Excellent! (was Re: Insane Freaky Conservitive Kid)

"Tarvok" wrote in message news:[email]...

when

have

faith

Maybe because many of these "superstitious backwaters" are constantly trying to (and sometimes succeeding in) passing laws which force others to live by their religious rules?

"Kyle" wrote in message news:8kndab$s30$[email]...

then

Well, here's a news flash for you: I was gay when I was singing in the church choir at age 13, and quite happily going to church every Sunday without fail.

[email] (Jeg7777) wrote in :

Though this *SHOULDN'T* matter you should be able to be what you want to be, and other people should not stop you. I wonder what the other people in the church and more specifically the chior would have felt about it. I'm willing to put money (ok not really but you know what I mean :) ) on the fact that sadly if they'd known they would have probably displayed some rather un-christian lack of tollerence of those different from themselves.

"Comform or be cast out"....Rush.

Phill.

"Phill Harvey-Smith" wrote in message news:[email]...

in

And that was 25 years ago, so things were even worse then. My main point was to refute the idea that I rejected God, then I rejected women (so to speak).

Jeg7777 wrote:

...which is more than I can say about my current worshipping habits.

I would like to state that I absolutely stand behind Joe here. There are *plenty* of homosexuals who are God-fearing. Homosexuality and devotion to the Creator are *not* mutually exclusive. Look at all the hetero people who consciously or even subconsciously reject God. Also, I invite those naysayers to examine the lives of heterosexuals. A lot of the time, a lot of homosexuals lead lives that are so much cleaner and pleasing to God than a lot of heterosexuals do.

I got your back, Joe.

LI

"Lady Interference" wrote in message news:[email]...

Well, it's also more than I can say about my own current worshipping habits, but I know a lot more now than I did then...or in a way you could look at it as, I know a lot less then I did then.

Thank you.

On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:13:32 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:

Didn't say they were mutually exclusive. In fact, I specifically made sure I didn't limit "rejection of God" in all it's forms to non-believers.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

Kyle wrote:

Oh come on. You seriously believe there are people out there who are devoutly steadfast in their devotion to God who are actually out to reject God?? Please, like people who would do that sort of thing would even bother.

LI

On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:35:34 GMT, Lady Interference wrote:

All people are out to subconsciously reject God. It's human nature. How it manifests itself is pretty random, and has a lot to do with personality (which is where to this end I believe there is *some* disposition towards sexual orientation). Homosexuality is one of them. I'm pretty darned lazy to a point where I'll do some unethical things at work to avoid actual working. That's one of them. Tell a lie? That's one of them. Steal? Sure. Any other old sin you can think of, just manifestations of man's natural rejection of God.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

"Kyle" wrote in message news:8knd8n$s30$[email]...

No, YOU prove it. Prove which of the THOUSANDS of gods that various cultures believe in is the one or ones that ACTUALLY exist. And forget faith. I want SCIENTIFIC PROOF. Otherwise, I'm not buying.

"Kyle" wrote in message news:8knrt0$3b2$[email]...

true

Oh? I can't imagine the Holocaust having any value, but I know there are some very warped minds who are still in support of the idea, or deny it happened to begin with. I do hope you don't think the Holocaust had a hidden value.

[email] (Jeg7777) wrote in :

I believe in something, but it's not Christianity (well any more, [and OK I do beleive that ther was a person called Jesus who lived some 2000 years ago and said how good it would be to be nice to people for a change, as Douglas Adams put it, I don't believe inhim as my saviour however :) ]). So no largely what people think of my beliefs is of little importance to me unless they try and burn me at the stake for it :)

I don't become agitated by it, and I never said they where "supersitious backwaters", please stop trying to put words in my mouth :) All I was saying is that the existance/non existance of god is indeterminate, we can't prove it one way or another, people can provide "evidance" for both arguments, but neither can be proved.

