The last post I have received from this ng is midnight on the 17th.

Am I left alone?

Mike

[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
-- 
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><

Michael J Davis wrote:
> 
> The last post I have received from this ng is midnight on the 17th.

Would it be impolite of me to say that you're not missing much?

> Am I left alone?

Let be be finale of seem.

-- 
He is not here; but far away
  The noise of life begins again
  And ghastly thro' the drizzling rain
On the bald street breaks the blank day.

PG wrote:

> 
> "Frederick Williams"  a écrit dans le
> message de news: 48D4EB02.9575F3DE@tesco.net...
> | Michael J Davis wrote:
> | >
> | > The last post I have received from this ng is midnight on the 17th.
> |
> | Would it be impolite of me to say that you're not missing much?
> 
> Maybe you need the return of a few atheists to galvanise discussions a
> little?

I think what we probably need is the return of people who stopped - or
drastically curtailed - posting when the group appeared to have degenerated
into an atheist playground.   

Personally, I just got out of the habit of posting much a month or two ago,
when it seemed that uk.r.c had effectively ceased to exist - if the atheist
wrecking mob has got bored and gone away, perhaps we can start rebuilding
something.

-- 
David Aldred

"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:ExuPIdB79M1IFwQm@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>
> The last post I have received from this ng is midnight on the 17th.
>
> Am I left alone?
>
> Mike
>

I'm afraid so. You've been Left Behind.
Steve Hague

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:24:59 +0100, Michael J Davis
<?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>The last post I have received from this ng is midnight on the 17th.
>
>Am I left alone?
>
>Mike
>
>[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]

The problem with discussion on any group is very simple - Whatever you
want to prove can be proved with the authority of the Bible.  If you
want to prove that adulterers should be stoned - you just quote DEU.
22:22"
And you have your evidence and proof from the Bible, if you want to
prove that they should not be stoned you quote Jesus; "let him who is
without sin cast the first stone"  and you have your evidence and
proof from the Bible, etc.

This factor became clear to me many years ago when I was an avid
poster to this group, and I came to the conclusion that there was
little use in posting.

After many years absence I have begun again posting to numerous other
Christian groups and have quickly arrived at the same point.

In short - there is little point in just posting post after post
hurling texts at each other like flames out of a flame thrower because
nobody wins.

On the other hand, I suppose, on an individual level it is interesting
to hear other people's views.

If this gets posted at all, and in a reasonable amount of time, that
makes it easy to respond without a day's delay I shall post a
reasonable question / thread that I would like to hear a few responses
on. 

Peace

Keith Mason

http://www.gospel.co.uk

On 2008-09-20, Michael J Davis wrote:

>
> The last post I have received from this ng is midnight on the 17th.
>
> Am I left alone?

There were a lot of people in church this morning.
I guess that means we're OK!

Steve Hague wrote:
> 
> "Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ExuPIdB79M1IFwQm@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> >
> > The last post I have received from this ng is midnight on the 17th.
> >
> > Am I left alone?
> >
> > Mike
> >
> 
> I'm afraid so. You've been Left Behind.
> Steve Hague

But the company he's in will be just as good (or otherwise) as the
company that he was previously in.

-- 
He is not here; but far away
  The noise of life begins again
  And ghastly thro' the drizzling rain
On the bald street breaks the blank day.

Keith Mason wrote:

> In short - there is little point in just posting post after post
> hurling texts at each other like flames out of a flame thrower because
> nobody wins.

Indeed.

Texts by themselves don't prove anything, though - that's why the discussion
should be useful.   If your aim is simply to quote "proof texts" then I
think you've missed a good deal of the point of Christianity. 

-- 
David Aldred

On 2008-09-21, PG  wrote:
>
> Maybe you need the return of a few atheists to galvanise discussions a little?! 
> Left to your own devices, conversation seems pretty sterile these days ... many 
> 'new' threads seem to be posted by Jeff, and the content of these seems to be 
> mostly lifted from an ancient text that Jeff apparently thinks can only be 
> discovered through his guidance.
>
> Even Mark G is getting bored, he has to pop over to upa now and again for a bit 
> of stimulation ....
>
> ;-)

Maybe it's the summer months - at least the summer weekend anyway.
There's not much of interest in any of the few groups I currently read.

 - Richard

"David Aldred"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
fulhq5xr0q.ln2@main.familyaldred.org.uk...
PG wrote:

>
> "Frederick Williams"  a écrit dans le
> message de news: 48D4EB02.9575F3DE@tesco.net...
> | Michael J Davis wrote:
> | >
> | > The last post I have received from this ng is midnight on the 17th.
> |
> | Would it be impolite of me to say that you're not missing much?
>
>> Maybe you need the return of a few atheists to galvanise
>> discussions a little?

> I think what we probably need is the return of people who
> stopped - or drastically curtailed - posting when the group
> appeared to have degenerated into an atheist playground.

Apologies for having had the effrontery to interrupt your private little debate 
in this public place with questions posed in good faith.

> Personally, I just got out of the habit of posting much a
> month or two ago, when it seemed that uk.r.c had effectively
> ceased to exist - if the atheist wrecking mob has got bored
> and gone away, perhaps we can start rebuilding something.

A closed shop - would that be the kind of thing you had in mind?

pg

"Richard Corfield" <Richard.Corfield@REVERSE.uk.me.littondale> a écrit dans le 
message de news: slrngdc8of.q3u.Richard.Corfield@EPIA.littondale.dyndns.org...
| On 2008-09-21, PG  wrote:
| >
| > Maybe you need the return of a few atheists to galvanise discussions a 
little?!
| > Left to your own devices, conversation seems pretty sterile these days ... 
many
| > 'new' threads seem to be posted by Jeff, and the content of these seems to 
be
| > mostly lifted from an ancient text that Jeff apparently thinks can only be
| > discovered through his guidance.
| >
| > Even Mark G is getting bored, he has to pop over to upa now and again for a 
bit
| > of stimulation ....
| >
| > ;-)
|
| Maybe it's the summer months - at least the summer weekend anyway.
| There's not much of interest in any of the few groups I currently read.

A lot of debate has moved to web-based forums as well.

On 2008-09-21, Keith Mason  wrote:
>
> The problem with discussion on any group is very simple - Whatever you
> want to prove can be proved with the authority of the Bible.  If you
> want to prove that adulterers should be stoned - you just quote DEU.
> 22:22"
> And you have your evidence and proof from the Bible, if you want to
> prove that they should not be stoned you quote Jesus; "let him who is
> without sin cast the first stone"  and you have your evidence and
> proof from the Bible, etc.

That doesn't seem to negate the need to stone them. It just ensures that
noone is around who is qualified to do it. It's quite a good thing to
think about really - when you generalise a bit. Consider your own
problems before being too quick to judge others. Still, it doesn't mean
that the problems are not problems.

 - Richard

PG wrote:

> 
> "David Aldred"  a écrit dans le message de news:
> fulhq5xr0q.ln2@main.familyaldred.org.uk...
> PG wrote:

>> I think what we probably need is the return of people who
>> stopped - or drastically curtailed - posting when the group
>> appeared to have degenerated into an atheist playground.
> 
> Apologies for having had the effrontery to interrupt your private little
> debate in this public place with questions posed in good faith.

The good faith didn't always show; some were better than others, of course,
 
>> Personally, I just got out of the habit of posting much a
>> month or two ago, when it seemed that uk.r.c had effectively
>> ceased to exist - if the atheist wrecking mob has got bored
>> and gone away, perhaps we can start rebuilding something.
> 
> A closed shop - would that be the kind of thing you had in mind?

