In article , get-
says...

God did not write the Bible, men did. Then other men interpreted what
men had written.


Hmm, really? I guess you never read the new testament.

Are we talking the version before Jerome, between Jerome and Luther, or
after Luther? After the King James and Douay? or before.

Are we talking about the Aramaic or the Greek versions (both before
Jerome).

Ever read the one where Jesus as a child got ****ed at his playmates and
turned them into stone?

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article ,
says...
A devottee of a single Christian sect remains so by being blind to &
rejecting the full range of belief. I do not claim to be an authority,
though, just have a deeper interest than dunderheads who blame their
prejudices & sillier observations on their religion, when they obviously
learned only enough about faith to justify hating whatever they already
hated.

Bring back Mithras! It's all a bunch of bull anyway :-).

Sorry, couldn't resist that one :-).

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

"escape" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:06:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

opined:


Two weeks back, PBS aired a Nova show which showed how scientists are
piecing together the beginnings of quadrupeds, starting with certain
types
of fish, and tracking the increments by which a fish finally left the
water
and walked on land. Assuming several million Christians watched this
show,
how do you suppose they felt about it? Did they consider it to be in the
same category as Star Trek?


I saw the show and it was wonderful. I was thinking about your question
as I
was watching it, funny enough. I have no idea what a Christian would
think
about it. I don't know how they can deny evolution, theory or not. My
problem is not with Christians believing in creation, but when it comes to
the
man running the US, it matters to me.

Well, people who are into WWII history believe that the movie "Enemy at the
Gates" was about a real person, and others, based on their research, think
there were several similar heroes, and the movie is about a compilation of
those people. Either way, it's still nice to believe in a story that
represents something. So, I have no problem with someone who sees the
creation as having symbolic beauty. But, when those people look at the last
100 years' of research into evolution and call it bullshit, it's time to get
out a really big roll of mental floss.

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article , get-
says...

God did not write the Bible, men did. Then other men interpreted what
men had written.


Hmm, really? I guess you never read the new testament.

Are we talking the version before Jerome, between Jerome and Luther, or
after Luther? After the King James and Douay? or before.

Are we talking about the Aramaic or the Greek versions (both before
Jerome).

Wow. God published international versions? :-)

On 11/17/04 4:37 PM, in article , "Doug
Kanter" wrote:


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article , get-
says...

God did not write the Bible, men did. Then other men interpreted what
men had written.


Hmm, really? I guess you never read the new testament.

Are we talking the version before Jerome, between Jerome and Luther, or
after Luther? After the King James and Douay? or before.

Are we talking about the Aramaic or the Greek versions (both before
Jerome).

Wow. God published international versions? :-)




Only the Torah......


Cheryl

(IntarsiaCo) expounded:


"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

A.Einstein

Einstein was a Pantheist. My kind of guy.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:33:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" "escape"
wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:06:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

opined:

Two weeks back, PBS aired a Nova show which showed how scientists are
piecing together the beginnings of quadrupeds, starting with certain
types
of fish, and tracking the increments by which a fish finally left the
water
and walked on land. Assuming several million Christians watched this
show,
how do you suppose they felt about it? Did they consider it to be in the
same category as Star Trek?

I saw the show and it was wonderful. I was thinking about your question
as I
was watching it, funny enough. I have no idea what a Christian would
think
about it. I don't know how they can deny evolution, theory or not. My
problem is not with Christians believing in creation, but when it comes to
the
man running the US, it matters to me.

Well, people who are into WWII history believe that the movie "Enemy at the
Gates" was about a real person, and others, based on their research, think
there were several similar heroes, and the movie is about a compilation of
those people. Either way, it's still nice to believe in a story that
represents something. So, I have no problem with someone who sees the
creation as having symbolic beauty. But, when those people look at the last
100 years' of research into evolution and call it bullshit, it's time to get
out a really big roll of mental floss.

There are many Christians that believe both in evolution, and in
creation as in God created the universe. They are not mutually
exclusive views, at least I don't see it that way.

There are some Christian groups that reject evolution, but I seriously
doubt they are a majority of Christians. Using the label Christians
to describe both groups and lump them as being the same in thought and
deed is not accurate.

