🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <nwEc2.2425$961....@server1.news.adelphia.net>, 
tabmok99....@damnspaz.com says...
> This is in reference to <MPG.10dd10595...@news.demon.co.uk>, in
> which a one ma...@mhetherington.demon.co.uk (Mark) wrote:
> > Yes it is a moral code designed in society some 2000 years ago. Society
> > changes. It evolves. The bible has not evolved along with it so has ended
> > up a collection of myths together with outdated and outmoded beliefs and
> > rules of society 2 millennia ago. 
> 
> That doesn't mean that Christians today shouldn't try to live by their
> rules.  As for non-Christians, well they weren't expected to live by them
> at any point so what difference does it make?

This sounds very prejudice. I thought "God's Word" was for all mankind 
not just those who call themselves Christians. 

My point still stands. The moral code of the bible was fine 2000 years 
ago but is somewhat dated now. 

To show my research ...

"The Bible is divided into two parts: the Old Testament with 39 books and 
the New Testament with 27 books. It was written in two different time 
periods. The New Testament was written over a period of about 60 years, 
following the death and resurrection of Christ. The Old Testament was 
written from the time of Moses up to about four hundred years before 
Jesus was born, when the "book" (scroll) of Malachi was written."

So we have a gap of a "mere" four hundred and sixty years between the 
chronicles of the old and new testaments but nothing since. 

You are bound to take this wrong but how come no updates since? What is 
with this lapse in communication? Since God is supposed to maintain some 
relationship with Man through time, why isn't his current prodigy writing 
for all to read?

(You can probably see now why I was asked to leave Sunday School :P) 

> > > > But as I recall the tree was supposed to have *all* the answers. :P
> > > 
> > > They didn't eat the whole tree, they just had a bite!
> > 
> > Why did they not get bits of unrelated info like some stuff that we are 
> > only just discovering now and only got crap things like self
> > consciousness of nudity? And as for eating a *tree* ... ;)
> 
> Maybe they *did* get stuff that we have only discovered recently - that 
> doesn't mean that they passed the knowledge on to their children.
> 
> And about eating the tree...  when I said "the whole tree" I meant "all of the 
> fruit" on the tree.  Try to be a little flexible with the use of my English, 
> I'm trying.  I even spell things the proper English way :)  (like labour, and 
> programme, etc.)

Heh ";)"! I do appreciate your use of the English language. I have never 
met an American who even tried. I do remember Jenn trying to write 
English in a thread way back (and making a mess of it ;) ) but other than 
that, all I have ever seen is Americans telling me I am doing it wrong :)

The odd thing is, I have picked up a variety of "American" grammtical 
techniques and I switch between the "s" and "B" in words without 
thinking. But I would never dream of dropping the u from colour ;)

Flexibility is necessary for both of us. You know, a smiley sort of 
suggests something. Besides, I got it wrong first since I should have 
said "...as I recall *the fruit of* the tree...". :)

> 
> > I write "he" since I do not believe and therefore do not respect the 
> > capital when referring to God. (Capital G for names though ;) !). I would 
> > have expected you to use "He" ;)
> 
> Again, try to e a little flexible with my English :)

;) ;) ;)!

I'll *e* as flexible as I can! (Yeah I know, I just couldn't resist when 
you were obviously at your most careful :) Where is BOLD when you need 
it!) 

> 
> > > However, I'm not God, I'm just Superman ;)
> > 
> > That's cheating you have been reading ahead :P
> 
> Actually, I have been saying I'm Superman for quite a while :)  Maybe not

Does Lois know?

> on this thread, but I can pull old stuff off a Dejanews if you just want
> to see. 

Go on then!

> > So Heaven and Hell are dreams? ;) AIUI they were "invented" to convince
> > the fearful majority that death was not the end. In part to allay fears
> > of their own death and in part to make coping with the loss of a loved
> > one easier. Since no one understood death at the time, it was more
> > misinformation as with creation in Genesis.
> 
> Please don't try to convince me that my religion is wrong.  I think it's
> more like the existence that we're in *now* is a dream compared to the
> afterlife.