Somewhere where things could be debated in some degree of depth without some
prat weighing into every discussion with 'Prove God exists, then': if
that's what you consider a closed shop, then so are most places where
people meet to discuss matters which interest them to anything beyond the
most basic level. 

It's as though discussion  of the sort of physics going on at Cern was
constantly having to go back and prove that 1 = 2: the serious work would
soon have to go elsewhere. 

-- 
David Aldred

On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:49:03 +0100, Richard Corfield
<Richard.Corfield@REVERSE.uk.me.littondale> wrote:

>On 2008-09-21, Keith Mason  wrote:
>>
>> The problem with discussion on any group is very simple - Whatever you
>> want to prove can be proved with the authority of the Bible.  If you
>> want to prove that adulterers should be stoned - you just quote DEU.
>> 22:22"
>> And you have your evidence and proof from the Bible, if you want to
>> prove that they should not be stoned you quote Jesus; "let him who is
>> without sin cast the first stone"  and you have your evidence and
>> proof from the Bible, etc.
>
>That doesn't seem to negate the need to stone them. It just ensures that
>noone is around who is qualified to do it. It's quite a good thing to
>think about really - when you generalise a bit. Consider your own
>problems before being too quick to judge others. Still, it doesn't mean
>that the problems are not problems.
>
> - Richard
>
Very true, and a good way of looking at it if you generalise a bit as
you say.  There are others of course which are not quite as easily
generalised.

Take for instance the OT command which was in force regarding those
who tried to entice to worship another God. -

[8] Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither
shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou
conceal him:
[9] But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him
to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Deut
13: 6 - 9

For there we have the quite specific command - "neither shall thine
eye pity him."

Not quite the same as - "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall
obtain mercy." Mathew 5:7

Keith Mason

http://www.gospel.co.uk

Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin
-- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary,
destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege,
established institutions, and comfortable habit. But thought looks
into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and
free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. 

Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)

David Aldred wrote:
 
> Somewhere where things could be debated in some degree of depth without some
> prat weighing into every discussion with 'Prove God exists, then': if
> that's what you consider a closed shop, then so are most places where
> people meet to discuss matters which interest them to anything beyond the
> most basic level.
> 
> It's as though discussion  of the sort of physics going on at Cern was
> constantly having to go back and prove that 1+1 = 2: the serious work would
> soon have to go elsewhere.

The analogy is no good: given definitions of the signs in '1 + 1 = 2',
one can prove that 1 + 1 = 2.  Since it has been done there is no need
to constantly go back and prove it.  Can someone just go back just once
and prove that God exists?  (Either that or be more honest and say 'I
can't prove that God exists and that doesn't matter to _me_'--it may, of
course matter to some of us.)

Note: there is more than one proof that 1 + 1 = 2 because there is more
than one definition of each of the signs therein.

Btw, I wouldn't call u.r.c a closed shop.

-- 
He is not here; but far away
  The noise of life begins again
  And ghastly thro' the drizzling rain
On the bald street breaks the blank day.

On Sep 21, 11:40 pm, David Aldred  wrote:
> PG wrote:
>
> > "David Aldred"  a écrit dans le message de news:
> > fulhq5xr0q....@main.familyaldred.org.uk...
> >> I think what we probably need is the return of people who
> >> stopped - or drastically curtailed - posting when the group
> >> appeared to have degenerated into an atheist playground.
>
> > Apologies for having had the effrontery to interrupt your private little
> > debate in this public place with questions posed in good faith.
>
> The good faith didn't always show; some were better than others, of course,

That's very gracious of you. I'm sure the 'better' atheists will be grateful for 
your approval, while the devilish pointy tails of those less deserving will no 
doubt be hanging in shame.

> >> Personally, I just got out of the habit of posting much a
> >> month or two ago, when it seemed that uk.r.c had effectively
> >> ceased to exist - if the atheist wrecking mob has got bored
> >> and gone away, perhaps we can start rebuilding something.
>
> > A closed shop - would that be the kind of thing you had in mind?
>
> Somewhere where things could be debated in some degree of depth without some
> prat weighing into every discussion with 'Prove God exists, then': if
> that's what you consider a closed shop, then so are most places where
> people meet to discuss matters which interest them to anything beyond the
> most basic level.
>
> It's as though discussion  of the sort of physics going on at Cern was
> constantly having to go back and prove that 1+1 = 2: the serious work would
> soon have to go elsewhere.

A rather unfortunate comparison. Unlike the theist rationale, the eminent 
scientists at CERN are able to carry out experiments at the cutting edge of 
science precisely because scrupulous groundwork has been carried out, via the 
evaluation of observable, empirical and measurable evidence, producing 
hypotheses that stand up to peer review. Well-founded challenges to accepted 
wisdom are welcomed, not scorned. If the experimental results confirm the 
predictions, then we have the beginnings of sound theory - but one which always 
remains falsifiable. If not, it's back to the drawing board. Fortunately 
scientists do not base hypotheses on a priori reasoning, intuition or 
revelation. Even if at times in our history religionists would have had it 
otherwise - as Grayling put it (http://newhumanist.org.uk/1856)  earlier this 
month:

"Scientific enterprise  ... "in the 16th and 17th centuries had a struggle to 
free itself from religion's iron opposition - witness the church's denial of 
Copernican heliocentrism and the trial of Galileo for two related instances. And 
the religious are still at it today - the ID theorists are the inheritors of 
Cardinal Bellarmine in refusing to accept what science discovers, as is the 
Vatican in its opposition to stem cell research. Examples are legion."

No a prioris, no faith - ie belief that does not rest on logical proof or 
material evidence - involved in science. Only falsifiable theories. So we don't 
have a whole rash of conflicting and contradictory beliefs at the same time, as 
with the multiplicity of different religions over the eons, and today.

Don't theists of a less than liberal Christian persuasion at least feel under 
some obligation to explain to believers from different religions why their 
alternative god(s) is/are false? Even if they think atheists are unworthy of 
such a gesture, going by your patronising comments? Don't those same Christian 
theists remark upon the amazing coincidence that the followers of other equally 
or more ancient paths happen to concentrate on a geographical basis - where a 
different tradition originally emerged and prospered? So are not individual 
beliefs in many cases simply an accident of birth location? (Of course a 
possible future president of the most powerful state in the world (Palin) - who 
may yet one day have her finger on the nuclear button - apparently thinks Alaska 
is the last refuge before Armageddon; so perhaps there's a school of thought 
there...)

pg

PG wrote:

> On Sep 21, 11:40 pm, David Aldred  wrote:
>> PG wrote:
>>
>> > "David Aldred"  a écrit dans le message de
>> > news: fulhq5xr0q....@main.familyaldred.org.uk...
>> >> I think what we probably need is the return of people who
>> >> stopped - or drastically curtailed - posting when the group
>> >> appeared to have degenerated into an atheist playground.
>>
>> > Apologies for having had the effrontery to interrupt your private
>> > little debate in this public place with questions posed in good faith.
>>
>> The good faith didn't always show; some were better than others, of
>> course,
> 
> That's very gracious of you. I'm sure the 'better' atheists will be
> grateful for your approval, while the devilish pointy tails of those less
> deserving will no doubt be hanging in shame.

What an amusing sense of humour you must have. 