As for rejecting history there are those that reject the moon
landings, though I've never taken the time to figure out if they're
just pulling everyone's leg.

From what I've read, the sniper Zaitsev in "Enemy of the Gates" was a
real person, and he has published a book of memoirs, but the sniper
duel was a fabrication. Who knows? Its easy to follow down a story
pretty far yet never get to the bottom. Good luck finding those
memoirs at Amazon.

Swyck

(paghat) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Roger Pearse) wrote:

(paghat) wrote in message
...
As someone who has for many years studied comparative religion, whose
personal library includes everything from the Babylonian Talmud to the
Zohar and Targums and Midrash Rabbah, to the Upanishads to the the Devi
Mahatmya to Kojiki: The Record of Ancient Matters, to the complete works
of the AnteNicene fathers, five translations of the Bible, the Ng Hammadi
texts & every conceivable scrap of Pseudepigrapha, to the Koran and the
complete works of Rumi, ad infitum, & having read this entire library more
than one time through, I can say that my interest in religion goes as deep
or deeper than yours. Good chance I even know more about your faith than
do you, unless you too have Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria within
arm's reach.

I'm afraid that this claim to authority must be disallowed by any
reasonable person. You are not an authority on a religion of which
you are not a member.

A devottee of a single Christian sect remains so by being blind to &
rejecting the full range of belief.

This claim is based on what peer-reviewed objective statistical
research? You see, it sounds like prejudice to me. Is it not
unacceptable to claim that our religious position alone is right and
everyone else is blind and stupid, surely? (Unless there is some
rational ground for the claim).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Larry Blanchard wrote in message ...
In article ,
says...
A devottee of a single Christian sect remains so by being blind to &
rejecting the full range of belief. I do not claim to be an authority,
though, just have a deeper interest than dunderheads who blame their
prejudices & sillier observations on their religion, when they obviously
learned only enough about faith to justify hating whatever they already
hated.

Bring back Mithras! It's all a bunch of bull anyway :-).

Sorry, couldn't resist that one :-).

Glad to see someone else can see the possibilities. "Get rid of the
bull, with Mithras"

All the best,

Roger Pearse

In article ,
(Roger Pearse) wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
A devottee of a single Christian sect remains so by being blind to &
rejecting the full range of belief. I do not claim to be an authority,
though, just have a deeper interest than dunderheads who blame their
prejudices & sillier observations on their religion, when they obviously
learned only enough about faith to justify hating whatever they already
hated.

Bring back Mithras! It's all a bunch of bull anyway :-).

Sorry, couldn't resist that one :-).

Glad to see someone else can see the possibilities. "Get rid of the
bull, with Mithras"

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Mithras is just another resurrected divinity like Tamuz and Jesus. A rose
by any other name is still just a fertility daemon worshipped as god. so
Mithras worship is still very much with us. Nothing wrong with that, only
whimsical that modern Mithras-Tamuz-Jesus worshippers think there's a
difference.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:33:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter" "escape"
wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:06:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

opined:

Two weeks back, PBS aired a Nova show which showed how scientists are
piecing together the beginnings of quadrupeds, starting with certain
types
of fish, and tracking the increments by which a fish finally left the
water
and walked on land. Assuming several million Christians watched this
show,
how do you suppose they felt about it? Did they consider it to be in
the
same category as Star Trek?

I saw the show and it was wonderful. I was thinking about your
question
as I
was watching it, funny enough. I have no idea what a Christian would
think
about it. I don't know how they can deny evolution, theory or not.
My
problem is not with Christians believing in creation, but when it comes
to
the
man running the US, it matters to me.

Well, people who are into WWII history believe that the movie "Enemy at
the
Gates" was about a real person, and others, based on their research,
think
there were several similar heroes, and the movie is about a compilation
of
those people. Either way, it's still nice to believe in a story that
represents something. So, I have no problem with someone who sees the
creation as having symbolic beauty. But, when those people look at the
last
100 years' of research into evolution and call it bullshit, it's time to
get
out a really big roll of mental floss.

There are many Christians that believe both in evolution, and in
creation as in God created the universe. They are not mutually
exclusive views, at least I don't see it that way.

