On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:20 AM, G Money wrote:
...
> To me, den, your posts are both random, and unpredictable :)
>
> But I love 'em!
Thanks! Sadly, they're only both random and unpredictable because of
your frame of reference. :)
--
To want fame is to prefer dying scorned than forgotten.
Emi
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey wrote:
>>
>>>I mean no offence by this, but I'm curious. How does evolving from a
>>>primordial ooze seem improbable yet a God creating it all, even including a
>>>plan for evolution, seem s
>Base your
>faith in love and tolerance and make sure you've got a healthy respect
>for the limits of knowledge and you're doing alright in my book,
>regardless of your faith.
>
Yup, that's exactly what I try do...and also the reason I am far more liberal
than what most people think of with reli
> What in the world has led you to believe that evolution of complex
> species is a one in a trillion event? Somebody has been lying to you
> or you've been misreading.
Uh, if you read my message accurately, you would see I was saying that was a
made up number.
> If you take
> the fundamental
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Mary Jo Sminkey wrote:
>
>>I'd like to "third" it...and I would posit that there are a lot more people
>>of faith out there like Mary Jo, than the loud mouthed religious zealots
>>like Phelps and his ilk.
>
>
> Wow, thanks for the nice compliments guys. ;-)
You c
>I'd like to "third" it...and I would posit that there are a lot more people
>of faith out there like Mary Jo, than the loud mouthed religious zealots
>like Phelps and his ilk.
Wow, thanks for the nice compliments guys. ;-)
>For every loud mouthed religious zealot with an agenda, there are th
I'd like to "third" it...and I would posit that there are a lot more people
of faith out there like Mary Jo, than the loud mouthed religious zealots
like Phelps and his ilk.
For every loud mouthed religious zealot with an agenda, there are thousands,
probably tens of thousands, of believers quiet
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:06 AM, denstar wrote:
>
> Consider two observers of a sequence of bits, when only one of whom
> has the cryptographic key needed to turn the sequence of bits into a
> readable message. For that observer the message is not random, but it
> is unpredictable for the other
I second that. Well said Scott.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Mary Jo,
>
> I have to say, you seem more spiritual than most people I would call
> 'Bible Thumpers', yet the way you have portrayed yourself and
> eloquently stated your beliefs has been a breath of fresh
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> What are the odds that a superhuman being created life and made it the
> way it is?
50/50 - either a superhuman being created life and made it the way it
is, or he/she didn't. :D
--
Scott Stroz
---
The DOM is retarded.
ht
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> It would seem to me that humans have a need to make sense out of
> something that appears senseless, and have to impose a pattern on
> randomness. That's why there are legends of giants wrestling and
Consider two observers of a sequence o
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey wrote:
>
>>I mean no offence by this, but I'm curious. How does evolving from a
>>primordial ooze seem improbable yet a God creating it all, even including a
>>plan for evolution, seem somehow more probable?
> I do think most people, whether they a
Mary Jo,
I have to say, you seem more spiritual than most people I would call
'Bible Thumpers', yet the way you have portrayed yourself and
eloquently stated your beliefs has been a breath of fresh air. We may
not see eye to eye on whether or not God exists, but I sure do like
the way you presen
That works, and quite fitting too.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> how about stranger than most?
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Probably not. I can't even seem to have a
>I mean no offence by this, but I'm curious. How does evolving from a
>primordial ooze seem improbable yet a God creating it all, even including a
>plan for evolution, seem somehow more probable?
Well, I don't personally consider either more or less improbable than the
other, given no other fact
One was of looking at it is what is the bigger miracle? Making one
very slight change to the boundary conditions at the very beginning of
the big bang and that eventually results in a Christ, or a big flash
bang hollywood type miracle.
Being able to see all the consequences of that little change
It would seem to me that humans have a need to make sense out of
something that appears senseless, and have to impose a pattern on
randomness. That's why there are legends of giants wrestling and
causing earthquakes, or some old dude in the clouds throwing
lightening bolts. Over time it get elabor
how about stranger than most?