> 
>> >> Personally, I just got out of the habit of posting much a
>> >> month or two ago, when it seemed that uk.r.c had effectively
>> >> ceased to exist - if the atheist wrecking mob has got bored
>> >> and gone away, perhaps we can start rebuilding something.
>>
>> > A closed shop - would that be the kind of thing you had in mind?
>>
>> Somewhere where things could be debated in some degree of depth without
>> some prat weighing into every discussion with 'Prove God exists, then'>> if that's what you consider a closed shop, then so are most places where
>> people meet to discuss matters which interest them to anything beyond the
>> most basic level.
>>
>> It's as though discussion  of the sort of physics going on at Cern was
>> constantly having to go back and prove that 1 = 2: the serious work
>> would soon have to go elsewhere.
> 
> A rather unfortunate comparison. Unlike the theist rationale, the eminent
> scientists at CERN are able to carry out experiments at the cutting edge
> of science precisely because scrupulous groundwork has been carried out> via the evaluation of observable, empirical and measurable evidence,
> producing hypotheses that stand up to peer review. Well-founded challenges
> to accepted wisdom are welcomed, not scorned. If the experimental results
> confirm the predictions, then we have the beginnings of sound theory - but
> one which always remains falsifiable. If not, it's back to the drawing
> board.

Indeed.  And after a couple of thousand years of developing theology, doing
the scrupulous groundwork and producing hypotheses which have survived peer
review - the peer review sometimes, in less liberal times, involving sharp
objects, and the survival having to be rather literal - Christian theology
has people working at the cutting edge, and producing very interesting
work.

Perhaps the atheists should go and do some homework - a few hundred years
would be recommended. 

--
David Aldred

Adam Funk  wrote in
news:g4uhq5-6a1.ln1@news.ducksburg.com: 

> On 2008-09-20, Michael J Davis wrote:
> 
>>
>> The last post I have received from this ng is midnight on the
>> 17th. 
>>
>> Am I left alone?
> 
> There were a lot of people in church this morning.
> I guess that means we're OK!
> 
Ah, but is Jeff still around?

-- 
Marcus Maxwell

"David Aldred"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
oh2lq5xldq.ln2@main.familyaldred.org.uk...
PG wrote:

> On Sep 21, 11:40 pm, David Aldred  wrote:
>> PG wrote:


>>>>>I think what we probably need is the return of people who
>>>>>stopped - or drastically curtailed - posting when the group
>>>>>appeared to have degenerated into an atheist playground.
>
>>>>Apologies for having had the effrontery to interrupt your private
>>>>little debate in this public place with questions posed in good faith.
>
>>>The good faith didn't always show; some were better than others, of
>>>course,
>
>>That's very gracious of you. I'm sure the 'better' atheists will be
>>grateful for your approval, while the devilish pointy tails of those less
>>deserving will no doubt be hanging in shame.
>
>What an amusing sense of humour you must have.

More compliments from on high! How greatly honoured this atheist feels at your
esteemed attention. Indeed, the fact that you have even noticed the presence of
lesser beings on ukrc is to be wondered at. Perhaps this is evidence of a
miracle.

>>>>>Personally, I just got out of the habit of posting much a
>>>>>month or two ago, when it seemed that uk.r.c had effectively
>>>>>ceased to exist - if the atheist wrecking mob has got bored
>>>>>and gone away, perhaps we can start rebuilding something.
>
>>>>A closed shop - would that be the kind of thing you had in mind?
>
>>>Somewhere where things could be debated in some degree of depth without
>>>some prat weighing into every discussion with 'Prove God exists, then':
>>>if that's what you consider a closed shop, then so are most places where
>>>people meet to discuss matters which interest them to anything beyond the
>>>most basic level.
>
>>>It's as though discussion  of the sort of physics going on at Cern was
>>>constantly having to go back and prove that 1+1 = 2: the serious work
>>>would soon have to go elsewhere.
>
>>A rather unfortunate comparison. Unlike the theist rationale, the eminent
>>scientists at CERN are able to carry out experiments at the cutting edge
>>of science precisely because scrupulous groundwork has been carried out,
>>via the evaluation of observable, empirical and measurable evidence,
>>producing hypotheses that stand up to peer review. Well-founded challenges
>>to accepted wisdom are welcomed, not scorned. If the experimental results
>>confirm the predictions, then we have the beginnings of sound theory - but
>>one which always remains falsifiable. If not, it's back to the drawing
>>board.
>
>Indeed.  And after a couple of thousand years of developing theology, doing
>the scrupulous groundwork and producing hypotheses which have survived peer
>review - the peer review sometimes, in less liberal times, involving sharp
>objects, and the survival having to be rather literal - Christian theology
>has people working at the cutting edge, and producing very interesting
>work.
>
>Perhaps the atheists should go and do some homework - a few hundred years
>would be recommended.

This atheist is truly humbled by your display of tolerance, open-mindedness, and 
the fact that you clearly had to waste much precious time considering the views 
of someone who thinks rather differently to the enlightened. Some foolish, 
uninformed people might feel that you avoided directly answering any of my 
points and totally ignored the questions put to you; indeed, they appear to have 
miraculously vanished from your reply. But not me - no Sir. This atheist knows 
his place, firmly alongside all other infidels who have the audacity not believe 
in the Christian god. This atheist is simply satisfied with the warm fuzzy 
feeling resulting from the fact that a tolerant Christian such as yourself 
deigned to notice my post in the first place. You could write absolutely 
anything utterly unrelated to my comments (indeed you did), and I would be 
content.

Thanks for once again perfectly demonstrating the value of the views of the 
'excluded' as perceived by a substantial number of those who subscribe to 
exclusive worldviews.

pg

David Aldred wrote:
 
> Indeed.  And after a couple of thousand years of developing theology, doing
> the scrupulous groundwork and producing hypotheses which have survived peer
> review - the peer review sometimes, in less liberal times, involving sharp
> objects, and the survival having to be rather literal - Christian theology
> has people working at the cutting edge, and producing very interesting
> work.
> 
> Perhaps the atheists should go and do some homework - a few hundred years
> would be recommended.

Are you claiming that, because Christian theologists have been at work
for a few hundred years, no atheist should put his head above the
parapet until _he personally_ has done a few hundred years of study? 
That's a shockingly invalid argument: if you, David Aldred, who has been
on the planet for a few tens of years, can draw on the scholarship of
those Christians who went before you (and you may, I have no objection
to that) then why shouldn't I, or any other atheist, draw on the
scholarship of atheists who were here long before us?

Also passage of time isn't everything.  Look: the Newtonians had two
hundred years of (justifiable) dominance in physics.  In Einstein's
Annus Mirabilis no one told his followers to wait two hundred years
before they claimed victory. 


-- 
He is not here; but far away
  The noise of life begins again
  And ghastly thro' the drizzling rain
On the bald street breaks the blank day.

"Steve Hague"  wrote in message 
news:ZZqBk.15823$a01.3056@newsfe15.ams2...
>
> "Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:ExuPIdB79M1IFwQm@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>>
>> The last post I have received from this ng is midnight on the 17th.
>>
>> Am I left alone?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> I'm afraid so. You've been Left Behind.

He has.....but Mike's still got time to be baptised, if he doesn't leave it 
before it's......JUST [1]TOO LATE.