I'm busy, so perhaps I'm not seeing all the possibilities, but at the
moment, I can only see two possible ways evolution and creation are NOT
mutually exclusive:

1) You believe each so-called "day" of creation actually represents millions
or billions of years. (I've heard this from a few saps).

2) You think carbon dating is junk science.

"Cheryl Isaak" wrote in message
...
On 11/17/04 4:37 PM, in article , "Doug
Kanter" wrote:


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article , get-
says...

God did not write the Bible, men did. Then other men interpreted
what
men had written.


Hmm, really? I guess you never read the new testament.

Are we talking the version before Jerome, between Jerome and Luther, or
after Luther? After the King James and Douay? or before.

Are we talking about the Aramaic or the Greek versions (both before
Jerome).

Wow. God published international versions? :-)




Only the Torah......


Cheryl


Do you know there's proof that Jesus was a Jew?

1) He thought his mother was a virgin.
2) His mother thought he was god.

That's that! :-)

On 11/18/04 3:00 PM, in article , "Doug
Kanter" wrote:


"Cheryl Isaak" wrote in message
...
On 11/17/04 4:37 PM, in article , "Doug
Kanter" wrote:


"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
In article , get-
says...

God did not write the Bible, men did. Then other men interpreted
what
men had written.


Hmm, really? I guess you never read the new testament.

Are we talking the version before Jerome, between Jerome and Luther, or
after Luther? After the King James and Douay? or before.

Are we talking about the Aramaic or the Greek versions (both before
Jerome).

Wow. God published international versions? :-)




Only the Torah......


Cheryl


Do you know there's proof that Jesus was a Jew?

1) He thought his mother was a virgin.
2) His mother thought he was god.

That's that! :-)




Isn't that the way all good Jewish mothers and sons work!

(ok - mine is only a prince!)

Cheryl

In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Do you know there's proof that Jesus was a Jew?

1) He thought his mother was a virgin.

She was a Jew. Jewishness is inherited exclusively through the mother,
never through the father. Thus Jesus was a Jew. I wasn't aware that even
Christians doubted that one!

2) His mother thought he was god.
That's that! :-)

Christianity is judaized Tamuz worship. I don't believe anywhere in the
Christian testament does Mary say she gave birth to a God. Paul, who never
met Jesus, seems to have been the first person who ever promoted Jesus as
a God, & he grew up in a town where Tamuz worship predominated; despite
Paul's first-rate rabbinic education he was still influenced by the
paganism that surrounded him in his childhood in Tarsus.

The life of Jesus was one of a peasant reform rabbi who taught that God is
in all of us, that we are ALL his children, not just Jesus his child; that
He is known through good works of worshippers toward the poor & the
orphaned, not through adoration of the teacher.

He also taught that he didn't give a shit about gentiles but was born
among Jews to serve exclusively Jews. Jesus disliked gentiles & called
gentiles "dogs" when telling the SyroPhoenician woman he came exclusively
to instruct his own people. Perhaps a bit of a bigot, sure, which makes
it all the more comical that only gentiles worship him now. It was not
until he was dead that people began saying he rose from the grave with a
completely different story. The resurrected Jesus did say to go forth two
by two & convert the gentiles. This contradicted all his teachings in
life. The living Jesus whom Mary had raised thought gentiles were dogs, &
Jesus lived not as a heretic pretending to be the messiah but as a rather
pleasant rabbi & showman full of lovely little fables.

If Josephus's testimony is to be credited, the real inheritor of the
teachings of Jesus was his brother James, who was stoned to death on the
Temple steps, & the teachings of an authentic Jesus died with James. What
has been handed down through the judaized paganism of Paul is in essence
Tamuz worship. Other elements of Christianity may have been handed down
through Mary Magdalene who claimed special teachings from angels of the
tomb & was first to receive teachings from the ressurected "Christ," & her
thread of christianity was a Gnosticism that seems to have borrowed a
great deal from Phrygian Cybele worship, making Jesus the new Attis. ANd
since she purportedly knew Jesus before AND after his mortal life, she'd
know best, though the Roman church squashed that early on.