Indeed such as all schools in the UK having to have a *CHRISTIAN* religious assembly (can't remeber if it's every day, or once a week or somesuch), though to be fair you can opt out if you are not a Christian. But still it's a little silly considdering the mix of religions we have in this country now (Christian, Jew, Sikh, Moslim, Hindu, just to name the major ones).

Ok this was a mild example but it does illustrate the point.

And just to make things clear, I have no objection whatsoever with what religion a person wants to practice, that's up to them, what I do object to is when cirtain people (don't wory nobody here :) ), try and ram it down your throught :(

Phill.

If only that were true...... if people actually had evidence it would be possible to make progress in religious debates in the same way as happens in other areas of human enquiry.

-Shez.

[email] (Shez) wrote in :

Well as Martin said in his follow up people can produce what *THEY* considder evidence, even if other people don't, which is pretty much what I meant.

Phill.

"Phill Harvey-Smith" wrote in message news:[email]...

I

This is why I want God to come to earth and, once and for all, let us know exactly which religion is THE correct religion, what SPECIFICALLY are the rules we have to follow in ALL situations. I want God to tell this to every single person on earth, so there is no more ambiguity.

I'm not holding my breath waiting, though....

"Jeg7777" wrote in message news:8kr5cg$6eq$[email]...

I believe that happened: that Jesus Christ is God incarnate.

I don't fancy that. We'd then become rule-bound lackeys instead of free, responsible persons. As it is, God expects human beings to use their powers of reason, conscience, and ethical insight to apply principles to particular situations.

I do realise that some people *do* find the idea of a universal rulebook attractive: hence the success of cults.

<ponders> I wonder if one of the roots of fundamentalism is a desire for a universal rulebook to tell people "what SPECIFICALLY are the rules we have to follow in ALL situations." </ponders>

It's hard to imagine us retaining free will if God appeared to each of us, leaving us no doubt of God's majesty and power, and told us what to do. We'd be so awestruck as to leave no room for free compliance (how can you freely comply when there's no *real* choice?).

Also, would a human life be long enough for to explain to each person "what SPECIFICALLY are the rules we have to follow in ALL situations"? "Number 134,654,367,890: What to do if you're driving your car towards a junction as the light turns red, if it's a small car, if you have a child in the back seat, and if a truck is following you too closely. Hey, are you still paying attention?" We'd also need a prodigious memory or very, very long bookshelves for the rulebook. <g>

Sooner than a massive rulebook I'd have to constantly consult, I prefer these arrangments: faculties to help us derive the right action by applying general principles in real time; a reliable source of those principles; and a community of people, empowered by the presence of God's Holy Spirit, among whose tasks is that of helping us develop our skill in using this faculty.

I believe I've found these three in - conscience and reason - Scripture and tradition [1] - and the Catholic Church.

I imply no disrespect to people with differing views. 8-)

Martin.

[1] "Tradition" in the technical sense of authentic, apostolic Christian teaching.

i feel a lot of religious people are like that anyway. they don't have courage in their convictions or whatever (i'm making no sense). they never disagree with what they think god says and that annoys me.

but there's nothing ethically wrong with homosexuality..

"missy aggravation" wrote in message news:[email]...

particular

And that's why merely being homosexual isn't a sin. See my earlier contributions to this thread. 8-)

Martin.

i mean homosexual sex. there's nothing unethical about that either and it's supposedly a sin.

"missy aggravation" wrote in message news:[email]... [...]

There we disagree. 8-)

See my earlier posts in this thread for why. I nearly said, "See my earlier posts in this thread for my position," but I thought better of it. ;:-)

Objectively, yep, it's a sinful act. Just like sex between heterosexuals who aren't married to each other, or between married people who seek to unnaturally frustrate any chance of conception. Whether the *people* are involved are culpably sinning depends on the conditions Kevin outlined.

No disrespect to anyone who thinks otherwise. 8-)

Martin.

specifically, *what* is unethical about gay sex?

"missy aggravation" wrote in message news:[email]...

earlier

Oops! It was in another thread here in atd. Who'd believe that sex would come up in more than one thread? ;:-)

Gosh, in a moral theology course, the ethical status of gay sex is at least one 40 minute lecture, even for people who already accept the Christian value system. Here's my pathetic attempt to fit it into a usenet posting.