Since you have agreed with me that parts of the bible were used wrongly 
as explanations for some of the more difficult aspects of life, I was 
just putting forward a reasonable hypothesis on Heaven and Hell that I 
thought you may agree with. I am still learning of the level of your 
commitment so you will have to persevere with any assumptions I may make. 
Hence the AIUI and the reference to our previous Genesis vs Origin of the 
Species! 

> > > > > Really?  I think that by *accepting* it, they become hypocrites.  
> > > > 
> > > > So by not accepting it and banning "ministers" from "practicing" they 
> > > > would end up with a severe shortage of staff. Since they cannot 
> > > > discipline their followers, they have to accept it or be hippocrites. 
> > > 
> > > That's the path some of them have chosen.
> > 
> > And this is OK with you?
> 
> Absolutely not.  I don't think God's laws adjust to the times.

OK, now this is going to sound bad but assuming you are reading in our 
agreed RELAXED state... What is the jurisdiction of God's laws? To 
clarify, given that within a few hundred years we will be infiltrating 
planets beyond Earth and the bible does not seem to account for this 
outcome, is God a universal deity and do his laws extend accordingly? 
Where would an alien species fit into this?

What I am leading up to is "God's laws" must change to meet current but 
more importantly future needs. Over to you :)

> > > > Did you ever wonder if they guy that wrote the line merely found it 
> > > > obnoxious so put it in on behalf of God? 
> > > 
> > > There's more lines where that came from, but they don't mean anything to you
> >  
> > > so I won't bore you with any more of them.
> > 
> > Go on, I am interested even though they "don't mean anything to me". I 
> > think we will get much further, much faster if we just talk rather than 
> > making me beg you for every answer ;)
> 
> I don't really have them all with me, but I can refer you to two web sitesthat 
> two.
> 
> Site #1: http://www.godhatesfags.com/ They're too extreme for my tastes, I 
> don't think God hates anyone.  He just doesn't like what they're doing.
> 
> Site #2: http://www.clm.org/jhs/dallas.html This is a much better site, done 
> from what I think of as the model Christian.  It's apparently rewritten 
> material from a book, as the same contents are displayed on other sites.  He 
> has a more complete list of references to homosexuality in the Bible.  By the 
> way, all the references to it are negative ones.
> 
> > > obey the Bible that they believe in.  
> > 
> > How can they when they are told not to murder but to put homosexuals to 
> > death? Which *is* the correct one?
> 
> They aren't being told to murder them - what the Bible is saying is that they 
I did not use the word murder with regard to their "punishment". And you 
are asking *me* to be liberal with your use of the language ;)

> *deserve* death, that doesn't give anyone the right to do it.
So how can they be "put to death" if not by the hand of Man!

> > Hey I am not knocking it. I am pointing out the holes in the hope that 
> > you can explain the fix. You are doing a great job of affirming my lack 
> > of religion and nothing to make your belief plausible. 
> > 
> > BTW - Bad analogy man.
> 
> :(  Sorry...  I'm doing this all by myself here.  
Well at least you are doing it now and not just saying no :)

> > OK now we are getting somewhere. A little discussion and a little give as 
> > to your background. Thank you. Now, let's just relax and stop bracing 
> > ourselves for an attack. I am not attacking you or your beliefs. I am 
> > curious. Pure and simple. 
> 
> OK, I guess I needed to loosen up a little.

Good start.

> > > That's true, but we take things to bigger scales than animals do.  And that 
> > > might not be better, morally, but it's better physically.
> > 
> > Why is it better physically?
> 
> Because it's bigger, it's stronger - we are animals, and have all the same 
> weaknesses, but we are taking them to all new levels.

So being able to wipe out an entire city at the press of a button is 
progress because ...?

