galatians 3:26-29. Romans 2:28-29, etc., etc.).


Well lets see:

If Noah's small band is where all people of the world came from, then everyone is a member of the group "the children of Israel"

And based on this passage:

Those that "keep my covenant" will in fact be "above all people".

Which certainly SOUNDS the same as "the chosen people"

And then there is the part:
QUOTE
History bears record that, for the most part, the nation of Israel never really kept their part of the covenant, except on limited occasions as a group, and other occasions as individuals
<br>So you keep track of how individual Jews behave?

When do you find the time?

Or are you really God and you are just playing with us?

Come on, come clean, if you are God, just tell us.

Arthur
Arthur: I must confess that I've read some idiotic responses in the past, but yours "takes the cake"! You said(To quote Bugs Bunny, distant relative of yours, no doubt: (What a marooooon!):

"If Noah's small band is where all people of the world came from, then everyone is a member of the group "the children of Israel".

DUH!!! Noah had 3 sons(You know, like in "My three sons"...da nan na na, da nan na na...?!?): Shem, Ham and Japheth.

"Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood...These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, [B]in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood."(Genesis 10:1, 32)[/B]

I know I only quoted the first and last verses of Genesis chapter 10...feel free to read the rest of the verses on your own.

"The children of Israel" came through the lineage of Shem...several other nations came from his lineage and his brothers' lineage as well. I guess you haven't quite mastered this "if/then" thing, have you?

As far as how "individual Jews behave"... I don't need to "keep track" of them, to use your words. The Bible clearly speaks of how "individual Jews behave" and I've also met quite a few Jews personally, I might add. By the way, you know what the Bible is, don't you? The Word of God which tells us about such "individual Jews" as Peter and Paul. Ever heard of them before? Or do you prefer that other "Peter Paul"...you know, "Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't!" Although you personally take all of the "joy" out of an "Almond Joy", I would hope this is one of the times that you "feel like a nut"...but, alas, I fear it won't be. Oooops! Did I say "fear"? I forgot it was such a bad, bad word. Twenty lashes with a wet noodle.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE
GeneSplicer: This is neither a "sticky topic" nor do I "wish to avoid it". As I said, "nowhere" in the Bible does it say that God has "chosen" a particular race.
<br>This is one I have had thrown at me for such a claim.

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: THE LORD THY GOD HATH CHOSEN THEE TO BE A SPECIAL PEOPLE UNTO HIMSELF, ABOVE ALL PEOPLE THAT ARE UPON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. The LORD DID NOT SET HIS LOVE UPON YOU, NOR CHOOSE YOU, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: BUT BECAUSE THE LORD LOVED YOU, and BECAUSE HE WOULD KEEP THE OATH WHICH HE HAD SWORN UNTO YOUR FATHERS..." (Deuteronomy 7:6?8; 14:2; Isaiah 41:9; 43:1, 10?20; 44:23; 48:10; 49:3; Haggai 2:23)

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
GeneSplicer: This is neither a "sticky topic" nor do I "wish to avoid it". As I said, "nowhere" in the Bible does it say that God has "chosen" a particular race.
<br>This is one I have had thrown at me for such a claim.

"For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: THE LORD THY GOD HATH CHOSEN THEE TO BE A SPECIAL PEOPLE UNTO HIMSELF, ABOVE ALL PEOPLE THAT ARE UPON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. The LORD DID NOT SET HIS LOVE UPON YOU, NOR CHOOSE YOU, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: BUT BECAUSE THE LORD LOVED YOU, and BECAUSE HE WOULD KEEP THE OATH WHICH HE HAD SWORN UNTO YOUR FATHERS..." (Deuteronomy 7:6?8; 14:2; Isaiah 41:9; 43:1, 10?20; 44:23; 48:10; 49:3; Haggai 2:23)

I know there are many groups of people that believe this, but their beliefs are Biblically unfounded. One of the scriptures that the Jews misuse to make themselves the "chosen people" is the following:

<br>Watch it newguy. Such comments are anti-Semitic.


QUOTE
The Bible makes it clear fhat the "the Israel of God"(Galatians 6:16) is comprised of both Jews and Gentiles that believe in and follow Jesus Christ(Galatians 3:26-29. Romans 2:28-29, etc., etc.).
<br>Excuse me, but what was that whole “b*stard” thing referenced earlier? You know, that a “b*stard” would be the result of procreation between a Jew and non-Jew? Cannot have it both ways.

Also, Orthodox Jews must adhere to a much stricter set of rules that the “rest” of mankind. One set of rules of the chosen, one for the non-chosen. Add the fact that Jews mix race and religion within their identity and always have, then the xian god choosing the people of Israel is a racial one.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The Bible makes it clear fhat the "the Israel of God"(Galatians 6:16) is comprised of both Jews and Gentiles that believe in and follow Jesus Christ(Galatians 3:26-29. Romans 2:28-29, etc., etc.).
<br>Excuse me, but what was that whole “b*stard” thing referenced earlier? You know, that a “b*stard” would be the result of procreation between a Jew and non-Jew? Cannot have it both ways.

Also, Orthodox Jews must adhere to a much stricter set of rules that the “rest” of mankind. One set of rules of the chosen, one for the non-chosen. Add the fact that Jews mix race and religion within their identity and always have, then the xian god choosing the people of Israel is a racial one.

As far as "anti-Semitism" is concerned... For starters, the word "Semitic" finds its origins in the name of one of Noah's sons, "Shem". God promised that "he shall dwell in the tents of Shem"(Genesis 9:27) and He did just that, for Abraham was a direct descendant of Shem(Genesis 11:10-26) and Jesus Christ is the promised "seed of Abraham"(Matthew 1:1, Hebrews 2:16, etc., etc.). Spiritually speaking, a true "Semite" is a believer in and follower of Jesus Christ. That would, in essence, make all of you that scorn Him and His followers "anti-Semitic" as well as "anti-Christ".
<br>Shem’s descendants include modern day Arabs as well, but the modern use of the term is in reference to the Jewish people only. Again, no Jew believes that Jesus was the Christ so they would not believe in him and a son of Shem is decided by bloodline. Bloodlines are very important within the Jewish community. You are a Jew form birth based on your bloodline.

You seem to be either combining aspect of both faiths or you are not familiar with both faiths. In either case, what you claim is not reflective of established statements and beliefs. Take for example your spin of labeling anyone who does not believe in Jesus or accept his existence as being anti-Semitic which is the same as being anti-Christ.
I_AM_TOAD
I FOUND INFO ON THAT TRIBE, THEY'RE CALLED THE DOGON!! biggrin.gif (yeah, how good am I!)

Now, I messed up a few times, it's 60 years not 75 years and...other, um, stuff too. HERE is the actual info-stufff-thing...ahem, just read.