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey
> wrote:
>
>> Probably not. I can't even seem to have a civil discussion with family
>> members on politics let alone strangers. It seems to be even more dogm
> casey wrote:
> What started this thing we call the Big Bang, all that stuff is way more
> intriguing than how humans came into existence. God is a mute point UNLESS
> you believe he started that process which in turn created our universe,
It doesn't seem to me like God and the Big Bang are mutu
>
> Even though I accept evolution as a given, the development of what we see
> today from basically elemental constructs still boggles the mind at its
> improbability.
I mean no offence by this, but I'm curious. How does evolving from a
primordial ooze seem improbable yet a God creating it all,
>What started this thing we call the Big Bang, all that stuff is way more
>intriguing than how humans came into existence.
Really?? I find both intruiging but I guess since the bulk of my training is in
the biological/medical field I still find the workings of complex organisms
endlessly fasci
> (1.) Because people who aren't *religious* would like to influence
> those who are, or
That's certainly the case very often.
>
> (2.) Because people who *are* religious need a bump to their faith.
Well, I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with that. This would imply that faith
comes fist, but
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
> You have to careful with the use of "theory" as you seem to be mixing
> the scientific use and the colloquial use.
>
> "theory" as in "theory of relativity" means a framework that is
> predictive and contains no exceptions. Exceptions then
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey wrote:
>
> >Thanks for being up for the discussion. Cool how everyone's been decent
> and
> >whatnot. Think there's hope for politics? ;-)
>
> Probably not. I can't even seem to have a civil discussion with family
> members on politics let alon
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
...
> The same is true with evolution: we may discover more precise
> frameworks, but evolution will remain a fact.
Regardless how long they've been at it, all the blind men in the room
describing the elephant are [or may be] stating facts, right
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey wrote:
> Probably not. I can't even seem to have a civil discussion with family
> members on politics let alone strangers. It seems to be even more dogmatic
> these days than religion is!
I am offended that you consider me a 'stranger'.
--
S
>
> Sounds like something that would be in the Far Side. Boy, I miss that comic
> strip!
>
It is. If memory serves me correct the caption is something along the lines
of "just to make it interesting."
I miss that comic SOOO much. Could you imagine blazing or shrooming with
Gary Larson?
~~~
>Thanks for being up for the discussion. Cool how everyone's been decent and
>whatnot. Think there's hope for politics? ;-)
Probably not. I can't even seem to have a civil discussion with family members
on politics let alone strangers. It seems to be even more dogmatic these days
than religi
I'd even go for some independent historical evidence written about the
time of the miracle. While many have suggested that Josephus Flavius's
chronicles with a single line mentioning Yesu Bar Joseph, content
analysis of that passage is suspected of being a later addition.
Ezekiel predicted that E
Dude, I don't know what's wrong with you, that was beautiful.
Amen, brother Gruss Gott, amen.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> I am starting to wish that you, at more than random times, did not exist.
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>>
>>> Scott wrot
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey wrote:
>
> > I know some Christians who feel the only way to Heaven is through
> > Christ. That's kind of exclusionary.
>
> Let's see if I can answer this without getting into too much trouble. ;-)
>
Thanks for being up for the discussion. Cool
> MoJo wrote:
>
>> A predictive framework that's stood for 100 years is as close to fact
>> as anything can be. In other words, evolution is a fact. Period.
>
>The global warming example you mentioned is more the kind of thing I was
>thinking about...
Ha! Absolutely - we certainly don't have
>I am not belittling anyone's beliefs here, just using a questioning
>method here to refine and clarify what they are.
Personally, I didn't feel belittled. Just because some disagrees with me, or
makes light of my beliefs is not reason to feel belittled.
>Someone says that
>such is true, I w
> A predictive framework that's stood for 100 years is as close to fact
> as anything can be. In other words, evolution is a fact. Period.