1. The purpose of life is love. 2. Human sexuality is a gift from God. 3. Human sexuality has two inherent ends: unitive (uniting people and strengthening their love for each other) and procreative (the means by which new human beings come into the world). 4. Seperating these two ends damages the integrity of sexuality. 5. Sexual intercourse by its nature carries a value: in body language, it says, "I give the whole of myself to you, and only you, for ever."

So: The only context in which intercourse maintains its integrity is when it is open to the possibility of being the means by which a new human life begins, and is between two people who have made to each other a lifelong, exclusive and irrevocable commitment (this commitment is what the church considers to be the heart of marriage).

That context is not present in gay sex: so, as an objective act, it is unethical. That is not a judgement as to whether the people involved are culpably guilty of an unethical act: no one has the right to judge another's conscience.

The above analysis is based on "natural law." Catholic thinking on sexuality is also based on Scripture and tradition ("Tradition" in the technical sense explained in another posting).

The declaration about the objective ethical status of gay sex cannot be used as an excuse for homophobia:

I dare say you won't agree, but I hope I've answered the question! 8-)

Martin.

"Martin Sylvester" wrote in message news:8ktete$d77$[email]...

least

which

How does this separation damage the integrity of sexuality? Considering that at least 90% of the world is heterosexual, there seems to be no danger of underpopulation. And why, then, can a married couple that finds out that the wife is unable to bear children, continue to have sex?

Jeg7777 wrote:

*cha-ching* Score one for Joe.

LI (who will *need* the intervention of her OB/GYN ["technology"] once she decides she wants to get pregnant so this *is* relevant to her life)

"Lady Interference" wrote in message news:[email]...

I didn't see Joe's message!

that

of

I appreciate that we're looking at things from a different perspective, but that seems to me to be a non sequitur.

Naturally, if you don't accept the premise, you won't agree with the conclusion! 8-)

Accepting a limitation is different to imposing one.

A more detailed answer to that would take a lot of space, and I guess that anyone who hasn't killfiled this thread is getting bored with it by now anyway! I'm not actually sure whether it's a real question, or a rhetorical one - I accept that my view might have been coloured by reading it quoted, rather than seeing the original post, and I apologise, Joe, if my doubt is misplaced. I did try to make it clear that my earlier post was my pathetic attempt to compress a complex and highly nuanced position into a usenet posting. So I didn't deal with that question, among many others. <mutters> Fundamentalists don't have this problem. </mutters>

Oh, really, Diane. I'm disappointed. I was quite happy to try to offer an explanation in answer to a question, and I was careful to make it clear that I was implying no disrespect for those with differing views. But I'm not prepared to participate in the sort of point-scoring argument game that ends up generating more heat than light. I don't imply any criticism of those who do enjoy those games: it just that I don't, and I won't play! 8p

Don't take these remarks to heart, Diane! I might be over-reacting: I'm very tired. I stayed up way too late on Saturday in the frustrated hope of seeing the aurora. <Daria> Damned geomagnetic phenomena. </Daria> I planned an early night last night, but ended up going to bed some time after 0130; and I was up in time for my first duties at 0815 yesterday and today. <sigh> <Daria> Damned sleep deprivation </Daria>

Sorry to hear that, and I hope it works out. The use of medicine to *further* one of the ends of human sexuality seems to me different to using it with the intention of frustrating that end.

Martin.

the premsise sieems to me like it was made up after the conclusion, like, just so th e conclusion could be called a concluison rather than a premise. i mean it seems like they started with "gay people are bad" and worked backwardsd tring to justify it wtih a load ff shit. the premise certainly doesn't seem to be based on anthtning anyway.

fuck them. hah. they cn kill file it.

yeah but theyer stufpi.

i stayed up klate ohn saturday getting drunk. i did it again today.

i was going to watch for it when i was out but io forgot.

my head hurts. i;m silly. i 'outed' at least two of my friends tonight. oops. i may have outed mysefl as well. double ooops.

but same diffferncem you know?