So what survives is Paul's Tarsusian paganism which he cleverly imposed on
a Jerusalem martyr he never met except in a fever dream quite some while
after the fellow was dead. No living follower of the authentic teachings
of the historical rabbi Jesus has existed in this world since the stoning
of James. To the historical Jesus his deification would be the worst sort
of blasphemy. As for me, I think Tamuz worship is nifty, no matter if you
change his name to Attis, Mithras, Dionysios, or Jesus. It ain't my faith,
but like any faith it should be judged by the works it inspires, not by
whether or not its mine or yours.

I spent an afternoon with a very culty brain-fractured & pretty young
woman who was a member of a fundamentalist congregation & was active in
some oddball fundy group called the Daughters of Job. I began
deprogramming her & it was great fun, as the more deeply one has to
advertise their faith the weaker it actually is, & even the
brain-fractured have this instinct to actually THINK now & then. I could
see a light returning into her placid but zombified visage, & if I'd been
a guru who just wanted to change her programming rather than rid her of
it, I think I could've brought her home with me to keep. But at the end of
the day she cried out "You're the devil come to tempt me!" & fled back to
her cult. What a fun day that was.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

Doug Kanter wrote:

...........
I'm busy, so perhaps I'm not seeing all the possibilities, but at the
moment, I can only see two possible ways evolution and creation are NOT
mutually exclusive:

1) You believe each so-called "day" of creation actually represents
millions or billions of years. (I've heard this from a few saps).

2) You think carbon dating is junk science.

............


From AxisofLogic.com

Science/Nature
"Evolution is a Theory, not a Fact" -- Making No Sense in Defense of
Nonsense
By Dr. Gerry Lower
Nov 14, 2004, 09:20

In the year of our Lord, 2002, during the "compassionate" conservative
tenure of George W. Bush, Cobb County school officials in Atlanta, Georgia
were so emboldened as to put "warning stickers" in biology textbooks.
Literally thousands of parents had complained that the textbooks presented
evolution as if it were a "fact," without even mentioning Old Testament
explanations for the origins of life, specifically creationism and
"intelligent design."

As a quick way to ruin a good book, the warning stickers have since been
challenged in court as an unlawful imposition by and promotion of religion
- in a nation ostensibly based on the separation of church and state. With
the ascendency of religion-based capitalism in the U.S., however, this case
is but one of several that have been considered in recent years, all of
which revolve around the proper teaching of human origins in science
education (Chicago Tribune, November 9, 2004).

The warning stickers read, "This textbook contains material on evolution.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things."

Creationists are wanting to say here that evolution remains "hypothetical"
and "unproven," but they employ words that they do not comprehend.
Evolutionary theory is not hypothetical at all or it could and would not
constitute a theory. Evolutionary theory does not need to be "proven." It
stands as the only viable, inclusionary approach available. Implicit, of
course, in the creationist's warning is the notion that creationism is
somehow more worthy of belief.

This all makes perfectly good sense to religious fundamentalists because it
seemingly props up the creationist point of view at the expense of the
evolutionary point of view. In other words, in the absence of empirical
fact and logic, creationism utilizes essentially political approaches to
winning arguments. There is little option if one does not know the
difference between a fact and a theory.

From natural philosophical perspectives, the warning does little harm except
in being confusing and divisive to students. It is an argument that makes
no sense in its defense of nonsense. At the same time, the warning does
provide a good deal of insight into the shallow grasp that religious
Americans have of science, natural philosophy and its political philosophy,
Democracy (their chosen political philosophy).

Everyone already agrees, for example, that evolution is a "theory." Like all
good theories, evolution is (by definition) based entirely upon empirical
fact and empirical/logical inference (inductions, deductions and
reductions). As such, all theories transcend the facts because theories
embrace the facts and provide the facts with conceptual context within
which the facts make sense and constitute knowledge.

Without larger theoretical frameworks within which to organize, prioritize
and integrate the facts as ideas, we would live (as we do under religious
capitalism) in a complex world of competing facts, no larger knowledge
available. This is exemplified by current marketplace-driven approaches to
national cancer policy which have created crises in medical research,
practice and ethics (Cancer, Capitalism and Intellectual Corruption,
axisoflogic.com, October, 2004).

To its credit, creationism does not even pretend to be based on empirical
fact and logic. For that reason alone, it deserves no entrance into the
realm of natural philosophical discourse, because it does not know what the
terms mean and it cannot follow established rules, at least not if it hopes
to win an argument.