Jeff...
[1]"16  So what are you waiting for? Get up and get yourself baptized, 
scrubbed clean of those sins." Acts 22:16 (MSG)

"Keith Mason"  wrote in message 
news:ggfcd495b5996n3j1ievgrflr8n8eotc8t@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:24:59 +0100, Michael J Davis
> <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>The last post I have received from this ng is midnight on the 17th.
>>
>>Am I left alone?
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
>
> The problem with discussion on any group is very simple - Whatever you
> want to prove can be proved with the authority of the Bible.  If you
> want to prove that adulterers should be stoned - you just quote DEU.
> 22:22"
> And you have your evidence and proof from the Bible, if you want to
> prove that they should not be stoned you quote Jesus; "let him who is
> without sin cast the first stone"  and you have your evidence and
> proof from the Bible, etc.

Sorry! Jesus did not show proof that the adulterous woman referred to should 
not be stoned.

Jeff...

"Titus"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9B21C27814996Titus2mailandnewscom@69.16.176.253...
> Adam Funk  wrote in
> news:g4uhq5-6a1.ln1@news.ducksburg.com:
>
>> On 2008-09-20, Michael J Davis wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The last post I have received from this ng is midnight on the
>>> 17th.
>>>
>>> Am I left alone?
>>
>> There were a lot of people in church this morning.
>> I guess that means we're OK!
>>
> Ah, but is Jeff still around?

I haven't been, but I returned today.....{;o;}

Jeff...

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:23:52 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic
Traditionalist UK.RC" <"broadband [remove] 1234"@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>"Keith Mason"  wrote in message 
>news:ggfcd495b5996n3j1ievgrflr8n8eotc8t@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:24:59 +0100, Michael J Davis
>> <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The last post I have received from this ng is midnight on the 17th.
>>>
>>>Am I left alone?
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
>>
>> The problem with discussion on any group is very simple - Whatever you
>> want to prove can be proved with the authority of the Bible.  If you
>> want to prove that adulterers should be stoned - you just quote DEU.
>> 22:22"
>> And you have your evidence and proof from the Bible, if you want to
>> prove that they should not be stoned you quote Jesus; "let him who is
>> without sin cast the first stone"  and you have your evidence and
>> proof from the Bible, etc.
>
>Sorry! Jesus did not show proof that the adulterous woman referred to should 
>not be stoned.
>
>Jeff... 

Yes, that has already been pointed out Jeff, and indeed if He had
upheld the Jewish law He would have joined in and got Himself a few
stones to lob at her.

But I don't think that it was in His nature, do you?

Now there's a subject for discussion - did he commit sin by not
upholding the law that said she should have been stoned? or did He
break the law by not upholding a few of the other instances where
stoning should have taken place and it wasn't due to his arguments to
the contrary?

Peace

Keith Mason

http://www.gospel.co.uk

Frederick Williams wrote:

> David Aldred wrote:
>  
>> Indeed.  And after a couple of thousand years of developing theology,
>> doing the scrupulous groundwork and producing hypotheses which have
>> survived peer review - the peer review sometimes, in less liberal times,
>> involving sharp objects, and the survival having to be rather literal -
>> Christian theology has people working at the cutting edge, and producing
>> very interesting work.
>> 
>> Perhaps the atheists should go and do some homework - a few hundred years
>> would be recommended.
> 
> Are you claiming that, because Christian theologists have been at work
> for a few hundred years, no atheist should put his head above the
> parapet until _he personally_ has done a few hundred years of study?
> That's a shockingly invalid argument: if you, David Aldred, who has been
> on the planet for a few tens of years, can draw on the scholarship of
> those Christians who went before you (and you may, I have no objection
> to that) then why shouldn't I, or any other atheist, draw on the
> scholarship of atheists who were here long before us?

You can if you wish - no problem.  OTOH, if you want to join a group in
which theology is being discussed by people who are discussing theology
based on the understandings of 2000 years of study, insisting on those
people first providing a proof of the basics is at least discourteous.

> Also passage of time isn't everything.  Look: the Newtonians had two
> hundred years of (justifiable) dominance in physics.  In Einstein's
> Annus Mirabilis no one told his followers to wait two hundred years
> before they claimed victory.

And yet few people seem to have insisted that Einstein prove first that
matter and energy existed before they would let him discuss the
implications of relativity. 

-- 
David Aldred

On 23 Sep, 21:17, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC"
<"broadband [remove] 1234"@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> He has.....but Mike's still got time to be baptised, if he doesn't leave it
> before it's......JUST [1]TOO LATE.
>
> Jeff...
> [1]"16  So what are you waiting for? Get up and get yourself baptized,
> scrubbed clean of those sins." Acts 22:16 (MSG)

Have you committed any since since you were baptised?

Ian

"David Aldred"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
d99qq5x1np.ln2@main.familyaldred.org.uk...
| Frederick Williams wrote:
|
| > David Aldred wrote:
| >
| >> Indeed.  And after a couple of thousand years of developing theology,
| >> doing the scrupulous groundwork and producing hypotheses which have
| >> survived peer review - the peer review sometimes, in less liberal times,
| >> involving sharp objects, and the survival having to be rather literal -
| >> Christian theology has people working at the cutting edge, and producing
| >> very interesting work.
| >>
| >> Perhaps the atheists should go and do some homework - a few hundred years
| >> would be recommended.
| >
| > Are you claiming that, because Christian theologists have been at work
| > for a few hundred years, no atheist should put his head above the
| > parapet until _he personally_ has done a few hundred years of study?
| > That's a shockingly invalid argument: if you, David Aldred, who has been
| > on the planet for a few tens of years, can draw on the scholarship of
| > those Christians who went before you (and you may, I have no objection
| > to that) then why shouldn't I, or any other atheist, draw on the
| > scholarship of atheists who were here long before us?
|
| You can if you wish - no problem.  OTOH, if you want to join a group in
| which theology is being discussed by people who are discussing theology
| based on the understandings of 2000 years of study, insisting on those
| people first providing a proof of the basics is at least discourteous.

We have a whole mish-mash of contradictory belief systems, the differences 
between them in many cases irreconcilable. They cannot all be correct. Going by 
your comments, it would be ("at least") rude to question any of their a priori 
beliefs, simply because people have studied them for a long time. That's an 
extremely feeble argument.

| > Also passage of time isn't everything.  Look: the Newtonians had two
| > hundred years of (justifiable) dominance in physics.  In Einstein's
| > Annus Mirabilis no one told his followers to wait two hundred years
| > before they claimed victory.
|
| And yet few people seem to have insisted that Einstein prove first that
| matter and energy existed before they would let him discuss the
| implications of relativity.

Doh. Matter has properties that we can identify and study. The alleged 
properties of the supernatural are somewhat more 'elusive', entirely open to 
subjective interpretation (going by discussions here anyway), and multiple, 
conflicting, contradictory claims to supernatural 'truth' are advanced at least 
partly as a result of alleged divine ineffability and lack of physical evidence. 
Of course people can - and should - attempt to work out if any of these 
worldviews have any basis in reality. Including those who profess to believe in 
any of them. Because at least a sizeable proportion must, by definition, be 
living a lie.

pg

David Aldred wrote:
> 
> Frederick Williams wrote:
> 
> > David Aldred wrote:
> >
> >> Indeed.  And after a couple of thousand years of developing theology,
> >> doing the scrupulous groundwork and producing hypotheses which have
> >> survived peer review - the peer review sometimes, in less liberal times,
> >> involving sharp objects, and the survival having to be rather literal -
> >> Christian theology has people working at the cutting edge, and producing
> >> very interesting work.
> >>
> >> Perhaps the atheists should go and do some homework - a few hundred years
> >> would be recommended.
> >
> > Are you claiming that, because Christian theologists have been at work
> > for a few hundred years, no atheist should put his head above the
> > parapet until _he personally_ has done a few hundred years of study?
> > That's a shockingly invalid argument: if you, David Aldred, who has been
> > on the planet for a few tens of years, can draw on the scholarship of
> > those Christians who went before you (and you may, I have no objection
> > to that) then why shouldn't I, or any other atheist, draw on the
> > scholarship of atheists who were here long before us?
> 
> You can if you wish - no problem.  OTOH, if you want to join a group in
> which theology is being discussed by people who are discussing theology
> based on the understandings of 2000 years of study, insisting on those
> people first providing a proof of the basics is at least discourteous.