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

Welcome to the world :) Sadly there is a lot of shite out there that is 'justified' by working backwards from the 'we don't like you and we're gonna find a reason to justify it'.....do the words Hitler & Jews mean anything to anyone ? :)

Not that I'm implying that this is the case with Martin, or the Catholic church, and hey at least they seem to be reasonably self-consistent :)

Indeed, I believe we established weeks ago that it was ok to talk off topic, as long as it didn't get into personal mud slinging. Which it hasn't this thread has been very adultly handled, especially considdering that we seem to have at least two people with very different and stong views on the subject matter....me, I'm just sitting on the fence :)

The fundies...yeah I guess so, as I said Comp.sys.sinclair was talking about ways to wind them up...ranging from the good old "we're satanists", to one guy who with his mates quickly knocked up some pamphlets of their own (which where a load of bollocks I might add :) ) and started, 'preaching' next to the fundies....who got really pissed off cause more people where interested in the c.s.s person and his mates :)

Well I'm not drunk now but I'm going out on Thursday with an old scholll mate...hell my oldest (in terms of how long I've known him), friend. So if I do any posts thursday, I might be drunk :)

I alas completely forgot :(

Outed ? oh you don't mean as in 'came out' ? (note you *DONT* have to answer that if you don't want).

Yeah I think I prolly agree with Alli on this one, that if you are going to define contraception as interference, causeing something to happen that would otherwise not, I think that you'd have to say the same for IVF, and other forms of treatment.

Of course we can all agree to disagree.....now where did I put that BFG-9000 ?

Phill.

"missy aggravation" wrote in message news:[email]...

Eep. Friends, or former friends?

Nope. The ethical judgement is made on the use to the which the technology is put. Example: using a hypodermic to administer life-saving drugs, or using it to murder someone with a lethal injection. "Same difference" in the sense that the same technology is in use, okay; but ethically, no, not the same. This is, btw, an illustration, not a comparison. 8-)

Martin.

[email] (Martin Sylvester) wrote in :

:)

I can sorta see where you are coming from (see my reply to Alli's post).

This is one thing that peeves me about the "Technology is evil" branch of fudementalisim, like Martin said the tech itself is not evil, it's the person using it that is evil, on it's own the tech just sits there and does nothing.

Phill.

friends. :)

but murder is violating the rights of others to live. failure to conceive by having gay sex instead of heterosex isn't violating any rights.

what anbout using natural birtth control? goddamn it i can't type. hgoddamn it!

says who?

says who?

sais who?

what about unfrtile people. i m drunk agins. the cat is int he way i can;t see the keyboard. fuck off cat, shes ]# sitting ohn my arm. fuck i;n drunk.

what about sex with strangers? poeple od that and are fime

[email] (missy aggravation) wrote in :

I believe what Martin was trying to do was explain how he/The Catholic church thought about these things, so unles I am mistaken this is Catholic docterine yes/no ?

Humm tough one though my guess is that they would be allowed to continue having sex in the hope that one day God would bless them with a child.

Martin can you clarify this one ? Are Catholics supposed to have sex for purely physical reasons (having a good time etc), rather than for pro- creation ? (if you wish to answer that :) ).

Hey I have that problem all the time, and yeah I would imagine that being drunk doesn't help the situation :)

I would imagine that he would say that sex should only be within the confines of marrage. Personally I'm not so sure, though I still could not just sleep with Joanne random :) (sorry my pathetic attempt to make it femaile :)). Nor I think could I personally go on a one night stand to sleep with someone I'd have to feel some emotional involvement, though not nesecerally perminant. Cirtainly my last real GF and myself had been seeing each other for weeks before we did anything...ok that was probably Too Much Information.

This may sort of answer the question that I posed above.

That's I suppose reasonable from your standpoint.

Ok will look back.

No I agree entirely with this, there is *NO* excuse for homophobia, which after all leads to discrimination, of which any sort is bad.