Creationism must stand in defense of ancient western superstition and
supernaturalism and, in doing so, it must throw fact and logic out. As
such, creationism's world view does not even qualify as a hypothesis,
because even hypotheses are properly based upon empirical facts, even if
those facts do not yet provide the basis for a compelling theory.

Evolution is a theory comprised of myriad facts from the informational,
molecular, cellular, organismal and populational levels of organization.
These hierarchical and interrelated facts are integrated into definable
conceptual frameworks over historical and evolutionary time frames to
provide an internally-consistent view of the whole, i.e., a theory.

Evolutionary theory has long stood as "proven" simply because it provides
the only viable frameworks for continued comprehension of human comings and
goings. In other words, evolutionary theory is no longer in competition
with religious explanations of human origins, no more than the Germ Theory
of infectious disease is in competition with religious explanations of
disease causation (as punishment from the creationist's god.

Evolutionary theory simply provides the best, most human, most broadly
applicable explanation for human origins currently available. As a good
theory, evolution provides common human ground relevant to all people and
relevant to human self-concept. As a good theory, evolution provides not
only explanatory value relevant to comprehension but also operational value
relevant to control.

Legal council for the Atlanta school district said that the "warning"
stickers on biology textbooks were meant to "encourage critical thinking."
This again is an argument that makes no sense in defense of nonsense.
Critical thinking requires, after all, knowing something about the
relationships between ideas, facts, hypotheses and theories. Critical
thinking requires, after all, knowing something about natural philosophy
and its historic American role in overcoming religious despotism two
centuries ago.

There is and can be no intelligent or meaningful compromise between science
and religion on this issue. As with arguments over the motions of the
planets and the causes of human disease, ultimately one side will be
accepted, i.e., "proven," and one side will be rejected as being inadequate
to the job at hand. Creationism will be kindly requested to take its
religion back home where it belonged all along in a democracy guaranteeing
religious freedom. Its very presence in governmental and academic
deliberations is an affront to the separation of church and state.

After all the idle debate, it comes down to a matter of human self-concept.
The real issue here is whether we, as a people, ought base our views of
life on supernatural conjecture (to become transcendentalists,
supernaturalists and self-righteous fundamentalists) or on empirical
reality (to become empiricists, realists, and thoughtful, caring,
responsible citizens). In the end, the choice is ours, to have a view of
life based on faith in faith itself or a view of life based on what we know
and what we care about.

Empiricists see creationists as being challenged when it comes to logic
(which they are) while creationists see empiricists as being challenged
when it comes to faith (which they are not). Empiricism just happens to
better know where to place its faith, in the human mind and in humankind to
ultimately achieve maturation and self-comprehension in the honest human
truth.

This is just the way the world works, just beneath the surface. God is never
apart from honesty and human truth, as God is never a part of dishonesty
and falsehood. The path to human intellectual maturation and
self-comprehension is the path to human spirituality and the God of all
people. Faith in the human truth, faith in the human mind, and faith in
humankind is faith in God.

To claim to be doing the work of God, in spite of global empirical evidence
to the contrary, is religious self-righteousness personified, and that is
all it is. It will ultimately leave one alone with fools for council,
nothing of God in sight. To be honestly human is always to be with God,
whose interest is necessarily restricted to the honest human truth.
Otherwise, don't you see, even God would be lost right along with his
children. Someone has to do the job at the top.

Ferdinand Magellan, as if writing to creationists and fundamentalists, put
it this way. "The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is
round, for I have seen its shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a
shadow than in the church" (Magellan witnessing the eclipse of 17 April,
1520).

Samuel Adams, as if writing to creationists and fundamentalists, put it this
way. "If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We
ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed
you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye
were our countrymen"

"Evolution is a theory, not a fact." So is Democracy a political theory and
not a fact. Rejoice in that, people. It means that you have the right to
change it to fit the facts.

-----------------------

Dr. Gerry Lower lives in the shadow of Mount Rushmore in the Black Hills of
South Dakota. His website can be reached at www.jeffersonseyes.com and he
can be reached at

© Copyright 2004 by AxisofLogic.com