I guess that wasn't the best example for the point I was trying to make. You
are right that evolution is so well proven at this point that is passes for
f
> Scott wrote:
>
> I am starting to wish that you, at more than random times, did not exist.
>
Ha! Well ... I'm sorry to make things difficult for you.
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let the
I am starting to wish that you, at more than random times, did not exist.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>> I don't believe in God, a god(s), a 'force' or any other
>> name/definition you may want to give. I think we live...we die.
>> Pretty simple actually
> Scott wrote:
> I don't believe in God, a god(s), a 'force' or any other
> name/definition you may want to give. I think we live...we die.
> Pretty simple actually.
>
Simple only in ignorance of facts because factually you - random parts
at random times - don't exist.
In fact if you zoom in on
I'd like to think that even you could have figured this one out Gruss.
I don't believe in God, a god(s), a 'force' or any other
name/definition you may want to give. I think we live...we die.
Pretty simple actually.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Gruss Gott wrote:
>
>> Scott wrote:
>> I fall
> gg wrote:
> I see great alignments between Buddhist, Christian, and quantum
> mechanical concepts
Here ya go, from Discover Magazine, 2007:
In 1998 a strange story emerged from a village in the remote Kham
region of eastern Ti
> Scott wrote:
> I fall in the super minority of those who do not believe in God or a
> god or gods. I am more agnostic than atheist.
>
I think that's kind of an odd statement because it sort of requires an
anthropomorphism of "God".
For example, I believe in a creative and/or connective "force
> MoJo wrote:
> As I commented elsewhere, being atheist does not preclude people from making
> leaps of illogic and unscientific conclusion. For instance, skeptics will
> claim vehemently that the Shroud was "proven" to be of medieval origin.
> Whether it factually is or not, this is simply not
I was merely trying to point out that regardless of your religious
beliefs, you are going to be in the minority (but for the life of me,
I cannot remember why I was trying to point it out).
I fall in the super minority of those who do not believe in God or a
god or gods. I am more agnostic than
A person makes a statement that is supposedly true and in reality.
That needs to be backed up by data.
I am not belittling anyone's beliefs here, just using a questioning
method here to refine and clarify what they are. Someone says that
such is true, I want to see the evidence. No real evidence
> You have to careful with the use of "theory" as you seem to be mixing
> the scientific use and the colloquial use.
If it seemed like that, it wasn't my intent.
> "theory" as in "theory of relativity" means a framework that is
> predictive and contains no exceptions. Exceptions then lay the
>You do not consider 33%-66% overwhelming (if it were an election,
>those percentages would be more than a 'landslide')? That means that
>over 4 billion people are NOT Christian. That is overwhelming - by any
>measurement.
If it was an election to pick a world view, Christianity would win by a
l
> MoJo wrote:
> Let's take evolution for instance. Certainly most people take it as a fact at
> this point, but it's called a "theory" of evolution because it is only
> presumed true by the preponderance of evidence.
You have to careful with the use of "theory" as you seem to be mixing
the scie
You rail like crazy when believers try to engage in the realm of science
with their theology.
So why are engaging in the realm of theology with your science?
What are you trying to prove? Belittling someone's cherished beliefs doesn't
do them, or you, or anyone...much good. Let it go.
On Sat, O
You do not consider 33%-66% overwhelming (if it were an election,
those percentages would be more than a 'landslide')? That means that
over 4 billion people are NOT Christian. That is overwhelming - by any
measurement.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey
wrote:
>
>>Think of it anot
>Think of it another way - No matter which religion you practice, you
>are in the overwhelming minority when compared to the overall
>population of the world.
Hhm, not sure what you consider "overwhelming" in terms of a minority, but
Christians comprise about 1/3 of the world population (with th
>That's what I'm so interested in is how so many christians, jews,
>hindus and muslims can have so much faith that their religion is the
>one.