<Rush> Quick to judge, Quick to anger Slow to understand Ignorance and predjudes And fear walk hand in hand... </Rush>

In short most things like homophobia stem from a fear of the unknown which itself stems from a lack of understanding.

Mostly and posed a couple of new ones :)

Phill.

"Phill Harvey-Smith" wrote in message news:[email]...

Yes!

Yes!

Yes! <g>

Providing it expresses their mutual affection, and one partner isn't simply using the other for their own self-absorbed pleasure. "Get yer kit off, I'm having me conjugals!" Their sexual life is one of the ways a married couple express and build up their love for each other, so naturally the Church approves. Catholics aren't required to have sex only if there's a strong likelihood of conception! <g>

Contrast affectionate sexual life within marriage to the hedonistic variety, the sin of which is that it's abusing a gift of God, and another person, simply as means to one's own pleasure. Even though this abuse might sometimes be mutual, the other person is seen primarily as a sexual object rather than as a person worthy of affection and respect. This is well illustrated in that misogynous "joke", which defines a woman as "A life support system for a c*nt." I dare say there's a misandric equivalent. 8-)

By making the contrast I'm not suggesting that in the real world sex is only experienced at either one of these extremes of the affection<->abuse spectrum!

Spot on!

[...]

Thanks! That might mean I've given a coherent answer to your question. 8-)

Martin.

[email] (Martin Sylvester) wrote in :

Hehehe I got something right for once :)

WOW again :)

Hehehe thanks for clearing that one up :)

Ok, that clears up one mis-conception that I personally had about Catholics, guess it's an easy enough mis understanding to come to if you don't really have all the facts about what you (the Catholics) belive, etc. Well hey at least I'm learning something of vlaue here on a.t.d :)

Adam Clayton (the Bass Player with U2), was once asked in an interview what the difference between having sex, and making love, he replied with something along the lines of "Making love involves two people, having sex only involves one". I think that tstaement perhaps serves as a partial illustration of what you where trying to say.

Though I don't nesacerally agree with it, at least I got it right :)

Yeah you're perfectly coherent, and make sense most of the time, and when we don't understand we ask, hey that is ok with you ? I *HOPE* you'd say if it was not right ?

Phill.

"Phill Harvey-Smith" wrote in message news:[email]...

etc.

Yep! Myths about Catholics are far more widely disseminated than facts, so it's easy to fall into musunderstanding. It actually requires effort to avoid it: most people are content to preserve whatever prejudices they've had handed to them, rather than find out for themselves. Not you, Phill, obviously!

I'm still amazed to see that seemingly most schools (and even the only LEA teachers' resource centre I visited) don't have the official single-volume summary of Catholic teaching. http://www.sylvesternet.freeserve.co.uk/catholic-books/0003.htm It looks like pre-digested third party descriptions (which, ahem, vary in accuracy) are preferred to original authoritative sources. If I want to know (or teach others) what a given faith community believes, I'd sooner go to their own official summary, if there is one, than read what someone else - who may have their own agenda - *says* they believe. <sigh>

what

It's a very good one.

Thanks! Like I said elsewhere, I find it hard to compress subtle and nuanced thinking into a usenet posting, but it's good to know that most of the time it has some sort of coherence!

if

No problem!

Martin.

if you're infertile, you continue having sex in case of a miracle? why can't homosexuals have sex in hope for a miracle in which a male conceives via his anus?

aren't homosexuals allowed to express and build up their love for eachother? if heterosexuals are allowed to shag when a child is highly unlikely to be conceived, why aren't homosexuals allowed to do likewise?

"missy aggravation" wrote in message news:[email]...

continue

Um, ewwwww.

indeed. ;)

Chasing Amy, my friends.. Chasing Amy.

I'm not sure why that movie is relevant.. but I just immediately thought of the movie when I started reading this thread. Probably also 'cause I just watched it for the first time yesterday.