I for one would be happy to be given a reference to where a proof could
be found rather than have the flow interrupted.

> 
> > Also passage of time isn't everything.  Look: the Newtonians had two
> > hundred years of (justifiable) dominance in physics.  In Einstein's
> > Annus Mirabilis no one told his followers to wait two hundred years
> > before they claimed victory.
> 
> And yet few people seem to have insisted that Einstein prove first that
> matter and energy existed before they would let him discuss the
> implications of relativity.

Had he been asked to do so, it would have been easy for him to comply:
if he had been smoking his pipe at the time he could have asked the
sceptic to feel its bowl.  The solid object would be an an example of
matter and the warmth an example of energy.  Would that the
believer-in-God had such straight forward evidence to show us.
 
-- 
He is not here; but far away
  The noise of life begins again
  And ghastly thro' the drizzling rain
On the bald street breaks the blank day.

Frederick Williams wrote:

> David Aldred wrote:
>> 

>> You can if you wish - no problem.  OTOH, if you want to join a group in
>> which theology is being discussed by people who are discussing theology
>> based on the understandings of 2000 years of study, insisting on those
>> people first providing a proof of the basics is at least discourteous.
> 
> I for one would be happy to be given a reference to where a proof could
> be found rather than have the flow interrupted.

Would that all atheists wwere half way as reasonable.
>> 
>> And yet few people seem to have insisted that Einstein prove first that
>> matter and energy existed before they would let him discuss the
>> implications of relativity.
> 
> Had he been asked to do so, it would have been easy for him to comply:
> if he had been smoking his pipe at the time he could have asked the
> sceptic to feel its bowl.  The solid object would be an an example of
> matter and the warmth an example of energy.  

An example, perhasp - and one which relied upon the subjective experience of
the sceptic in question.   That's not proof; or if it is, then there's
plenty of proof for the existence of spiritual beings as well. 

-- 
David Aldred

David Aldred wrote:

[Frederick Williams, on how Einstein could supposedly
have satisfied a skeptic who demanded that he prove
the existence of matter and energy:]
>> Had he been asked to do so, it would have been easy for him to comply:
>> if he had been smoking his pipe at the time he could have asked the
>> sceptic to feel its bowl.  The solid object would be an an example of
>> matter and the warmth an example of energy.  

[David:]
> An example, perhasp - and one which relied upon the subjective experience of
> the sceptic in question.   That's not proof; or if it is, then there's
> plenty of proof for the existence of spiritual beings as well. 

I doubt that someone already skeptical about the existence of
matter and energy would be impressed by the evidence Frederick
proposes, too. Anyway, David, could you give an example of a
parallel sort of proof for the existence of spiritual beings,
that relies only on subjective experience that the skeptic
can reasonably be assumed to have had? (That last proviso plainly
does apply in the case of Frederick's proposal.)

-- 
Gareth McCaughan
sig under construc

David Aldred wrote:

> Indeed.  And after a couple of thousand years of developing theology, doing
> the scrupulous groundwork and producing hypotheses which have survived peer
> review - the peer review sometimes, in less liberal times, involving sharp
> objects, and the survival having to be rather literal - Christian theology
> has people working at the cutting edge, and producing very interesting
> work.

Peer review in science is generally reckoned to be effective in
separating good work from bad. In your opinion, is the sort of
"peer review" that involves sharp objects and possible death
at the hands of (say) the Inquisition effective in separating
good theology and bad?

-- 
Gareth McCaughan
sig under construc

Gareth McCaughan wrote:

> David Aldred wrote:
> 
>> Indeed.  And after a couple of thousand years of developing theology>> doing the scrupulous groundwork and producing hypotheses which have
>> survived peer review - the peer review sometimes, in less liberal times,
>> involving sharp objects, and the survival having to be rather literal >> Christian theology has people working at the cutting edge, and producing
>> very interesting work.
> 
> Peer review in science is generally reckoned to be effective in
> separating good work from bad. In your opinion, is the sort of
> "peer review" that involves sharp objects and possible death
> at the hands of (say) the Inquisition effective in separating
> good theology and bad?

If, despite the sharp objects etc, a theological view continues to be
regarded as valid, then I'd say so, yes.  If it's the genuine voice of God,
then it will survive such persecution.

-- 
David Aldred

In message 
          Gareth McCaughan  wrote:

> Peer review in science is generally reckoned to be effective in
> separating good work from bad. In your opinion, is the sort of
> "peer review" that involves sharp objects and possible death
> at the hands of (say) the Inquisition effective in separating
> good theology and bad?

I take the point you are trying to make; I'd merely remark that in the 
context of scientific peer review, there is little to choose between 
the sharp objects of the Inquisition and the virtual death of losing 
your reputation, research grants, scientific standing and academic 
position - which has happened (deservedly or not) to some who went too 
far outside the scientific consensus.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

David Aldred wrote:

>>> Indeed.  And after a couple of thousand years of developing theology,
>>> doing the scrupulous groundwork and producing hypotheses which have
>>> survived peer review - the peer review sometimes, in less liberal times,
>>> involving sharp objects, and the survival having to be rather literal -
>>> Christian theology has people working at the cutting edge, and producing
>>> very interesting work.
>> 
>> Peer review in science is generally reckoned to be effective in
>> separating good work from bad. In your opinion, is the sort of
>> "peer review" that involves sharp objects and possible death
>> at the hands of (say) the Inquisition effective in separating
>> good theology and bad?
> 
> If, despite the sharp objects etc, a theological view continues to be
> regarded as valid, then I'd say so, yes.  If it's the genuine voice of God,
> then it will survive such persecution.

I think this depends on what you mean by "the genuine voice of God".
Clearly (tautologously, almost) anything that an omnipotent god is
determined to get the world believing will, one way or another,
survive whatever the world throws at it. But something could be
the truth -- an important truth, even -- without being something
that God is determined to make the world believe, in which case
peer review by Inquisition seems liable to wipe it out.

(After all, it's quite clear that God, if God there be, isn't
determined to make sure that people at all times and in all places
believe the truth, simply because there's so much disagreement
about such fundamental things.)

It occurs to me that the doctrine that truth will always prevail
might be a rather convenient one for the leaders of big and powerful
church institutions -- since it amounts to saying "What we teach is
sure to be what God wants believed"...

-- 
Gareth McCaughan
sig under construc

Kendall K Down wrote:

> In message 
>           Gareth McCaughan  wrote:
> 
>> Peer review in science is generally reckoned to be effective in
>> separating good work from bad. In your opinion, is the sort of
>> "peer review" that involves sharp objects and possible death
>> at the hands of (say) the Inquisition effective in separating
>> good theology and bad?
> 
> I take the point you are trying to make; I'd merely remark that in the 
> context of scientific peer review, there is little to choose between 
> the sharp objects of the Inquisition and the virtual death of losing 
> your reputation, research grants, scientific standing and academic 
> position - which has happened (deservedly or not) to some who went too 
> far outside the scientific consensus.