It's a good question...I was raised Catholic but felt like I was just told what
to believe and never really had any good *reason* to believe it. I
> I know some Christians who feel the only way to Heaven is through
> Christ. That's kind of exclusionary.
Let's see if I can answer this without getting into too much trouble. ;-)
The *majority* of Christians say this, if not all. It's part of the basis of
Christianity, because this is part
zactly.
> *hrm... which tense to use?
>
> LOL
>
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the House of Fusion mailing lists
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-communit
Think of it another way - No matter which religion you practice, you
are in the overwhelming minority when compared to the overall
population of the world.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox
wrote:
>
> That's what I'm so interested in is how so many christians, jews,
> hindus and
Douglas Adams and God have Good Communication. That dude's* a prophet.
*hrm... which tense to use?
LOL
--
Negation is the mind's first freedom, yet a negative habit is fruitful
only so long as we exert ourselves to overcome it, adapt it to our
needs; once acquired it can imprison us.
Emile M.
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
>
> That's what I'm so interested in is how so many christians, jews,
> hindus and muslims can have so much faith that their religion is the
> one. What qualities do these have that have made them stick. Why are
> there not any believers
http://www.lspace.org/books/reviews/small-gods.html
also see Thor in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Dark_Tea-Time_of_the_Soul
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox <
zaph0d.b33bl3b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's what I'm so interested in is how so many christians, jews,
That's what I'm so interested in is how so many christians, jews,
hindus and muslims can have so much faith that their religion is the
one. What qualities do these have that have made them stick. Why are
there not any believers in Odin or Zeus or the pantheon of other dead
religions. Ho
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Dana wrote:
>
>>
>> Not in any church I've belonged to as an adult. Perhaps you are thinking
>> about the Catholics?
>>
>
> I fervently desire to stay out of this conversation, which looks like a time
> suck and is kinda against my beliefs (God is not something you
>
> Not in any church I've belonged to as an adult. Perhaps you are thinking
> about the Catholics?
>
I fervently desire to stay out of this conversation, which looks like a time
suck and is kinda against my beliefs (God is not something you reason with
or about). However, a quick note for the re
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey wrote:
...
>>There are many things that we can't prove with
>>science, but that people have a belief in - maybe a well placed one.
>>Global Warming is one such example.
>
> Exactly. And just as people look at what we can see and observe and have
>
>Doesn't that statement conflict with the following one then?
My assumption in that statement is that your pink unicorn is the same as the
one people use solely as a parody of the existence of an invisible God. In such
an example, the unicorn is designed to not any effect or interaction with ou
> MoJo wrote:
>
>> How do you know God isn't an invisible pink unicorn
> then?
>
> Maybe he is.
Doesn't that statement conflict with the following one then?
"So to say that believing in God is no different than believing in
pink unicorns is simply a bad argument, because it is only addressing
*o
> How do you know God isn't an invisible pink unicorn
then?
Maybe he is. He certainly isn't likely to be an old man with a long white beard
or however else we decide to portray him as (although most Christians follow
the stricture that God is not to be portrayed in images). What the exact
app
>None taken, I agree, there is no absolute proof. However I do find
>good indications that there are Invisible Pink Unicorn, whereas I find
>no evidence that there is a God. Therefore I have no qualms deciding
>to accept one and toss out the other.
Well, I'm not going to get into an extensive arg
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Given the evidence, I'd say there's as much evidence for invisible
> pink unicorns as there is for god. For instance, this statement makes
> as much sense as yours:
Nonsense. There are some pretty big unanswered questions, neh?