Cheers, Nicole Lee

http://www.neekole.com

"I'm the master of the zing zang zoom!" -- Conan O'Brien

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny..." -- Isaac Asimov

"No, no, no, Lisa. If adults don't like their jobs, they don't go on strike. They just go in every day and do it really half-assed." -- Homer Simpson

Daria Code v1.1: A D T3 Ws Q+ FN^Fr O- OH+Oo+Od m- c+++ MV C5X F:111,213,313,406 BB- FCD DT q fN

"Martin Sylvester" wrote in message news:8ksu0v$24r$[email]...

earlier

who

But of course, heterosexuals have the option to get married. A same-sex couple may be deeply in love, but in the overwhelming majority of the world they can't even get married legally, let alone in their church. After all, marriage is the union of a man and a woman. How convenient.

Jeg7777 wrote:

*cha-ching* Score two for Joe.

Oh yeah, and sorta off-topic...did anyone hear about Stephen King and his 30-year-old daughter? Turns out she's a lesbian and she just recently celebrated a unity ceremony with this woman she met at some meditation dealio. Anyways, Stephen King went to the unity ceremony and seems to be supporting his daughter. Man, if only more parents were like that....

LI

Lady Interference said:

I agree. Stephen King is doing the right thing.

Sincerely Yours, Jordan

[email] (Martin Sylvester) wrote in :

:)

Well IMHO, marrage is about the commitment between two people, wether acknoledged in church, before the state or whatever, *NOT* the leagal document, or blessing by whatever priest is apropreate for your religion. Too many people these days seem to have lost sight(sp?) of this.

As for contaception, IMHO the world is over-populated as it is, do we need to fill it with more mouths to feed, when it isn't strictly nesesary ? Then again your position on that would probably be abstanance, if I have got Catholic thinking correct ? (sorry Martin, I'm no expert here :) ). But that IMHO ends up with a lot of frustrated unhappy people, and my personal feeling is that sex between any two (or more :) ) CONSENTING ADULTS, is ok, but that's just my opinion :)

Again, no disrespect to people who do feel differently on this one :)

Phill.

"Phill Harvey-Smith" wrote in message news:[email]... [...]

You've actually expressed, very well, Catholic thinking on marriage! In Catholic sacramental theology, the ministers of the sacrament of marriage are the couple themselves: the church's minister is there, with the congregation, to witness their commitment and pray they will have the strength to keep it.

Historically, weddings moved into church to make them less deniable by the presence of credible witnesses, and registration. This was in response to some blokes denying they had ever exchanged a commitment, and abandoning their wives when they got fed up with them. And in a patriarchal society with limited opportunities for women to earn money, and no social security system, that did more than emotional damage: it was resulting in real oppression of women. Church weddings were a response to a particular injustice.

Well, firstly I don't agree with your starting premise. ISTM that "population control" is a means of continuing the system by which 20% of the world's population enjoy 80% of its resources. There is enough for every human need: just not enough for human greed. I accept that you might disagree!

Hey, no prob! Natural methods (such as sympto-thermal, which has a marginally better reliability rate than using condoms) are accepted, since the couple are working *with* nature, not frustrating it by technological means. Natural means also preserve intercourse from being an occasion when the most intimate and natural of acts is an occasion for using a manufactured product. "Just me and you, darling, and the London Rubber Company and one multinational pharmaceutical firm."

People who use natural methods report a growing awareness in both of them of the woman's body, as well as a deepened antipation and enjoyment when the time is right. I wouldn't know, but that's what they say!

"Okay, class, hands up those who have sex more than once a night!" Some hands go up. "Well, you look pleased with yourselves. Now those once-a-nighters." Other hands. "You look quite satisfied, too. Now three to six times a week." Other hands. "Okaaay, right. Once or twice a week?" Others. "Well, you can see what my theory is going to be. You look fairly happy. Once a fortnight?" A few hands. "Don't look so worried. Okay, finally, once a month." Two hands. "Sheesh! What's going on here? You're grinning like idiots! Are you two a couple?" "Yes." "And you only do it once a month?" "Yes." "Well, why are you looking so happy?" "It's tonight."