I think there's a very great deal to choose between the two, actually.

And the dangers of going too far outside the scientific consensus
have been systematically and dishonestly exaggerated by creationists
in recent years; you might want to check your sources. (For
instance, the standard ID advocates' narrative about the case
of Richard Sternberg is simply a pack of lies.)

-- 
Gareth McCaughan
sig under construc

Thanks for your e-mail, Gareth. It kept me in touch while the Demons 
took away my ukrc feed.

Now changed ISP, and got a news feed, but still trying to sort out my 
e-mails!

(Meanwhile please ignore the address above.)

Mike
-- 
Michael J Davis

<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><

In message 
          Gareth McCaughan  wrote:

>> I take the point you are trying to make; I'd merely remark that in the
>> context of scientific peer review, there is little to choose between
>> the sharp objects of the Inquisition and the virtual death of losing
>> your reputation, research grants, scientific standing and academic
>> position - which has happened (deservedly or not) to some who went too
>> far outside the scientific consensus.

> I think there's a very great deal to choose between the two, actually.

The fact that some in the situation I describe have committed suicide 
is, I think, evidence on my side.

> And the dangers of going too far outside the scientific consensus
> have been systematically and dishonestly exaggerated by creationists
> in recent years; you might want to check your sources. (For
> instance, the standard ID advocates' narrative about the case
> of Richard Sternberg is simply a pack of lies.)

I've no idea who Richard Sternberg is. I had in mind more the pariahs 
who came up with the idea of cold fusion.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

Kendall K Down wrote:

>>> I take the point you are trying to make; I'd merely remark that in the
>>> context of scientific peer review, there is little to choose between
>>> the sharp objects of the Inquisition and the virtual death of losing
>>> your reputation, research grants, scientific standing and academic
>>> position - which has happened (deservedly or not) to some who went too
>>> far outside the scientific consensus.
> 
>> I think there's a very great deal to choose between the two, actually.
> 
> The fact that some in the situation I describe have committed suicide 
> is, I think, evidence on my side.

Hardly. Regrettably, all sorts of things much less drastic than
being tortured to death can (sometimes, to some people in some
situations) seem awful enough to lead to suicide. Taking your
argument seriously would require us to believe, e.g., that
not being interested in someone who fancies you is just like
what, say, the Church did to Giordano Bruno.

>> And the dangers of going too far outside the scientific consensus
>> have been systematically and dishonestly exaggerated by creationists
>> in recent years; you might want to check your sources. (For
>> instance, the standard ID advocates' narrative about the case
>> of Richard Sternberg is simply a pack of lies.)
> 
> I've no idea who Richard Sternberg is.

One of several (all similarly bogus) cases of alleged persecution
of a scientist for daring to doubt the Darwinian orthodoxy. (In
reality, Sternberg did commit academic malpractice, and he didn't
get persecuted.)

>                                        I had in mind more the pariahs 
> who came up with the idea of cold fusion.

What actually happened when Pons and Fleischmann announced
that they had got nuclear fusion to happen at ordinary
temperatures was that

  - they became famous
  - lots of scientists rushed to try to replicate their results
  - the state of Utah spent millions of dollars creating a
    National Cold Fusion Institute
  - various other entities poured a whole lot of money into
    studying cold fusion (with, guess what?, Pons and Fleischmann
    playing a major role)
  - the results turned out to be negative
  - no one ever came up with a good theoretical explanation for
    how cold fusion, if real, could work
  - pretty much the entire scientific mainstream lost interest
    after lots of failed attempts to verify P&F's claims, and
    problems being found with P&F's original work
  - but, despite being pretty much discredited, cold fusion
    still gets some time at major academic conferences,
    presumably on the grounds that it would be so darn useful
    if it were real
  - Fleischmann still has a senior academic post

It's very difficult for me to see how this can be construed
as persecution or closed-mindedness. It looks to me as if
the scientific community made every effort to see if P&F
were right. It turns out that they were probably wrong;
such is life.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan
sig under construc

"PG"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
gb83q4$hbq$1@aioe.org...
| On Sep 21, 11:40 pm, David Aldred  wrote:

| Don't theists of a less than liberal Christian persuasion at least feel under
| some obligation to explain to believers from different religions why their
| alternative god(s) is/are false?

Apparently not.

| Even if they think atheists are unworthy of
| such a gesture, going by your patronising comments? Don't those same Christian
| theists remark upon the amazing coincidence that the followers of other 
equally
| or more ancient paths happen to concentrate on a geographical basis - where a
| different tradition originally emerged and prospered? So are not individual
| beliefs in many cases simply an accident of birth location? (Of course a
| possible future president of the most powerful state in the world (Palin) - 
who
| may yet one day have her finger on the nuclear button - apparently thinks 
Alaska
| is the last refuge before Armageddon; so perhaps there's a school of thought
| there...)

(Few people are aware that not so long ago, Palin was a member of a party 
calling for Alaskan independence from the US).

And again on the subject of Palin, we now learn that she continues to use the 
American taxpayers' money to fund her religious activities. So much for the 
separation of Church and State, as provided for by the US Constitution.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/11/politics/main4515419.shtml

Are liberal Christians in this country not concerned about the increasing 
influence of Evangelists/fundamentalists in the the decision-making processes of 
major nations around the world?

pg

"pg" wrote:

> (Few people are aware that not so long ago, Palin was a member of a party 
> calling for Alaskan independence from the US).

I think that's wrong. Isn't it her husband who is or was a member
of the AIP?

-- 
Gareth McCaughan
sig under construc

"Gareth McCaughan"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
8763ntt2k3.fsf@g.mccaughan.org.uk...
| "pg" wrote:
|
| > (Few people are aware that not so long ago, Palin was a member of a party
| > calling for Alaskan independence from the US).
|
| I think that's wrong. Isn't it her husband who is or was a member
| of the AIP?

Hmm the original CNN report I watched a couple of days ago said that she was a 
member, but since then something of a smokescreen seems to have been thrown up 
over this issue. Even if she wasn't a fully paid-up member, she "video-taped [a 
message that was] delivered to the 2008 convention of the Alaska Independence 
Party. In that message, Palin expressed wide agreement with the views of the 
Alaska Independence Party and congratulated its members on the convention and 
urged them "to keep up the good work."

According to Neiwert (of salon.com), "Sarah Palin's husband Todd Palin joined 
the Alaska Independence Party in the 1990s and held his membership until 
recently. While the evidence suggests Sarah Palin may not have joined, she did 
participate in at least two Alaska Independence Party conventions, in 2006 in 
person and in 2008 by video. Neiwert also suggested that she may have attended a 
third convention."

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/7573/

Plus six minutes into this speech (video link - 
http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-115044) by the Alaska Independence Party Vice 
Chairman Dexter Clark he says that Sarah Palin was a member...

"Our current governor who I mentioned at the last conference, the one we were 
hoping would get elected, Sarah Palin, did get elected . . . .and there was a 
lot of talk about her moving up. She was an AIP member before she got the job as 
mayor . . . "

(The remainder of the transcript is interesting too)...