(THERE IS A LOT!!!)

“Did amphibious beings from the star Sirius visit the earth 5,000 or more years ago and leave advanced astronomical knowledge that is still possessed by a remote African tribe called the Dogon? This astonishing claim was put forward in 1976 by Robert Temple in his "ancient astronaut" book, The Sirius Mystery. An astronomer, familiar with the Sirius system, would say no, because astronomical theory virtually precludes the possibility that Sirius is a suitable parent star for life or that it could have habitable planets. But most of Robert Temple's readers would not know enough astronomy to judge the matter for themselves. Neither would they find the relevant astronomical information in Temple's book, most of which consists of brain-numbing excursions into Egyptology. (Isaac Asimov has been quoted by Temple as having said that he found no mistakes in the book; but Temple did not know that the reason for this, according to Asimov, was that he had found the book too impenetrable to read!*) Even the BBC-TV Horizon investigation on ancient astronauts (broadcast as part of the PBS "Nova" series in the United States), which did an otherwise excellent demolition job on the more extreme fantasies of Erich von Däniken, left the Sirius problem unanswered because of its extreme complexity. Yet an answer is needed, because the Dogon legends about a companion to Sirius are claimed to originate before any terrestrial astronomer could have known of the existence of Sirius B, let alone its 50-year orbit or its nature as a tiny, condensed white dwarf star, all of which the Dogon allegedly knew. So what is the truth about the Dogon and Sirius? Does astronomical and anthropological information omitted by Temple help us to resolve this most baffling of all ancient astronaut cases?
First, let's recap Temple's story. At the center of the mystery are the Dogon people living near Bandiagara, about 300 kilometers south of Timbuktu, Mali, in western Africa. Knowledge of their customs and beliefs comes from the French anthropologists Marcel Griaule and Germaine Dieterlen, who worked among the Dogon from 1931 to 1952. Between 1946 and 1950 the Dogon head tribesmen unfolded to Griaule and Dieterlen the innermost secrets of their knowledge of astronomy. Much of this secret lore is complex and obscure, as befits ancient legends, but certain specific facts stand out, particularly those concerning the star Sirius, with which their religion and culture is deeply concerned. In the information imparted to the French anthropologists, the Dogon referred to a small and super-dense companion of Sirius, made of matter heavier than anything on Earth, and moving in a 50-year elliptical orbit around its parent star. The white dwarf companion of Sirius which answers to this description was not seen until 1862, when the American optician Alvan Graham Clark spotted it while testing a new telescope; the superdense nature of white dwarfs was not realized until the 1920s. But the Dogon Sirius traditions are at least centuries old. How can we account for the remarkable accord between ancient Dogon legends and modern astronomical fact?
Temple's answer, since espoused by Erich von Däniken (of course!), was that the Dogon were told by extraterrestrial visitors. A Dogon legend, similar to many other tales by primitive people of visits from the sky, speaks of an "ark" descending to the ground amid a great wind. Robert Temple interprets this as the landing of a rocket-powered spacecraft bringing beings from the star Sirius. According to Dogon legend, the descent of the ark brought to Earth an amphibious being, or group of beings, known as the Nommo. "Nommo is the collective name for the great culture-hero and founder of civilization who came from the Sirius system to set up society on the Earth," Temple explains in his book. The Nommo were amphibious, he presumes, because water would keep them cool and absorb short-wavelength radiation from the hot star Sirius.
Much of Temple's book is devoted to establishing that the Dogon share common roots with Mediterranean peoples. This explains the central place occupied by Sirius in Dogon beliefs, because the ancient Egyptians, in particular, were also preoccupied with Sirius, basing their calendar on its yearly motion. But is there any explanation of the apparent Dogon belief in life in the Sirius system?
First, let's look at what astronomers know about Sirius to see if it is at least theoretically plausible that advanced life might have arisen in its vicinity. Sirius A, the brightest star in the night sky as seen from Earth, has a mass 2.35 times that of the sun. Its white dwarf companion, Sirius B, has a mass of 0.99 suns. Stellar evolutionary theory tells us that the most massive stars burn out the quickest, so that originally Sirius B must have been the more massive of the two, before burning out to become a white dwarf. Probably Sirius B spilled over some of its gas onto Sirius A during its aging process, so that the original masses of the two stars were approximately the reverse of what we see today.
A star with twice the sun's mass, as Sirius B probably had, can live for no more than about 1,000 million years before swelling up into a red giant; this does not seem long enough for advanced life to develop. But had life evolved, it would have disappeared during the red giant stage of Sirius B, when any nearby planet would have been roasted by the star's increased energy output, followed by a stellar gale for at least 100,000 years as hot gas streamed from Sirius B to Sirius A. During this mass transfer the two stars would have moved apart, thereby destabilizing the orbits of any planets in the system. According to observations of Sirius B as analyzed by H. L. Shipman of the University of Delaware, Sirius B has been a cooling-down white dwarf for at least 30 million years. Sirius B is now emitting soft x-rays, so that life in the region of Sirius would not be very pleasant today. But in any case, Robert S. Harrington of the U.S. Naval Observatory has recently shown that planetary orbits in the "habitable" zone around Sirius, defined as the region in which water would be liquid, are unstable. So there are unlikely to be any amphibious beings living on planets in the Sirius system today, if indeed any such beings ever lived there.
Temple offers one prediction which allows a test of his theory. In his book he says: "What if this is proven by our detecting on our radio telescopes actual traces of local radio communications?" To help in my investigation of the Sirius mystery, I asked radio astronomers Paul Feldman at the Algonquin radio observatory, Canada, and Robert S. Dixon at the Ohio State University radio observatory, both of whom are carrying out searches for extraterrestrial signals, to listen to Sirius. They would normally have paid the star no attention, because of the extreme unlikelihood of its supporting life. In April 1977 both radio astronomers listened to Sirius on different wavelengths, without detecting any artificial signals.
With this information in mind, let's look more skeptically at the Dogon legend. Immediately, we encounter a surprise: the Dogon maintain that Sirius has two companions, not one. These companions have male and female attributes, respectively. It seems that they are not to be interpreted literally as stars, but as fertility symbols. Nowhere is this better shown than in a Dogon sand diagram of the complete Sirius system, shown in the illustration redrawn here from a paper by Griaule and Dieterlen. Its description, given in the caption from information by Griaule and Dieterlen, is clearly symbolic; Temple chooses to interpret it literally. On pages 23 and 25 of his book he gives his own modified version of this diagram, retaining the symbol for Sirius, one of the positions of Sirius B, and the surrounding oval; all else is omitted. He then interprets the surrounding oval meant to represent "the egg of the world," as the elliptical orbit of Sirius B around Sirius A, even though the symbol equated with Sirius B is drawn as lying within the oval, not on it. This is Temple's basis for saying that the Dogon "know" Sirius B orbits Sirius A in an ellipse.
The Dogon are also supposed to know that Sirius B orbits every 50 years. But what do they actually say? Griaule and Dieterlen put it as follows: "The period of the orbit is counted double, that is, one hundred years, because the Siguis are convened in pairs of 'twins,' so as to insist on the basic principle of twinness." The Sigui ceremony referred to is a ceremony of the renovation of the world that is celebrated every 60 years (not 50). And the "twinness" referred to here is an important Dogon concept which explains why they believe Sirius must have two companions.
Is there any astronomical evidence that Sirius has more than one companion star? Some astronomers in the 1920s and 1930s thought they had glimpsed a third member of the Sirius system, but new and more accurate observations reported in 1973 by Irving W. Lindenblad of the U.S. Naval Observatory, Washington, D.C., showed no evidence of a close companion to either Sirius A or Sirius B.
The whole Dogon legend of Sirius and its companions is riddled with ambiguities, contradictions, and downright errors, at least if we try to interpret it literally. But what can we make of the Dogon statement that Sirius B is the smallest and heaviest star, consisting of a heavy metal known as sagala? Sirius B was certainly the smallest and heaviest star known in the 1920s, when the super-dense nature of white dwarfs was becoming understood; the material of which white dwarfs are made is indeed compressed more densely than metal. Now, though, hundreds of white dwarfs are known, not to mention neutron stars, which are far smaller and denser. Any visiting spaceman would certainly have known about these, as well as black holes.
Dogon sand drawing of the complete Sirius system, after Marcel Griaule and Germaine Dieterlen. A, Sirius; B, po tolo, the object equated with Sirius B, shown in two positions; C, emme ya, the sun of women, equated with Sirius C; D, the Nommo; E, the Yourougou, a mythical male figure destined to pursue his female twin; F, the star of women, a satellite of emma ya; G, the sign of women; H, the sex of women, represented by a womb shape. The whole system is enclosed in an oval, representing the egg of the world.
Perhaps one would forgive Robert Temple for believing that the Dogon had been visited by men from Sirius if their legend specifically stated so. But it does not! Nowhere in his 290-page book does Temple offer one specific statement from the Dogon to substantiate his ancient astronauts claim. The best he does is on page 217, where he reports that the Dogon say: "Po tolo [Sirius B] and Sirius were once where the Sun now is." Of this ambiguous statement, Temple comments: "That seems as good a way as any to describe coming to our solar system from the Sirius system, and leaving those stars for our star, the Sun." But this cannot conceal the fact that the whole Sirius "mystery" is based on Temple's own unwarranted assumption.
The parts of Dogon knowledge that are admittedly both ancient and profound, particularly the story of Nommo and the concept of twinning, are the parts that bear least relation to the true facts about Sirius. The parts that bear at least superficial resemblance to astronomical fact are most likely trimmings added in this century. Indeed, in view of the Dogon fixation with Sirius it would surely be more surprising if they had not grafted on to their existing legend some new astronomical information gained from Europeans, picking what fitted their purpose and ignoring the rest.
Carl Sagan has underlined how easily information gained from Westerners can be absorbed into native culture. He recounts the true case of the physician Carleton Gajdusek in New Guinea, who was approached by a scientific colleague who had found that some local natives believed that a certain disease was transmitted in the form of an invisible spirit that entered the skin of a patient. The native informant had sketched with a stick in the sand a circle outside which, he explained, was black, and inside which was light. Within the circle the informant drew a squiggly line to represent the appearance of these invisible malevolent spirits. How did the natives get such an astounding insight into the transmission of disease by microbes? Years earlier, Gajdusek himself had shown the natives the appearance of a disease-causing germ through his microscope, and the sand drawing was simply the natives' recollection of this deeply impressive sight.
It is all too easy for Westerners to think of African tribes as isolated, uneducated, and ignorant. But the Dogon are not isolated. They live near an overland trade route, as well as close to the banks of the Niger River, an important channel of trade. Any number of travelers could have come into their midst, or Dogon tribesmen could have journeyed to the coast, where they might have met astronomically informed seamen. The Dogon have been in contact with Europeans since at least the late nineteenth century.
Nor are they uneducated and ignorant. Peter and Roland Pesch of the Warner and Swasey Observatory in Ohio have pointed out that French schools have existed in the Dogon area since 1907. Dogon tribesmen wishing to pursue their education have been able to do so in nearby towns. Then there are missionaries, who would naturally be interested in the legends of the natives. Missionaries from the White Fathers made contact with the Dogon in the 1920s. It is tempting to speculate that certain of the more specific details about Sirius B were grafted onto the existing Sirius legend at that time, because it was in the 1920s that astronomers were discovering the true nature of Sirius B as a tiny, super-dense star, and white dwarfs were being accorded the same kind of publicity as attends black holes today. Alas, there is no mention in the missionaries' summary reports of their activities that they discussed Sirius with the Dogon; if more detailed notes were published, these might throw more light on the origin and antiquity of Dogon myths.
The point is that there are any number of channels by which the Dogon could have received Western knowledge long before they were visited by Griaule and Dieterlen. We may never be able to reconstruct the exact route by which the Dogon received their current knowledge, but out of the confusion at least one thing is clear: they were not told by beings from the star Sirius.”
http://www.csicop.org/si/7809/sirius.html