> 
> > > My parents believed in God since I was little.  At first it was genuine 
> > > interest, like "How did God do this?" and "Why did people do that?"  Then 
> > > there was a period of time where I didn't believe.
> > > 
> > > "Where is God anyway?"  "How could he let this happen to me?"  Things like 
> > > that.  I was "thinking for myself," as so many non-Christians put it.
> > > 
> > > When I was older, I started to belive that there was enough historical
> > > evidence and even scientific evidence to support Christianity.  Example,
> > > animals were first, then man.  (Please don't make light of the point by
> >  saying 
> > > men are animals too! That's not the point!)  
> > 
> > Paranoid too but I can see why you said that :P Actually it never crossed 
> > my mind until you said it but... only kidding ;)
> 
> I know, but it's like I have to be all technical with everything around you :P

Well you must have realised that I require *evidence* to support 
argument. You understand why I do not believe in God or any other deity 
and why I do believe in the "Origin of the Species". Darwin gave me 
evidence. The bible gave me myth and legend with elements of history 
thrown in but "altered" to represent Acts of God rather than natural 
events. 

Think about my job and my beliefs and obviously I am going to be more 
responsive to technical argument over "spiritual". 

My views about many things are based on personal experience, presented 
evidence and pure observation. One day when you are bored, just go out 
and watch people and watch animals. We are so similar that it is obvious. 
There is also research to back it up. 

Interestingly, I believe a number of legends to be based on fact. Legends 
tend to exaggerate the facts sometimes by a great deal but here are a few 
examples.

Werewolves - There is a known physical defect which causes a throwback to 
wolf genes within our DNA presenting a very hairy body with wolfish 
features from a very early age. Other animal traits are also present in 
some people but the early tribes would have feared such an abnormality 
through lack of understanding and the legend began.

Vampires - There is a known physical condition that causes a human to 
become pale and gaunt due to lack of (among other things) iron. Blood is 
a good source of iron so it is quite possible that a human would "crave" 
and "seek" blood to replenish their system. If you have ever had a really 
bad hang over, you may have experienced the craving for orange juice. You 
are actually just dehydrated and crave Vitamin C amongst other things, 
but your mind gives orange juice as the source so you seek it. Pregnant 
women crave the strangest of foods, but it is merely their body requiring 
the nutrient found in those foods. The Vampire is born and enhanced by 
legend. Pale skin is also susceptible to sunlight and the early God 
fearing peoples would have thrown in the legendary Holy defences in the 
same way a gypsy uses the sign of the Evil Eye as a defence.

> Yeah, that's thing with the non-Christians and the drug users. (so as to
> put you both in one class and make myself look superior :) 
You really don't want to hear my response to that! ;)

> They are
> "thinking for themselves".  Really, most of em just use drugs or don't
> believe as a form of rebellion.

Against who? 

I think you will find rebellion to be more prominent in Christian 
households than others. Strict religious upbringing in today's society 
tends to produce the most rebellious offspring. 

> > If they carbon dated the "ark" then they can probably time it using 
> > geology to coincide with an ice age during the million years we have been 
> > here. I guess a location to start would help them find it though :)
> 
> I don't trust carbon dating.  As a kind of comparison, some scientists develop 
> some new weird material similar to metal.  They say if used as pipes for 
> carrying water, they'll last 100 years longer than the ones we have now.
> Now, how the *fuck* do they know?  Have they tested for 100 years?

They don't need to! It is possible to stress test a material in 
accelerated conditions to determine the possible life span of said 
material. There will be a margin of error when compare with real world 
conditions since life is not predictable, but this error margin is 
relatively insignificant. 

How do you think a tyre manufacturer says a tyre will last for x000 
miles? They don't drive it until it breaks! They use and accelerated 
system to test.

> Same thing with carbon dating.  They have no idea if dinosaurs were 
> killed around 65 million years ago or 2 million or 5 billion.

OK forget carbon dating and look at geology! This is what give us our 
dates for dinosaurs and it was used well before carbon dating became a 
tool.

> OK, but from now on let's try to avoid approching subjects like Heaven and 
> Hell as if they are fact, and we already know whether or not they exist.  
> Because no one's 100% sure and acting like we are is just kind of annoying.

I am 100% sure and I would guess you are too ;) But I take your point. 

-- 
Mark