Nature of
Before I forget I cannot take credit for the pink unicorn idea, its a
long held counter argument,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> Given the evidence, I'd say there's as much evidence for invisible
> pink unicorns as the
Given the evidence, I'd say there's as much evidence for invisible
pink unicorns as there is for god. For instance, this statement makes
as much sense as yours:
--
None taken, I agree, there is no absolute proof. However I do find
good indications that there are Invisible Pink Unicorn, whereas I
> MoJo wrote:
> None taken, I agree, there is no absolute proof. However I do find good
> indications that there is a God, whereas I find no evidence that there are
> invisible pink unicorns. Therefore I have no qualms deciding to accept one
> and toss out the other.
How do you know God isn't
>No offense, but the same can be said of God
None taken, I agree, there is no absolute proof. However I do find good
indications that there is a God, whereas I find no evidence that there are
invisible pink unicorns. Therefore I have no qualms deciding to accept one and
toss out the other.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey wrote:
>
>> Using that argument, then there are plenty of invisible pink unicorns
>> running around.
>
> No, there just isn't any proof otherwise.
No offense, but the same can be said of God.
--
Scott Stroz
---
The DOM is retarded.
> Using that argument, then there are plenty of invisible pink unicorns
> running around.
No, there just isn't any proof otherwise.
>because nothing has been written about it,
Not a conclusion that can be made definitively. Considering that estimates are
that we have only so far found about
answers inline
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey wrote:
>
>>A few leaps. More like a few thousand.
>
> LOL, yeah it definitely was not the most well-constructed scientific argument.
>
>>Ramese III and Thutmose II or
>>their successors were the only ones that would fit within that
>There is a very big distinction between 'knowing' it and 'believing' it.
True, I can't disagree with that. I am too much of a natural skeptic myself to
not admit that I have constant doubts about God and struggle with my faith on a
pretty regular basis. Heck, if someone like Mother Theresa adm
>so logic isn't a part of it. And you're basing your conclusion on a
>very flawed piece of work - at least when it comes to the age of the
>planet, how many legs on a grasshopper (4 vs 6), rabbits chewing their
>cud, a flat earth, etc., etc.
Totally wrong. I never said I used the Bible as a sole
>A few leaps. More like a few thousand.
LOL, yeah it definitely was not the most well-constructed scientific argument.
>Ramese III and Thutmose II or
>their successors were the only ones that would fit within that time
>frame. T
That would depend on the exact date of the Exodus, something tha
There is a very big distinction between 'knowing' it and 'believing' it.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey wrote:
>
>>How, exactly, do we 'know' this?
>
> "We" being Christians who believe the information given to us about God in
> the Bible.
>
>
>
>
~~~
>Mary Jo, first and foremost, I really am enjoying this exchange.
I am as well, although I probably need to get back to work and spend less time
on it at this point. ;-)
>I am curious as to how logic can guide you to the assumption that
>there must be a god. As far as I can tell, logic can
so logic isn't a part of it. And you're basing your conclusion on a
very flawed piece of work - at least when it comes to the age of the
planet, how many legs on a grasshopper (4 vs 6), rabbits chewing their
cud, a flat earth, etc., etc.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey wrote:
>
>How, exactly, do we 'know' this?
"We" being Christians who believe the information given to us about God in the
Bible.
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the House of Fusio
A few leaps. More like a few thousand. Ramese III and Thutmose II or
their successors were the only ones that would fit within that time
frame. There are no indications that they died anything other than by
old age. No record of any unusual plagues etc., even though that sort
of event was recorded
Mary Jo, first and foremost, I really am enjoying this exchange.
I am curious as to how logic can guide you to the assumption that
there must be a god. As far as I can tell, logic can only get you to
a point where you can say "I cannot prove nor disprove the existence
of a god". I'd be re
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey wrote:
>
>>we know that he is a God of justice
How, exactly, do we 'know' this?
--
Scott Stroz
---
The DOM is retarded.
http://xkcd.com/386/
~|
Want to reach the
>Is there any independent archeological or historical evidence of these
>miracles? For instance something like the Israelites leaving Egypt
>after the Egyptian firstborns were killed, turning the Nile to blood,
>plagues of frogs, the death of the Pharaoh etc would have merited at
>least some ment
>That's what so great about religion. It's so damn flexible. Something really
>bad happens and people ask "Why God, Why?" No worries, it's God testing us..