Okay, I know natural family planning doesn't mean once a month, it means as often as you like within so many days each month, but you get the idea!

Happiness does NOT depend on finding someone to shag, IMHO! 8-) (BTW the T shirts are still at URL: http://www.sylvesternet.freeserve.co.uk/members/cclub/ ) <g>

That's basically the legal position (ouch!). Which is fine. But if you shared the Christian vision of the purpose and meaning of human sexuality, I imagine you'd reach a different conclusion.

Sure, and ditto!

Martin.

technology is nature. nobody says it's unnatural when otters use rocks to open clams or when monkies use sticks to dig up[ termites. and thats the same as technology. unnatural-ness is bullshit. people think humans are unnatural. and nobody shits in the woods (which is the natural thing to do), anyhow.

but it isn't like that. i tihn. i don't find it like that.

hah. more than once a night? i haven't had it for motnhs. my choice though. hah.

lol.

what do the tshirts asay? i forgot

"missy aggravation" wrote in message news:[email]... [...]> > Natural means also preserve intercourse from being an occasion when

Fair enough. The sense of sex without medical devices or pharmeceuticals feeling more natural isn't an ethical reason - just an advantage to natural family planning that many couples report.

"I don't need someone to shag me to validate my existence." "I don't need to shag someone to validate my existence."

Martin.

"missy aggravation" wrote in message >

Despite the publication of an excellent manual! 8-) http://www.bookshop.co.uk/ser/serdsp.asp?shop=3530&isbn=0898156270&DB=220

(Yes, that is a real book; I've seen a copy!)

Martin.

On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:06:48 -0400, "Jeg7777" wrote:

Personally, I'd prefer heaven to be harder to get into than that. I'll risk missing it if it means keeping out the riff-raff.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote in :

Well I once heard some Pagan guy that was pissed off with fundimentalists trying to convert him, and them saying that he was going to hell reply "Well if heaven's gonna be full of people like you, then I'm glad I'm not going there".**

heheh skip this if you want :)

St Peter: Welcome to heaven Beavis Beavis : WOW if this is heaven will all the chicks do anything I want ? St Peter: No.... Beavis : Well do I get X-ray vission, some natchos ? St Peter: No.... (shakes head) Beavis : Are you sure this is heaven ?

Sorry couldn't resist :)

** I do *NOT* purport this to be a view expressed by all Pagans ok ?, it was merely an illustration that there *IS* another side to this argument :) Genrally you'll find that we are a tolerent bunch, as long as people don't try and convert us to their religion :)

Phill.

On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:06:48 -0400, "Jeg7777" wrote:

Plus, he'd have to do it pretty often. Because people tend to forget fast. Wouldn't be more than a generation or so before it faded out of memory.

Kyle The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs

herecomethehawks@hockeymail.....com (Kyle) wrote in :

True enough.

Though I was under the impression, that the kindom of God wild eventually be on Earth, you know the bit in revalation and all that. Don't get me started on scientifically analising that....just read the passage about the new Jeruselem, think about what it is supposed to be made of, it's size then calculate what it's mass will be...etc, doesnt' alas stand up to Physics :)

Phill.

"Phill Harvey-Smith" wrote in message news:[email]...

I agree, as long as those quotation marks mean that people can provide what *they* consider to be evidence for their beliefs. The same set of objective facts can be seen by people with differing views as evidence for their own view (Babel Fish!).

I think that one can't prove (or, of course, disprove) the existence of God: merely demonstrate it to be a rational and coherent belief. "Created in God's image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of 'converging and convincing arguments', which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These 'ways' of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person...." [1]

Martin.