Still, whether an actual member or not at some time, given the above the point 
remains largely the same. Thanks for the correction though, shows one shouldn't 
believe all one hears on CNN ;) - although I would bet the McCain/Palin campaign 
brought a helluva lot of pressure to bear on the media over this one, whatever 
the truth of the matter.

On 2008-10-16, pg wrote:

> And again on the subject of Palin, we now learn that she continues to use the 
> American taxpayers' money to fund her religious activities. So much for the 
> separation of Church and State, as provided for by the US Constitution.
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/11/politics/main4515419.shtml
>
> Are liberal Christians in this country not concerned about the increasing 
> influence of Evangelists/fundamentalists in the the decision-making processes of 
> major nations around the world?

Well, I'm certainly not happy about it.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:11:17 +0100, Adam Funk 
wrote:

>On 2008-10-16, pg wrote:
>
>> And again on the subject of Palin, we now learn that she continues to use the 
>> American taxpayers' money to fund her religious activities. So much for the 
>> separation of Church and State, as provided for by the US Constitution.
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/11/politics/main4515419.shtml
>>
>> Are liberal Christians in this country not concerned about the increasing 
>> influence of Evangelists/fundamentalists in the the decision-making processes of 
>> major nations around the world?
>
>Well, I'm certainly not happy about it.
>

Me neither

In news:48f7790e.40630678@news.zen.co.uk,
Nick Milton  articulated:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:11:17 +0100, Adam Funk 
> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-10-16, pg wrote:
>>
>>> And again on the subject of Palin, we now learn that she continues
>>> to use the American taxpayers' money to fund her religious
>>> activities. So much for the separation of Church and State, as
>>> provided for by the US Constitution.
>>>
>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/11/politics/main4515419.shtml
>>>
>>> Are liberal Christians in this country not concerned about the
>>> increasing influence of Evangelists/fundamentalists in the the
>>> decision-making processes of major nations around the world?
>>
>> Well, I'm certainly not happy about it.
>>
>
> Me neither

<AOL>
-- 
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address

"Paul Roberts"  wrote in message 
news:1224179616.733783@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...
> In news:48f7790e.40630678@news.zen.co.uk,
> Nick Milton  articulated:
>> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:11:17 +0100, Adam Funk 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-10-16, pg wrote:
>>>
>>>> And again on the subject of Palin, we now learn that she continues
>>>> to use the American taxpayers' money to fund her religious
>>>> activities. So much for the separation of Church and State, as
>>>> provided for by the US Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/11/politics/main4515419.shtml
>>>>
>>>> Are liberal Christians in this country not concerned about the
>>>> increasing influence of Evangelists/fundamentalists in the the
>>>> decision-making processes of major nations around the world?
>>>
>>> Well, I'm certainly not happy about it.
>>>
>>
>> Me neither
>
> <AOL>
> -- 
> Paul R.

Why are you unhappy about something that is not the case?

Do you have some evidence that the "influence" is increasing?

Do you have some evidence that it has to do with the "decision making of 
major nations"?

It seems liberals will line up to support a stance just because it is anti 
their fellow Christians even if it isnt based on truth.

Shame on them.

Does any atheist want to claim that George Bush snr killed JFK? I'm sure my 
liberal brothers will sign the petition to have him charged.

Is there any lie that you liberals wouldn't support if it was anti 
evangelical?

Phil

"Nick Milton"  wrote in message 
news:48f7790e.40630678@news.zen.co.uk...
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:11:17 +0100, Adam Funk 
> wrote:
>
>>On 2008-10-16, pg wrote:
>>
>>> And again on the subject of Palin, we now learn that she continues to 
>>> use the
>>> American taxpayers' money to fund her religious activities. So much for 
>>> the
>>> separation of Church and State, as provided for by the US Constitution.
>>>
>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/11/politics/main4515419.shtml
>>>
>>> Are liberal Christians in this country not concerned about the 
>>> increasing
>>> influence of Evangelists/fundamentalists in the the decision-making 
>>> processes of
>>> major nations around the world?
>>
>>Well, I'm certainly not happy about it.
>>
>
> Me neither

They may well decide to start a new reformation and righteously 
excommunicate as they should, all those living in the sin of adultery. What 
a blessing that would be, and a wonderful improvement in the morality of the 
fallen churches of Christendom.

Jeff...
" 11 Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery
against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she
commits adultery."  Mark 10:10-12 (NET)

"pg" wrote:

[about Sarah Palin and the AIP:]
> Still, whether an actual member or not at some time, given the above the point 
> remains largely the same.

Oh, yes. I hope you didn't think I was offering any sort of general
defence of her, or McCain -- terrorist sympathisers both of them,
according to the idiotic standards of evidence they use when smearing
Obama. (One of McCain's senior campaign officials is a former lobbyist
for Saddam Hussein, I hear. But obviously that pales in comparison
to having sat on the board of a charity at the same time as someone
who blew up buildings 40 years ago in protest at the Vietnam war.)

>                           Thanks for the correction though, shows one shouldn't 
> believe all one hears on CNN ;) - although I would bet the McCain/Palin campaign 
> brought a helluva lot of pressure to bear on the media over this one, whatever 
> the truth of the matter.

Very likely. I think the press are getting wise to them now, though.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan
sig under construc

In news:XCMJk.33217$xU3.25450@newsfe19.ams2,
Philip Saunders  articulated:

>>>> On 2008-10-16, pg wrote:

[snip]
>>>>> Are liberal Christians in this country not concerned about the
>>>>> increasing influence of Evangelists/fundamentalists in the the
>>>>> decision-making processes of major nations around the world?

[snip a few of us agreeing]
> Why are you unhappy about something that is not the case?
>
> Do you have some evidence that the "influence" is increasing?
>
> Do you have some evidence that it has to do with the "decision making
> of major nations"?
>
> It seems liberals will line up to support a stance just because it is
> anti their fellow Christians even if it isnt based on truth.
>
> Shame on them.
>
> Does any atheist want to claim that George Bush snr killed JFK? I'm
> sure my liberal brothers will sign the petition to have him charged.
>
> Is there any lie that you liberals wouldn't support if it was anti
> evangelical?

Nice little caricature, Phil. A pity it bears no resemblance to reality.
-- 
Paul R.
Remove nospam for valid email address

"Gareth McCaughan"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
87od1ks0n7.fsf@g.mccaughan.org.uk...
| "pg" wrote:
|
| [about Sarah Palin and the AIP:]
| > Still, whether an actual member or not at some time, given the above the 
point
| > remains largely the same.
|
| Oh, yes. I hope you didn't think I was offering any sort of general
| defence of her, or McCain -- terrorist sympathisers both of them,
| according to the idiotic standards of evidence they use when smearing
| Obama. (One of McCain's senior campaign officials is a former lobbyist
| for Saddam Hussein, I hear. But obviously that pales in comparison
| to having sat on the board of a charity at the same time as someone
| who blew up buildings 40 years ago in protest at the Vietnam war.)

(Almost more successful in blowing themselves up, then doing any major 
structural damage). The chief prosecutor of the Weather Underground at the time 
was quoted as saying recently ""I am amazed and outraged that Senator Barack 
Obama is being linked to William Ayers' terrorist activities 40 years ago when 
Mr. Obama was, as he has noted, just a child".