NEW WEBSITE

“In Mali, West Africa, lives a tribe of people called the Dogon. The Dogon are believed to be of Egyptian decent and their astronomical lore goes back thousands of years to 3200 BC. According to their traditions, the star Sirius has a companion star which is invisible to the human eye. This companion star has a 50 year elliptical orbit around the visible Sirius and is extremely heavy. It also rotates on its axis.

This legend might be of little interest to anybody but the two French anthropologists, Marcel Griaule and Germain Dieterlen, who recorded it from four Dogon priests in the 1930's. Of little interest except that it is exactly true. How did a people who lacked any kind of astronomical devices know so much about an invisible star? The star, which scientists call Sirius B, wasn't even photographed until it was done by a large telescope in 1970.

The Dogon stories explain that also. According to their oral traditions, a race people from the Sirius system called the Nommos visited Earth thousands of years ago. The Nommos were ugly, amphibious beings that resembled mermen and mermaids. They also appear in Babylonian, Accadian, and Sumerian myths. The Egyptian Goddess Isis, who is sometimes depicted as a mermaid, is also linked with the star Sirius.

The Nommos, according to the Dogon legend, lived on a planet that orbits another star in the Sirius system. They landed on Earth in an "ark" that made a spinning decent to the ground with great noise and wind. It was the Nommos that gave the Dogon the knowledge about Sirius B.

