Congress mandates use of "In God We Trust"

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...


Normally I just get hit over the head with the Bible by those who disagree
with me. You should see the bumps on my head. But plonked! And then, to
top it all off, answered by proxy! Well, I see I have no choice but to
respond by proxy as well, so I trust that someone still in Brian's good
graces will see to it that this gets to him.

I have obviously gotten very close to Brian's theological nerve center and
made him very uncomfortable in causing him to fear that his faith might be
insufficient to sustain him in the face of new ideas. That, in fact, has
been my objective all along. Those who have decided that they know
everything cannot help but stagnate, atrophy, and fail to grow
spiritually. I thank God every moment of my life that He gave me
sufficient intellect and curiosity to investigate His Word first hand, as
a primary document, rather than rely on someone else's special revelation.
I also thank Him for three miracles: the universe and the laws that
govern it, the life within that universe, and the consciousness of at
least some of those lifeforms of their own existence. I accept the
findings of science, faulty, contradictory, and incomplete as they often
are. Scripture foretells that in the end times there will be many a false
prophet, and I can identify plenty of them in our midst already.
Self-righteous, sanctimonious individuals who claim to speak for God are a
dime a dozen these days. I shall follow none of them.

My work in this thread is done.


Oops I did one of those replies without adding any actual content.

"PC" wrote in message
...

"Brian O" wrote in message
...

Exactly. You are starting to get it. Day can mean different things in
different contexts. Therefore it is ridiculous to read the Bible
literally
since it can be interpreted in different ways. Thanks for proving my
point.

I'm not sure which point you think I have proved for you. I just
explained
how the word "day" in Genesis 1 describes exactly one 24 hour day in
that
context, and how the word you sited did not.

You claimed day means the same thing in the first two chapters of Genesis.
You were wrong.

If a word does not always have the same meaning then there is an opening
for
interpretation. If you have trouble understanding that concept ask a
trusted adult to explain it to you.

I don't think you are reading what I'm posting. I stated the Hebrew word for
"day" in the context of 24 hour day of creation is NOT the same word for
"day" in the example you gave. Is that hard to understand?
B

"PC" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...


I continue to have trouble understanding why this issue is so important.
Putting emphasis on peripheral issues such as this turns many more
people
away than it attracts. I fell pretty confident in saying that you know
that one's position vis-à-vis Creation is not going to get you, me, or
anyone else into Heaven. Spreading the Good News should not just be the
most important issue in Christianity, it should be the only important
issue.


Amen!

Since I have Mr Jaggers in the plonk file, I don't get to respond to him
much, mainly since he's full of pat answers about the crusades, Salem witch
trials etc, no matter how many times they are explained to him. However he
brings up a good point in this post. It is important to believe the
Biblical account of the Creation and the reason it is is because if you
don't, you deny that the Bible is the Word of God. In doing so, you
diminish, if not outright deny, any authority it has. Therefore one can
create any type of "christianity" one wishes to create. And when you do
that, you get far away from who the real God is and what His Message is.
Truth is not true for one person and a different truth for someone else.
The definition of truth makes that impossible. One point of view has to be
the right one. Again, you need to be sure that yours is the right one. If
its not Gods, then its not right. Its pretty simple. The Good News as you
call it is part of the Bible. Jesus believed the Old Testament Scriptures,
including Genesis. We should be no different.
B

"PC" wrote in message
...

"Brian O" wrote in message
...



Oh really. And where is the date written? Science has been wrong
before,
especially geology.

Blanket statement with nothing to back it up. Typical.

Lets take the Mt St Helens explosion. Before that, scientists made the
claim that the layers in geology were always time related, but they couldnt
explain how fossilized tree trunks were found standing vertical in these
layers, corrosponding to many "eons" of time. When Mt St Helens exploded,
many trees went with it. Many of these trees were embeded in the nearby
ponds and lakes. As the ash and dirt settled, it also settled in these lakes
and ponds building up layer upon layer around these tree trunks. Scientists
happened to find these phenomenon by chance, but it explains how wrong
scientists had been about those layers they were so sure were caused by long
time animal deposits. Very interesting what the Mt St Helens explosion
brought to light. You should really study it. Typical?