Actually, no, most Christians do not think God is "testing" us. Bad things are
not the result of God inflicting them on us, we inflict them
Crucifixion's a dawdle.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:05 AM, G Money wrote:
>
> Riiight...and Christians believe that Jesus suffered as a part of God's
> plan.
>
> No idea if Jews believe anything similar about the suffering of their
> ancestors during the Holocaust.
>
> Certainly there is no doubt
>He was speaking to the point of if this was a loving god, he'd at
>least give us enough evidence of his existence.
Those of us that believe in God see *much* evidence for his existence.
>But yet, he let 6
>million jews suffer at the hands of something he could have stopped
>easily.
Ah, the o
Riiight...and Christians believe that Jesus suffered as a part of God's
plan.
No idea if Jews believe anything similar about the suffering of their
ancestors during the Holocaust.
Certainly there is no doubt that, in human terms, what the Jews experienced
during WW2 was the worst kind of sufferi
I am not sure, but I am sure that its all part of God's plan ;-)
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> And North America isn't. Where does that leave us?
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>>
>> Duh...Larry..it was noted...in the Bible!
>>
>> On Fri,
The Bible says that Jesus 'suffered' on the cross as he was crucified.
I think I would put being burnt alive in an oven to be at least on the
same level as what one would endure while being crucified.
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM, G Money wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Zaphod Be
I am pretty sure we can all be in agreement that being burnt alive in
an oven would be considered 'suffering'
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM, G Money wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox <
> zaph0d.b33bl3b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Again, to the parent analogy, is t
And North America isn't. Where does that leave us?
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Duh...Larry..it was noted...in the Bible!
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>>
>> Is there any independent archeological or historical evidence of these
>> miracl
hmmm.I guess I'm just not sure what a Jewish person would learn
from being gassed to death...
On Oct 23, 2009, at 9:21 AM, G Money wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox <
> zaph0d.b33bl3b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Again, to the parent analogy, is there any point
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:19 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox <
zaph0d.b33bl3b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Again, to the parent analogy, is there any point during parenthood
> where you would remain hidden while a child of yours suffers?
>
>
YES. Many times, I would imagine. Because often times what the child
Duh...Larry..it was noted...in the Bible!
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Is there any independent archeological or historical evidence of these
> miracles? For instance something like the Israelites leaving Egypt
> after the Egyptian firstborns were killed, turning th
Is there any independent archeological or historical evidence of these
miracles? For instance something like the Israelites leaving Egypt
after the Egyptian firstborns were killed, turning the Nile to blood,
plagues of frogs, the death of the Pharaoh etc would have merited at
least some mention i
>
> Some may argue that he certainly did through the examples of incredible
> courage of people that helped hide Jews and otherwise risk their lives.
That's what so great about religion. It's so damn flexible. Something really
bad happens and people ask "Why God, Why?" No worries, it's God testi
>You will find most, if not all, of the people in these cases were led by
their religious convictions.
Whoa, that's a heck of a leap.
~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the Hous
He was speaking to the point of if this was a loving god, he'd at
least give us enough evidence of his existence. But yet, he let 6
million jews suffer at the hands of something he could have stopped
easily.
Again, to the parent analogy, is there any point during parenthood
where you would remai
One of the more interesting religion classes I took in high school dissected
each of the major miracles in Exodus (the 7 plagues, manna from heaven,
water from the rock, etc.) and discussed possible natural causes for each.
The parting of the red sea explanation was particularly interesting, wish
>He was talking about the miracles that were performed in
>order for Moses to free the Jews from the egyptians. Yet when it came
>to ww2 and the concentration camps, no miracles were seen. Yet the
>concentration camps were more of a malevolent threat to Jews than were
>the Egyptians.
Not
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