The legend goes on to say the Nommos also furnished the Dogon's with some interesting information about our own solar system: That the planet Jupiter has four major moons, that Saturn has rings and that the planets orbit the sun. These were all facts discovered by Westerners only after Galileo invented the telescope.

The story of the Dogon and their legend was first brought to popular attention by Robert K.G. Temple in a book published in 1977 called The Sirius Mystery. Science writer Ian Ridpath and astronomer Carl Sagan made a reply to Temple's book, suggesting that this modern knowledge about Sirius must have come from Westerners who discussed astronomy with the Dogon priests. The priests then included this new information into the older traditions. This, in turn, mislead the anthropologists.

This is a possibility considering Sirius B's existence was suspected as early as 1844 and seen was through a telescope in 1862. It doesn't seem to explain a 400-year old Dogon artifact that apparently depicts the Sirius configuration nor the ceremonies held by the Dogon since the 13th century to celebrate the cycle of Sirius A and B. It also doesn't explain how the Dogons knew about the super-density of Sirius B, a fact only discovered a few years before the anthropologists recorded the Dogon stories.

It is also important to remember that although many parts of the Dogon legends seem to ring true, other portions are clearly mistaken. One of the Dogon's beliefs is that Sirius B occupied the place where our Sun is now. Physics clearly prohibits this. Also, if the Dogon believe that Sirius B orbits Sirius A every 50 years, why do they hold their celebrations every 60 years?

Sirius A is the brightest star in our sky and can easily be seen in the winter months in the northern hemisphere. Look for the constellation Orion. Orion's belt are the three bright stars in a row. Follow an imaginary line through the three stars to Sirius which is just above the horizon. It is bluish in color.

Sirius is only 8.6 light years from Earth. Astronomer W.Bessel was the first to suspect that Sirius had an invisible companion when he observed that the path of the star wobbled. In the 1920's it was determined that Sirius B, the companion of Sirius, was a "white dwarf" star. The pull of its gravity caused Sirius's wavy movement.

White dwarfs are small, dense stars that burn dimly. Sirius B is, in fact, smaller than the planet Earth. One teaspoon of Sirius B is so dense that it weighs 5 tons.

So did alien fish-men pay a visit to ancient Earth and give the Dogon their knowledge? Or was the Dogon's culture contaminated by western visitors? Or could the Dogon's have had ancient technical or non-technical means to find this information out? Or is the whole thing just a matter of coincidence?

The question maybe settled as larger and more powerful telescopes take a look at the Sirius system. According to the legend there is a third star: Sirius C, and it is around Sirius C that the home planet of the Nommos orbits. Most scientists do not consider any part of the Sirius system a prime candidate for life, though.

When Temple first issued his book in the 1970's there was no solid evidence of a Sirius C. In 1995, however, two French researchers, Daniel Benest and J.L. Duvent, authored an article in the prestigious journal Astronomy and Astrophysics with the title Is Sirius a Triple Star? and suggested (based on observations of motions in the Sirius system) there is a small third star there. They thought the star was probably of a type known as a "red dwarf" and only had about .05 the mass of Sirius B.

So has the home star of the Nommos been discovered? Or is this just another strange coincidence?”
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc118.htm

NEW WEBSITE
“Temple transcribed Griaule and Dieterlen's article called "A Sudanese Sirius System". It describes the Sigui ceremony which occurs every 60 years. Below is a sample:
"More consistent evidence of the celebration of the Sigui is provided by the large wooden mask, whose carving is one of the major concrete purposes of the ceremony. This mask -usually of considerable size - is seldom used and is kept in some shelter or hideaway in the rocks, along with those which have been carved at previous ceremonies. The care with which these masks are treated - for in some ways they are the village archives - means that it is not uncommon to come across series of three or four of them, the oldest of which date back, respectively ***to 1780 and 1720***, give or take a year or two. In exceptional cases, when the shelter has been well selected and under constant surveillance, the series may be longer still; thus at Ibi, in 1931, nine poles were counted, and these must have succeeded three more which had been reduced to a few fragments and piles of dust and were still visible; as were the special places earmarked for them at the back of the shelter, all perfectly protected from damp, vermin and animals. The oldest in the series of nine, which showed a continuous progression of ageing in the course of time, thus date from the beginning of the ***fifteenth century***; and if the three others are taken into account, the remnants of the earliest would date back to the first half of the ***thirteenth century.***" The Sirius Mystery pg.37-39”
http://skepdic.com/comments/dogoncom.html

NEW WEBSITE
“Sirius (A) is known by astronomers to be the brightest star seen from planet Earth. It is part of the constellation Canis Major. It is about 8.7 light-years from Earth and is visible in the Northern hemisphere evening sky from about November through April. Sirius is over 20 times brighter than our Sun.
From 1834 to 1844 some irregularities were noticed in the movement of Sirius by F.W. Bessel. It was supposed that Sirius must be affected by a second star, and in 1862 a faint companion star was finally detected by Alvan Clark, and it was named Sirius B. It is a white dwarf that, although small and faint (about 10,000 times dimmer than Sirius A) is is extremely dense and heavy enough to exert influence on Sirius A. In 1915 the first spectrum op Sirius B was obtained by W.Adams at Mt. Wilson, which is 'all that would have been needed to classify it as a white dwarf (very small, yet very massive : one teaspoon of Sirius B is so dense that it weighs 5 tons! Only in 1970 the first photograph could be taken of Sirius B by Dr. Irving W. Lendenblad of the US Naval Observatory. The picture looks like this: (Sirius A in the middle and Sirius B in the lower-right corner)


In 1995 two French researchers (Daniel Benest and J.L. Duvent) published an article in Astronomy and Astrophysics with the title Is Sirius a Triple Star?. They suggest that there might be a third star, a Sirius C. Here's an abstract of the article:
Abstract (from http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/): Sirius has been discovered as double more than 130 years ago. From the beginning of our century up to now, observational as well as physical and dynamical indications lead to the hypothesis of the existence of a third body in the system. In this paper, we present recent orbital analysis of the binary Sirius A-B which, helped by numerical simulation of triple systems, strengthens the idea for the triplicity of Sirius: a tiny star could revolve in about 6 years around Sirius A. Finally, we discuss the possibility of direct detection for this suspected Sirius C.