As for archeology, it verifies that man has been around
about the same amount of time that the Bible says he has.

Which does nothing to prove the Bible should be taken literally.

Maybe not, but it does give evidence that the Bible and archeology do line
up.
B

"PC" wrote in message
...

"Brian O" wrote in message
...


For something that is so boring, you sure have a lot if vitriol towards
it.

There is no evidence of man before 6 thousand yrs ago. None.


You really should check these things out before spouting off but then
again
with your Biblical literalism stance we already know you like to claim
things that are utter nonsense.

Typical? Yeah, whatever.
B

"Brian O" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
In article , "Brian O"
wrote:


There is no evidence of man before 6 thousand yrs ago. None.
The Bible is accurate in its history. Id like you to name a place where
it
is not.
B


nah, you're obviously just trolling. if you can't google and
read, too bad.

If there were viable evidence, it would be on the forefront of the debate.

Okay, now that's about the dumbest thing I've heard you say. By the
way...there's no debate. You wish and pretend there was a debate. There is
none. The rest of the world will continue to advance while you and your kind
benefit from the efforts of others, all the while stuffing your heads in the
sand chanting "God did it - God did it" over and over again.

vitriol? towards a book? that's pretty stupid.

Yeah whatever.

my disgust if aimed toward people who take it literally and
think each word is the truth.

And why does it disgust you so much? Especially if you dont believe it?
It
shouldnt make a difference to you one way or the other, unless you have an
agenda.

I can't speak for him, but his agenda is probably similar to mine...to stop
you from implementing yours.

but you're just here for some troll fun.
so find a new fish to play with you.

Actually I'm not a troll, I read and contribute to this ng on a regular
occasion. Its when I see the absurd statements made about God and those
that follow Him is when I speak up. So if you don't want to see these
statements, I guess you can ignore them or stop the statements. Its pretty
simple.

That explains why you've been ignoring me! You only respond to the absurd
statements about God. The ones that are dead on the money and provable by
his own book you let fall by the wayside.

"Brian O" wrote in message
...

"PC" wrote in message
...

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...


I continue to have trouble understanding why this issue is so
important.
Putting emphasis on peripheral issues such as this turns many more
people
away than it attracts. I fell pretty confident in saying that you
know
that one's position vis-à-vis Creation is not going to get you, me, or
anyone else into Heaven. Spreading the Good News should not just be
the
most important issue in Christianity, it should be the only important
issue.


Amen!

Since I have Mr Jaggers in the plonk file, I don't get to respond to him

Of all the people in this group to plonk!! Wow! Next you'll be slandering
Wes Chormicle.

And I can't keep myself from pointing out that responding to someone's
statements and having them plonked at the same time is, well, STUPID.
There...I feel much better.

"Brian O" wrote in message
...

"PC" wrote in message
...

"Brian O" wrote in message
...



Oh really. And where is the date written? Science has been wrong
before,
especially geology.

Blanket statement with nothing to back it up. Typical.

Lets take the Mt St Helens explosion. Before that, scientists made the
claim that the layers in geology were always time related, but they
couldnt
explain how fossilized tree trunks were found standing vertical in these
layers, corrosponding to many "eons" of time.

You're repeating a lie when you say that scientists made the claim that they
were always time related, and I'm calling you on it. Repeating a lie makes
you a liar. "Polystrate" trees are NOT a problem. You need to quit listening
to your handlers and get out into the real world more. And while you're at
it, show me where "scientists" made that claim. You won't. You can't.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

Here's a quote to whet the appetite of any interested in the article. I'll
bet my left nut that -you- won't bother going there.