[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, para 31. For the printed version, see URL: http://www.sylvesternet.freeserve.co.uk/catholic-books/0003.htm and for an online version, see URL: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html

[email] (Martin Sylvester) wrote in :

Yes indeed, that is what I meant. Though I meant "evidence" :) my spelling as always is pretty crap :)

Though the logic in the Babel fish argument is flawed IMHO because proof *DOENT* deny faith. Gravity for example has been "proved" but I still have faith that if I open the window and step out I will fall :)

Yeah I do get your point though the calssic "Is the glass half empty or haff full" is a prime example, though logically speaking both are true :)

No I have to agree with you there, well unless God suddenly makes himself known to us :) but even if he did then there would still be people that would search for a "rational" explanation.

Interesting there also seems to be a religion debate going on in comp.sys.sinclair, what an off topic world we live in :) Humm have to check ou uk.religion.christian, and see if they are talking about a cirtain cynical young lady, and old 80's computers :)

Phill.

Phill Harvey-Smith wrote:

I believe that that sort of thing has probably already happened; i.e. people have had God reveal His/Her presence to them and they still do not believe. People will believe what they want to believe. And as logic-and-analysis-crazy as I am, I don't think the same type of rational proofs used for scientific purposes should be used for religious purposes. I mean, how can you quantitatively measure things like your soul? Or even other things like your love? Your freedom? Things like that.

*giggle* I'm convinced almost every community online has had at least one major religious discussion. It comes around invariably. Religion, or more accurately, a faith in something is what connects all humans together. Even atheists have a faith in something...a faith in the nonexistence of deities.

*snicker* Oh yeah. Wouldn't it be a hoot? A bunch of Episcopalian ministers discussing "Daria". Heh.

LI

[email] (Lady Interference) wrote in :

That is of course entirely possible.

<Vogon> People of earth your attention please ! </Vogon>

Sorry could not resist, and I know there are other HHGTG fans here :)

Well then science would conclude one of :-

• If it's too small to measure then it's probably insignificant in it's effect.
• It's non-existant.

Also I suppose science cannot currently quantify such things, it doesn't mean that it will never be able to, since the purpose of science is to try and *completely* understand the universe in which we live, so to do so it would have to also discribe the soul, the reasons that humans have emotion etc, which I alas don't think we'll ever do in this lifetime anyway.

Yeah, I may have said before the "Are Rush satanists" comes up on alt.music.rush every so often, the thing is a few years ago one of the regulars jokingly posted yeah we all know that the band name stands for "Rule Under Satans Hand" and now people come back having heard this through chineese wispers and ask "I heard that the band names stands for this, is it true ?" quite funny IMHO :)

Then again I like John Carmack's (you know programmer with Id software, of Doom/Quake fame) statement "of course we're not Natzi's just like we're not satanists"... he said this cause of the content of the games, specifically the Swasticas in Wolfenstein 3D, and pentagrams in Doom, which where really only there to se the scene, Wolf 3d was set in World War 2, and Doom in hell :)

This is indeed true.

Actually I checked they seemd to be mostly on topic, though they did have a descussion going about Pokemon :) and they have descussed such diverse topics as "is it right for a Christian to used Demon as an ISP", and there was once a very interesting and quite funny thread about Masturbation once :)

Phill.

Well, that's surely not true. For one thing, many physicists are working in string theory now, the entire basis of which is that the fundamental particles are actually very tiny strings which are much too small for us to be able to measure or even detect directly. I read a book about this recently called The Elegant Universe which to me only served to show just how very little we understand the universe.

But besides that, it's plainly foolish to think that such things as love and freedom and souls are insignificant. Significance to whom, I suppose is the question. If you mean significance to human beings, few things are more important than freedom and love, surely.

*blah blah blah*

Oh, BTW, I'd like to apologize for my first post in god knows how long being completely off-topic. Then again, perhaps the proliferation of this thread suggests a bit of frustration with the less-than-stellar quality of the past couple episodes? I thought the "Morgendorfer's get head-shrinked" episode was pretty cool but other than that... I bet I'm not the only one waiting for the next "I Loathe A Parade" (or whatever that one was called). Though I guess that perhaps it's not so much a matter of quality as what aspects of the show you enjoy more, and I for one enjoy the silly one-off "comedy" episodes less than the "serious" ones. Lately, anyway.