Two French anthropologists in the 1930's
Somewhere in the 1930's two French anthropologists (Marcel Griaule and Germain Dieterlen) were able to win the confidence of four Dogon priests of the Dogon people who live in the Homburi mountains near Timbuktu in Mali, West-Africa. The things they told these researchers are quite out of the ordinary. That is, at the center of their religious teachings is knowledge about a star that is invisible to the eye, which they call Po Tolo (Po=smallest seed known to the Dogon; Tolo=star). The priests said that 'Po Tolo' has an elliptical orbit around Sirius (A) and that the orbital period is 50 years (the actual figure is 50.04 +/- 0.09 years). Po Tolo was said to rotate on its own axis (it does). The Dogon also describe a third star in the Sirius system, called Emme Ya ("Sorghum Female"). On top of this knowledge their world-view was heliocentric and they knew about four moons of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn. How could they have known all this?
They claim that the knowledge was given to them by a race people from the Sirius system called the Nommos ("to make one drink") who visited Earth thousands of years ago. They are said to have come from a planet orbiting Sirius C. The Nommos were ugly, amphibious beings that resembled mermen and mermaids. These Nommos are said to also occur in Babylonian, Accadian, and Sumerian myths (the Sumerian's god 'Oannes' is said to be very similar to the Dogon description of Nommos). According to the Dogon legend, the Nammos lived on a planet that orbits another star in the Sirius system. They landed on Earth in an 'ark' that made a spinning descend to the ground with great noise and wind.
The Dogons have celebrated their customs for hundreds and hundreds of years which can be determined by numbering the ornate customs and relics that their leaders prepared for their great festival held once every 60 years. With several extant masks in various stages of decay, researchers have determined Dogon traditions to be well over a thousand years old.
Criticism
Although the Dogon-story is mind-boggling when it is true. Some critics strongly doubt the validity of it all. In response to a book ('The Sirius Mystery') written by Robert K.G. Temple in 1977 (with a more recent version, responding to the possible trinary nature of Sirius) astronomer Carl Sagan said that modern knowledge of Sirius must have come from westerners who must have talked to the Dogon priests before the anthropologists arrived. The priests probably incorporated these facts into their traditions.
This, however, does not explain a 400-year old Dogon artifact that apparently depicts the Sirius configuration nor the ceremonies held by the Dogon since the 13th century to celebrate the cycle of Sirius A en B. It also doesn't explain how the Dogons knew about the super-density of Sirius B, a fact only discovered a few years before the anthropologists recorded the Dogon stories.
In 1992 Walter van Beek, a Dutch Professor from the University of Utrecht, published an article in Current Anthropology named 'Dogon Restudied'. He studied the Dogon and could not find any evidence that they knew Sirius was a double star. Another source (Jay Ingram) says that van Beek found that the vast majority of these people knew nothing about Sirius having an invisible companion. According to Thomas Bullard, van Beek speculates that Griaule (the French anthropologist) wished to affirm the complexity of African religions and questioned his informants in such a forceful leading manner that they created new myths by confabulation.
The festivities mentioned above which take place every sixty years are not in compliance with the 50 years periode of Sirius B around Sirius A.
Playfair & Hill
In 'The Cycles of Heaven' by Guy Playfair and Scott Hill (1978) we can read about the Dogon as well. In addition to the information already presented above they say that the Dogon have long known about the circulation of the blood: they have known that there is 'red and white blood'. They have compared the bloodstream with the Milky Way. The Dogon claim that life on Earth descends from amphibious creatures from the Sirius system who came here in spacecraft. These include descriptions of a third star in the Sirius system, larger than Sirius B, with an orbital period of 32 years, and also a planet. (p.247)
While reading the 'Pleiadean Agenda', from which I took the quote on top of the page, I first encountered the Dogon tribe. Curious to see what is known about the possible links between these African people and Sirius I started to look on the Internet and I collected information from various sources. I intend to photocopy the two scientific articles mentioned in the articles-section, so I can have a first-hand look at these sources.
I tend to think that the Dogon-people (at least in the 1930's) knew about Sirius B, Sirius C, four moons of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn, not from Western scientists, but from another source. It is rather strange to think of beings from a Sirian C planet to have come to Earth to instruct both the Dogon and the Egyptians, probably somewhere around 3600 B.C., in pre-dynastic Egypt (in an article by Jasmine Courneya I read that the Sirius information was possessed by the Egyptians in pre-dynastic times before 3200 B.C.). This periode strongly reminds me of something I came across in this Pleiadean agenda concerning the Nibiru-planet. For those who are interested in the possibility that the Nommos are actualy beings from Nibiru, try to delve into Nibiruan texts and the interesting Sumerian stories on Enki and Enlil. The work of the scholar Sir Laurence Gardner on the Sumerian texts and the Bible has some ground in common with this possible link with the Nibiruan Annunaki who are supposed to have come from Sirius as well. In order to clarify the links between Earth, Nibiru and the Siriusstars I have provided the interested reader with a Digitaria page. I still don't know what to think really.”
http://home-2.worldonline.nl/~gibbon/dogon.htm

“Sirius and the Dogon people
From Wikipedia
Dogon mythology seems to describe Sirius B, which is not visible without the use of a telescope. Some of the information given by Dogon natives on the Sirius system was recorded before it was discovered by Western science.
“They call Sirius B Po Tolo. This star was the seed of the Milky Way galaxy and 'navel' of the entire universe, according to the Dogon mythological explanation of the universe. They describe the universe as "infinite, but measurable", and filled with many yalu ulo, or spiral star systems, including the one with our own sun.
According to the Dogon perception of the universe, most of the universe is part of the "external" star system, while nearer to Earth is the "internal" star system. The stars in the "internal" system include many that they claim affect the lives of people of Earth and play a part in human history, including not only the Sirius binary/ternary system, but also Orion, Pleiades and others.
The tribe neighbouring the Dogon, the Bozo, have a similar mythology about Sirius in the sky and refer to it as the "Eye Star."
According to some, the Dogons came in contact with an amphibious alien race, the Nommos, about 5000 years ago. The Nommos came from a planet orbiting Sirius and passed on information regarding the star system.”

I don't have time really to do things like sort through this much information. I have heaps of schoolwork. A test tomorrow, prodjects due, pages of math etc. All of that kind of stuff! tongue.gif ... dry.gif dumb teachers...hmmmm

Maybe all of that stress is what made me go....CRAZY (but not insane) wacko.gif wacko.gif wacko.gif ...Who! ph34r.gif HA! (ninja stule voice sounds)
jesus shark
i will cease my protests against the teaching of the teaching of religious creation stories in the classroom if they give all the religions a fair hearing. add the indic (hindu/buddhist/jain), zoroastrian, and tribal creation myths alongside the western one, and label them as "religious myths regarding the origin of existence," and there's not much to argue about.

of course, they have nothing to do with scientific theories of the origin of life/existence (evolution) and would be taught apart from them. the canon of religious mythology satisfies needs apart from those of the canon of scientific literature (traditional values/cultural myths and humanity's exploration into the nature of the universe.) science has two goals: end the troubles that have plagued humanity since time immemorial (disease, scarcity, war, and injustice) and understand the nature of the universe. religion has one goal: comfort people in the wake of the unavoidable sufferings of life (death, poverty, injustice). you needn't worry about poverty or inevitable death because God will give you unfathomable wealth and eternal life after you die. don't worry about the injustices inflicted upon you: they will reap the fruit of the misery they cause you when they die.
Beany
I am glad to live in the great country of Australia. At least this ID stupidity has not taken off yet (as far as I know or have heard). The most pathetic thing is all these people who believe in ID are posting threads on a science website.