"The reason I am using Dawson rather than a more recent reference is to
emphasize that many supposed "problems" with conventional geology were
solved more than 100 years ago using very basic principles. The people
suggesting these "problems" exist are so out of date that even 19th-century
literature refutes their presentations."

When Mt St Helens exploded,
many trees went with it. Many of these trees were embeded in the nearby
ponds and lakes. As the ash and dirt settled, it also settled in these
lakes
and ponds building up layer upon layer around these tree trunks.
Scientists
happened to find these phenomenon by chance, but it explains how wrong
scientists had been about those layers they were so sure were caused by
long
time animal deposits. Very interesting what the Mt St Helens explosion
brought to light. You should really study it. Typical?

Study it? Look who's talking.

As for archeology, it verifies that man has been around
about the same amount of time that the Bible says he has.

Which does nothing to prove the Bible should be taken literally.

Maybe not, but it does give evidence that the Bible and archeology do line

I remember when I was a fundie child, and someone somewhere would discover a
lost city that up to that time was only known from a Biblical reference and
everyone would marvel once again that the Bible had been proven correct and
true. Well, that's wrong. Using that standard, you can prove the truth of
most any religious text. I would expect any text written contemporaneously
with the history that it purports to tell of to get some of the details
right. Of course some aspects of the Bible and archaeology are going to
match. Just because there's a place called Jerusalem, and the Bible mentions
it doesn't mean much. The fact that you make such a big deal out of it just
shows how weak your overall position is. Now, if the book had made some
unambiguous reference to something that was unknowable to the people of the
time, that might be something. And none of this Nostradamus stuff that can
mean anything about anyone at anytime.

Archaeology and _The Adventure of Tom Sawyer_ line up. That doesn't make it
a science textbook.

Aside from that, as far as the issue of how long man has been here,
well...the Bible is clearly at odds with archaeology. Tell me, oh Elusive
One, since the world is only 6,000 years old, just when did the Noachian
Flood occur? It ought to be easy to figure, what with all of the "begats"
and so on in the Bible. Or just make a guess.

wrote in message
m...
In article , "Brian O"
wrote:

wow, a one and one equals sixer.

Why not? In fundie mathematics 1+1+1= 1.

"Brian O" wrote in message
...

... Morality comes from God. Without God, there
is no basis to even have good and bad. Its all gray.

What complete and utter pretentious rubbish.

Opinion.

Yup.
As is the existence of your god.
No point arguing on this point.





Man invented "God", so Morality comes from man.
"God" is simply one vehicle for delivering a certain subset of
"morality".

--
Jeff R.

See above. Why would man want a god that doesn't allow him to indulge
himself? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Mans heart is evil
to
the core, self-centered, and selfish.

snip many examples of evil-doing

Brian, that's a very sad view of humanity. Wrong, too. If your view of
humanity was correct, we would have self-destructed ages ago.

The vast, enormous majority of people are good folk who do no evil.
Christians, atheists - whatever.
One's belief in some old bearded man sitting on the clouds, directing
humanity and punishing evil-doers has nothing to do with a man's "natural"
propensity to do evil.

The evil traits and the examples of evil behaviour which you cited are
counter-productive to longevity and success in life (i.e. "reproduction")
Such people, left to their own devices, eventually die out. Others who are
evil take their place, sure, but I put it to you: in fewer numbers. Such
people are massively outnumbered in civilised societies. The more civilised
the society - the more they are outnumbered.

It is in the best interests of all society for the individual to be
generous, comforting and helpful. That's why tribes developed many
thousands of years ago - and why they grew into villages, then towns then
cities...
If everyone was out for himself - heartlessly and selfishly, then there
would be little point in forming groups. Groups require cooperation and at
least a measure of altruism directed towards the members of the group.

Religion is just like a village. A bunch of people gathered together for
mutual cooperation and support. The main difference is that the village
doesn't necessarily believe in a magical man with super-powers and a strange
agenda: "You want us to cut off the tip of our *WHAT* !?"

--
Jeff R.
(flogging the dead horse, as per RCC charter)