Obviously all you people who believe in creationism have doubt that there really is a "super being." otherwise you would be contempt with the fact that you do not need to learn or read anything about science. As all observations and theories point to the Big Bang. You do not want to believe when you die, you die. END OF STORY

Just wanted to have my two cents about this topic.

Grumpy
new guy

QUOTE
Grumpy: Typical, much expected response. Every time you "misquote" and I "straighten it out", you suddenly don't want the Bible referenced any more. Like I said to RealityCheck, have it your way.


You misquote, rationalize, twist and turn the scripture any way you wish,but you will still be wrong in your understanding of Jesus, your understanding of humanity and your complete lack of knowledge of what science is and what it tells us about the universe. To live in ignorance amidst such a bounty of wonder is sad, and, according to most peoples understanding, contrary to the principles of your religion(I know you will say that all you need to know is the Bible, but you would be wrong). The reasons I have misgivings about using scripture to support my positions are that, due to the many contradictions in the current translation, anyone can support any position with quotes, everyone has a right to their own understanding(Baptist, remember), it is a misuse of scripture to use it to cause harm to others(as a weapon), I certainly do not accept it as inerrant and without error(though there is wisdom there) and I reject all supernatural claims therein as the ignorant superstitions of ignorant men and the nefarious ambitions of a clerical elite set on control of the masses and reward in this world(while preaching pie in the sky)(never listen to a fat preacher,priest,pastor etc., especially if he drives a caddy)

So it is distasteful to me to use scripture as you do for self aggrandizement, you should stand on your own two feet, use your own brain and your own logic in your posts, if you cannot your efforts are wasted here, you won't gain converts, your threats mean nothing, proving you are accurate in your statements with such a flawed text in this forum is an exercise in futility, your infantile name calling belittles yourself and your poisonous brand of superstition will be exposed for the fertilizer(in polite terms) that it is.

I could care less who you are, your logic and behavior are all I see. So far neither has left a favorable impression(a nearly universal assessment). I have never seen a street preacher(which you remind me of) make a single convert(any claims of such are suspect). If you truly wish to save anyone you must modify your methods, starting with that sick website(remember, sugar not vinegar) that hides the good news behind a cloud of evil.

Do I expect change in your behavior? No, I'm not sure you are capable of it. Besides, it's a free country, behave as you wish. You are certainly free to ignore my advice, just as I am then free to ignore your blather. But we can always hope.

PS Lose the excess quote marks and bold letters, overuse bleeds the effectiveness out of both, makes you posts a pain to read and call into question your intelligence and wit.(also a near universal opinion)

Grumpy mad.gif
newguy
Grumpy: Apparently your "universe" consists mainly of this forum, hence your repeated use of the term "nearly universal". You really should "get out" more often...possibly when someone accidentally leaves your cage door open. I "fit in" quite nicely with multitudes of people on this planet..."people", not self-professed "animals", being the operative word there. Have a nice day at the zoo.
J. Wensveen
QUOTE
PS Lose the excess quote marks and bold letters, overuse bleeds the effectiveness out of both, makes you posts a pain to read and call into question your intelligence and wit.(also a near universal opinion)

<br>AGREE !

Those make me skip through those posts very fast, since most are either confusing because they are counterproductive in regard to the Nethics most messageboards use, or just annoying.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
PS Lose the excess quote marks and bold letters, overuse bleeds the effectiveness out of both, makes you posts a pain to read and call into question your intelligence and wit.(also a near universal opinion)

<br>AGREE !

Those make me skip through those posts very fast, since most are either confusing because they are counterproductive in regard to the Nethics most messageboards use, or just annoying.

I "fit in" quite nicely with multitudes of people on this planet..."people", not self-professed "animals", being the operative word there.
<br>I see you already understand that you needed to accent the Fit in comment with quotes to indicate that this Fit in was not meant to be taken literally but more with sarcasm. I guess you subconciously already realise that your Idea of Fitting in is like having the Village Idiot fit into the social structure of a community. Someone must do the job of the Local fool or frothing lunatic, and I guess you are that person among the people you 'fit in' with.
newguy
J. Wensveen: You agree with Grumpy? What a surprise(not)? You know what they say, don't you: "MONKEY SEE, MONKEY DO!"
Kaeroll
Fancy that, whoever disagrees with Newguy and his personal version of the Bible, evolutionary theory, and the universe in general, is automatically a bad person and subhuman.

Next target, no doubt, will be Kaeroll: criticising newguy is a sin punishable by an eternity in hell, because newguy is God's representative on earth.
Grumpy
To new guy

I took your advice and visited the zoo. Saw your great uncle there, he said to tell you "ook ook", he said you would know what he meant. Please have a talk with your cousins, throwing feces is unsanitary and makes the whole family look bad.

I let my uncle in the gorilla compound read a few of your posts, after a while he turned green and threw up. On the other hand ,the chimps couldn't stop laughing.

Grumpy mad.gif
RealityCheck
Hello Grumpy and everyone.

How dare you speak thus to 'the missing link'? Don't you know newguy is 'valuable' as an object lesson to the children as to what the 'god' of IGNORANCE looks/sounds like? The lesson might go something like this: Now gather round children. Can anyone tell the class what a 'god' of ignorance looks like. Hint: such a 'god' is readily identified by the despicable echo-chamber that is a bible-basher's head. Yes Jimmy? Please Mr Grumpy, Sir, there's this newguy who has just moved into our neighbourhood, and my parents and the other parents around here have warned us not to have any 'contact' with the poisonous sounds that seem to be pouring out of what sounds like an echo-chamber where this newguy's head should be. Is this newguy in our neighbourhood a 'god' of ignorance, Mr Grumpy? Well, he certainly seems to have all the hallmarks of one. Your parents are very wise and loving to warn you against this newguy. Very good, Jimmy, you are an excellent scientific observer! Full marks! Anyone else....?

Thus endeth the lesson.

RealityCheck.
.
I_AM_TOAD
Basically to newguy:

U-er...I USUALLY don't like to take sides with things, but Grumpy has a good point about using Bible scripture. I agree with him. It is also rather funny that you are now using silly childish sayings. (The phrase "Monkey see, Monkey do" IS used for young children)

If you want to support your side of what seems to resemble a debate/ or opinion, use things other than from the bible......or is that all of the back-up there is for God? That would be VERY sad, indeed. If there is other info, place it and give the website and/or book. But remember, if you make up something or give a false statement, I will be looking into your further posts (Please, don't take this offensively. Not calling you one, I just don't like liars very much. You can't trust them or BELIEVE them. ph34r.gif Just like Ninjas. TEE HEE....ahem.

So many things have been scientifically proven wrong in the bible, how can we believe the rest of it? If there was actual EVIDENCE of something in the bible, I just might believe it a bit. I certainly wouldn't discard it. Are there artifacts from when "Christ lived". If he was SO IMPORTANT, why aren't there any kind of rarity from that time in museums? Think of the Egyptians. They kept ceremonial masks and everything and are now in museums. I don't understand that! (Unless I am horribly mistaken on my pitiful knowledge on something I don't believe)

These quotes from the bible you are using basically DON'T MEAN anything. There ISN'T ANY REAL PROOF! (not to my knowledge, anyway)

And regarding what Kaeroll posted, do you believe that all those scientists, archaeologists and the such are bad people because of their findings and (in a way) proof of evolution, especially of Human beings?
I_AM_TOAD
How could I be so rude not to say Hi back?So....



HI-O RealityCheck!! biggrin.gif tongue.gif Sup?! laugh.gif


)*(
RealityCheck

Hi I_AM_TOAD!

Everything'sup!...for scientific debate, at least, hehehe.

Your sense of humour is much in evidence, and much appreciated/enjoyed. Very beneficial to all concerned here (well, at least most here, I imagine!).

Now about "I_AM_TOAD": does your choice of nom de plume have anything to do with an understandable/shared fondness for the lovable but unpredictable character in "Wind in the Willows"?

RC.
.
newguy
QUOTE (I_AM_TOAD+Oct 14 2005, 01:32 AM)
Basically to newguy:

U-er...I USUALLY don't like to take sides with things, but Grumpy has a good point about using Bible scripture. I agree with him. It is also rather funny that you are now using silly childish sayings. (The phrase "Monkey see, Monkey do" IS used for young children)

If you want to support your side of what seems to resemble a debate/ or opinion, use things other than from the bible......or is that all of the back-up there is for God? That would be VERY sad, indeed. If there is other info, place it and give the website and/or book. But remember, if you make up something or give a false statement, I will be looking into your further posts (Please, don't take this offensively. Not calling you one, I just don't like liars very much. You can't trust them or BELIEVE them. ph34r.gif  Just like Ninjas. TEE HEE....ahem.

So many things have been scientifically proven wrong in the bible, how can we believe the rest of it? If there was actual EVIDENCE of something in the bible, I just might believe it a bit. I certainly wouldn't discard it. Are there artifacts from when "Christ lived". If he was SO IMPORTANT, why aren't there any kind of rarity from that time in museums? Think of the Egyptians. They kept ceremonial masks and everything and are now in museums. I don't understand that! (Unless I am horribly mistaken on my pitiful knowledge on something I don't believe)

These quotes from the bible you are using basically DON'T MEAN anything. There ISN'T ANY REAL PROOF! (not to my knowledge, anyway)

And regarding what Kaeroll posted, do you believe that all those scientists, archaeologists and the such are bad people because of their findings and (in a way) proof of evolution, especially of Human beings?

I_AM_TOAD: I fully agree with you that "the phrase 'Monkey see, Monkey do' IS used for young children". That is precisely why I knowingly chose to use it in my response to J. Wensveen. I trust you get my point. I have had dialogue with him several times on different threads and his level of both accuracy and intelligence has consistently proven to be lower than many, if not all, 3rd and 4th graders that I've spoken to over the years. Anyone who considers themself a direct descendant of apes, as Grumpy and J. Wensveen do...well, need I say more?

As far as your question regarding "proof" is concerned, I'll be happy to either send you some or refer you to places where you can find it on your own. I will not, however, make this offer in public anymore, as it is always met with unsubstantiated scorn and ridicule from the likes of those found on this forum. If you'd like to contact me privately, then you can reach me at the following email address:

repent16@hotmail.com

Until then...
ROBBIE THE ROBOT


DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!!!!
birdan
To I_AM_TOAD:

As I recall from previous posts, you mentioned you are 14 years old?, and you seem to have an exceptional curiosity and have come to these forum threads looking for information. I would STRONGLY SUGGEST that you bring back to this forum
any 'evidence' that newguy sends your way outside of this forum so that other people here can view it and give you their opinion.

There was one link that newguy posted here to the Wyatt Museum which I went to and commented on, and have heard no response since then from newguy. My observations of what I saw at the link are apparently viewed by newguy as "unsubstantiated scorn and ridicule", though I was merely commenting on the contents of the link.

Again, and I really mean it, I STRONGLY SUGGEST you get other opinions of whatever newguy sends your way. I, and I'm sure others here, will be glad to take the time to view whatever evidence you have at hand. I have 3 grown children, all still very inquisitive, so I know how important that search for answers and meaning is. I'm fairly certain you will not get a balanced view from newguy, and we can help provide that balance. I further suspect that newguy does not want to post that information here because he does not want any input from the scientific community on his 'information'.

Bruce
ROBBIE THE ROBOT

RUN, WILL ROBINSON!!!

DON'T GIVE THAT 'THING' YOUR EMAIL/STREET ADDRESS OR PHONE NUMBER!!!

TELL YOUR PARENTS IF HE STALKS YOU!!!

DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!
birdan
Very good point Robbie. I_AM_TOAD, you could just tell newguy you would rather his 'evidence' be posted here in the forum and you can view it safely through here. Be very careful with strangers over the internet.

Bruce
J. Wensveen
QUOTE
I have had dialog with him several times on different threads and his level of both accuracy and intelligence has consistently proven to be lower than many, if not all, 3rd and 4th graders that I've spoken to over the years.
<br>Does that mean I have to go even lower to be able to communicate at the same level as you? Besides, how do you estimate level of education, intelligence or accuracy?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I have had dialog with him several times on different threads and his level of both accuracy and intelligence has consistently proven to be lower than many, if not all, 3rd and 4th graders that I've spoken to over the years.
<br>Does that mean I have to go even lower to be able to communicate at the same level as you? Besides, how do you estimate level of education, intelligence or accuracy?

Anyone who considers them self a direct descendant of apes, as Grumpy and J. Wensveen do...well, need I say more?
<br>I guess you still have not understood anything. I do not consider myself a descendant of apes. Evolution is saying that somewhere down the line, a common ancestry exist from which bot apes as Men evolved.

To put that in your words: You had Adam and Eve, they got Children, and one line of Children evolved into the Intelligent Humans like Me and Grumpy and so on, and the other line evolved a different way, and came up with you. Just like Apes descended from a common ancestor.



Another thing: There is something like a Private Message function on this Forum where Links can be put into to that Satanic Propaganda you like to provide NewGuy
newguy
I_AM_TOAD: See what I mean? Below 3rd & 4th grade levels. Feel free to contact either Arthur Doucette(adoucette) or Steven Olson(steveo), two frequent posters on the physorg forum. Both of them have contacted me privately via email and have encountered none of the rubbish that these children have suggested. In Arthur's case, he did provide me with his name and address and I had some dvd's shipped to him at my full expense. Check with Arthur(adoucette), see if he encountered anything strange. In Steveo's case, he prefered not to have any videos/dvds sent to him in Canada, saying that he would check with his library at school to see if they had the materials that I referenced to him. Like I said, see if either one of them encountered anything strange, or if I've been "stalking" them. By the way, if you're going to be careful with anyone, I would suggest that you watch out for these pro-homosexual guys...might not want to bend over to tie your shoes in front of any of them.
Grumpy
new guy

QUOTE
By the way, if you're going to be careful with anyone, I would suggest that you watch out for these pro-homosexual guys...might not want to bend over to tie your shoes in front of any of them.


Class, real class.
adoucette
Newguy sent me some DVDs (from Wyatt Museum) which I actually started to watch last night. As they are DVDs he can't post the info. He has been totally above board. So, no I personally would not worry about him.

Arthur
newguy
Arthur: Thanks for your honesty.

I_AM_TOAD: By the way, since my last post, I remembered two other people from the physorg forum that I have corresponded with privately via email. They are CactusCritter and SoLoved. You might also want to check with them on my personal integrity. Also, 3 of these posters that I've referenced apparently have totally different viewpoints than I do(adoucette, steveo, cactuscritter) and still nothing unusual transpired as a result of our correspondence. The 4th poster(SoLoved) and I do apparently agree on some things, but not all. In addition, if birdan has your age(14) correct, then I would suggest you let your parents/guardian(?) oversee your activities...not any of the "strangers"(some are "stranger" than others) on this forum. If you really would like to see some videos/dvds, why not just check with either your parents/guardian(?) and they can contact me if they'd like at the email address that I posted earlier? I will incur the costs...contrary to all of the "fleecing the flock" garbage that I've endured from some of these posters, who are now counselling you, on other threads. Whatever you decide, have a good day.
GeneSplicer
QUOTE

"fleecing the flock" garbage that I've endured from some of these posters,
<br>Not you newguy, but rather the guy who produces these fantasy-filled movies. What you are engaging in much more up-front. You are simply attempting to spread your faith as you are commended to by your god. Is that more of that free will under god I’ve heard about on these posts?
Kaeroll
QUOTE (newguy+Oct 14 2005, 12:18 PM)
I would suggest that you watch out for these pro-homosexual guys...might not want to bend over to tie your shoes in front of any of them.
huh.gif And I suppose women should watch out for heterosexual men such as me and thee. Because of course, we're all "exactly" the "same".

Are you still in high school, by any chance?
ROBBIE THE ROBOT

MR ADOUCETTE

WITH RESPECT SIR///YOU AND STEVEO AND CACTUSCRITTER ARE NOT CHILDREN///BUT WILL ROBINSON IS///THE 'THING' DOES NOT REVEAL ITSELF TO ADULTS BECAUSE ADULTS HAVE LEARNED HOW TO IDENTIFY AND DEFEAT IT///CHILDREN HAVE NOT YET LEARNED TO DO THAT EFFECTIVELY///SO CHILDREN ARE THE WEAKER-PREFERRED PREY OF THAT 'THING'.

THE DANGER STILL EXISTS WILL ROBINSON!!!RUN!!!RUN!!!
adoucette
Robbie, you could be right, but in this case I simply don't think so. None the less, there is quite a difference between providing a mailing address and doing something stupid like agreeing to meet with some unknown person.

While someone could possibly be trolling for said youngsters in these forums one would think that he would choose a pond with a much higher available supply of prey and subject matter more conducive to their likes.

A "child", old enough to post on this board is a most unlikely candidate to be suckered by such a THING as you refer to.

In any case, Newguy has already changed his offer and suggested that Toad have his parents contact him, which I think pretty much closes this case.

Arthur
newguy
Arthur: You're on a roll and again I must commend you. Just another "strawman"... Aside from all, and I mean all, the insults that have been hurled my way over the past few weeks, I must actually be doing something right after all. If not, why the need for so many "strawmen" and "rabbit trails"? The real THING people apparently want I_AM_TOAD to "run" from is any evidence that might upset their evolutionary apple cart and validate the scriptures. I_AM_TOAD, like I said, feel free to check with your parents/guardian(?) and have THEM contact me if you're interested in some videos/dvds as that's all, contrary to the sick minds of some on this forum, I'm offering. Thanks.

P.S. ROBBIE THE ROBOT: If you'd like to provide me with a mailing address, then I'll be more than happy to send you a nice can of oil. Heck, I'll even throw in a spout! Please feel free to apply the oil abundantly to your brain as it seems to have jammed. Pity it wasn't your jaw.
Jerry Duke
user posted imageChrist Jesus came into the world to save sinners
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Oct 11 2005, 07:41 PM)
... racism is the belief in the inherent superiority or inferiority of one race or races to another race or races.  ...

Racism is a product of evolution. (see From the Mouths of Horses) There is no mention of races in the Bible.

The Bible says that all human beings are "of one blood" and that we are all the offspring of God. God chooses those who accept his Son Jesus Christ, but all have an opportunity to be chosen. There is one caveat. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. This makes it very difficult for proud people to receive Salvation, but not impossible. I was a very proud person for 18 years, but God in his mercy humbled me and allowed me to hear the Gospel and accept Jesus as my Saviour.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. (Acts 17:24-28)

How to be Saved

.
adoucette
The different Races are a product of evolution. Racism is not.

Arthur
Kaeroll
Mr Duke,
"Racism is a product of evolution. (see From the Mouths of Horses) There is no mention of races in the Bible."
Yes, you could say racism IS a product of evolution. You don't see racism amongst animals, to the best of my knowledge; only in humans - a product of evolution.

Racism is not, however, a product of the acceptance of evolutionary theory. Look at the enslavement of black people in the centuries before it was even proposed. Racism has frequently resulted from use of religion, i.e. "our God is better than yours".

I'm no Bible scholar, but there have been quotes posted here which outright disprove your second statement regarding the mention of races in the Bible. It is explicitly mentioned repeatedly.

Kaeroll
Guest
TOAD,

DON'T FORGET TO HAVE YOUR PARENTS CHECK OUT NEWGUY'S WEBSITE BEFORE CONTACTING HIM:

http://www.heavensentphotos.com/eternity.html

IF YOU'RE BIG INTO GOTH, YOU MIGHT LIKE THE STYLE, BUT ALSO PAY ATTENTION TO THE WORDS WRITTEN THERE! MY HEART REALLY GOES OUT TO HIS CHILDREN.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.