Yet it isn't this issue but the economic and financial crises that are mainly 
responsible for causing McCain to drop back in the polls. The American voting 
public should have been outraged by this blatant manipulation, adding insult to 
injury after his selection of Palin as running mate to appeal to the rednecks 
and Christian Right. McCain is effectively saying "you are stupid and will 
believe anything". The opinion polls demonstrate that his judgement of human 
nature is hardly misplaced, even if the gambit hasn't worked to the extent he 
would have liked.

|
| >                           Thanks for the correction though, shows one 
shouldn't
| > believe all one hears on CNN ;) - although I would bet the McCain/Palin 
campaign
| > brought a helluva lot of pressure to bear on the media over this one, 
whatever
| > the truth of the matter.
|
| Very likely. I think the press are getting wise to them now, though.

Yet McCain could still win. I wonder if the actual vote will reflect the opinion 
polls going into the election. How many white Americans will pay lip service to 
the acceptability of a black president when surveyed by telephone and 
face-to-face interviewing - then when it comes down to it ..............

pg

In message <gd64r0$dtc$1@aioe.org>
          "pg"  wrote:

> Are liberal Christians in this country not concerned about the increasing
> influence of Evangelists/fundamentalists in the the decision-making
> processes of major nations around the world?

I don't think that I am a liberal, but I am worried about it. I 
welcome Christian influence, but not fundamental Christian (and 
particularly not *American* fundamental Christian) influence.

Imagine if we had the likes of Jeff making our laws!

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

"Paul Roberts"  wrote in message 
news:1224193949.367931@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...
> In news:XCMJk.33217$xU3.25450@newsfe19.ams2,
> Philip Saunders  articulated:
>
>>>>> On 2008-10-16, pg wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>>>>> Are liberal Christians in this country not concerned about the
>>>>>> increasing influence of Evangelists/fundamentalists in the the
>>>>>> decision-making processes of major nations around the world?
>
> [snip a few of us agreeing]
>> Why are you unhappy about something that is not the case?
>>
>> Do you have some evidence that the "influence" is increasing?
>>
>> Do you have some evidence that it has to do with the "decision making
>> of major nations"?
>>
>> It seems liberals will line up to support a stance just because it is
>> anti their fellow Christians even if it isnt based on truth.
>>
>> Shame on them.
>>
>> Does any atheist want to claim that George Bush snr killed JFK? I'm
>> sure my liberal brothers will sign the petition to have him charged.
>>
>> Is there any lie that you liberals wouldn't support if it was anti
>> evangelical?
>
> Nice little caricature, Phil. A pity it bears no resemblance to reality.
> -- 
> Paul R.
> Remove nospam for valid email address

Yeah right. You are all not happy about something that isnt happening.

I note you have no evidence.

What a shock

Phil

In message <XCMJk.33217$xU3.25450@newsfe19.ams2>
          "Philip Saunders"  wrote:

> It seems liberals will line up to support a stance just because it is anti
> their fellow Christians even if it isnt based on truth.

I can't speak for liberals, but being opposed to the American 
religious right is *not* an anti-Christian stance. For example, I do 
not believe that religious freedom is dependent upon being allowed to 
have an Uzi submachine gun in my lounge room, nor do I think that gun 
ownership is consistent with Christian faith.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|     Australia's premier archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

pg  was inspired to say
>
>"PG"  a écrit dans le message de news:
>gb83q4$hbq$1@aioe.org...
>| On Sep 21, 11:40 pm, David Aldred  wrote:
>
>| Don't theists of a less than liberal Christian persuasion at least feel under
>| some obligation to explain to believers from different religions why their
>| alternative god(s) is/are false?
>
>Apparently not.
>
>| Even if they think atheists are unworthy of
>| such a gesture, going by your patronising comments? Don't those same 
>|Christian
>| theists remark upon the amazing coincidence that the followers of other
>equally
>| or more ancient paths happen to concentrate on a geographical basis - where a
>| different tradition originally emerged and prospered? So are not individual
>| beliefs in many cases simply an accident of birth location? (Of course a
>| possible future president of the most powerful state in the world (Palin) -
>who
>| may yet one day have her finger on the nuclear button - apparently thinks
>Alaska
>| is the last refuge before Armageddon; so perhaps there's a school of thought
>| there...)
>
>(Few people are aware that not so long ago, Palin was a member of a party
>calling for Alaskan independence from the US).
>
>And again on the subject of Palin, we now learn that she continues to use the
>American taxpayers' money to fund her religious activities. So much for the
>separation of Church and State, as provided for by the US Constitution.
>
>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/11/politics/main4515419.shtml

Can't say I'm wild about this, especially if it's dodgy in the US law. 
But the Christian pov is that there cannot be a division between one's 
view of society and the way God is leading us. The real problem (for 
both of us) is those who think that God has only one way of dealing with 
society's ills. Funny how it is always there way.

(And yes, I'm an RC, and I think that part of the real understanding of 
human nature means that some forms of behaviour are unacceptable.)
>
>Are liberal Christians in this country not concerned about the increasing
>influence of Evangelists/fundamentalists in the the decision-making 
>processes of
>major nations around the world?

Indeed. Whether it's Christian, Muslim or atheist fundamentalism. If we 
believe in democracy then it must be our powers of persuasion that 
influence others.

Mike

-- 
Michael J Davis
<Please note that the Reply-To: address will remain in use for at least 30
days, but the sender and from addresses are not valid.>
<><

"Philip Saunders"  a écrit dans le message de 
news: JaWJk.46481$IX7.33855@newsfe20.ams2...
| "Paul Roberts"  wrote in message
| news:1224193949.367931@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...
| > In news:XCMJk.33217$xU3.25450@newsfe19.ams2,
| > Philip Saunders  articulated:
| >
| >>>>> On 2008-10-16, pg wrote:
| >
| > [snip]
| >>>>>> Are liberal Christians in this country not concerned about the
| >>>>>> increasing influence of Evangelists/fundamentalists in the the
| >>>>>> decision-making processes of major nations around the world?
| >
| > [snip a few of us agreeing]
| >> Why are you unhappy about something that is not the case?
| >>
| >> Do you have some evidence that the "influence" is increasing?
| >>
| >> Do you have some evidence that it has to do with the "decision making
| >> of major nations"?
| >>
| >> It seems liberals will line up to support a stance just because it is
| >> anti their fellow Christians even if it isnt based on truth.
| >>
| >> Shame on them.
| >>
| >> Does any atheist want to claim that George Bush snr killed JFK? I'm
| >> sure my liberal brothers will sign the petition to have him charged.
| >>
| >> Is there any lie that you liberals wouldn't support if it was anti
| >> evangelical?
| >
| > Nice little caricature, Phil. A pity it bears no resemblance to reality.
|
| Yeah right. You are all not happy about something that isnt happening.
|
| I note you have no evidence.
|
| What a shock

Go back and read my first question, Phil. No evidence?

Iran, Pakistan? How about the Taliban in Afghanistan? The growth of Hindu 
fundamentaism? The growing influence of the Christian Right in the US?

Here is the abstract of a paper by Nikhil Aziz, executive director of human 
rights group Grassroots International on this subject:

"Fundamentalism (used here to mean an ideology that is based on a literal 
reading and narrow interpretation of religious scriptures) has been a truly 
global phenomenon, gaining ground in all major religious traditions particularly 
since the 1970s. While almost all religious fundamentalisms claim to be 
non-political, emphasizing instead a moral and cultural agenda aimed at 
reclaiming traditional values or reinvigorating faith systems under assault from 
some imagined enemy (secular humanism, modernity, globalization, religious 
minorities), they are, in fact, inherently political. They seek to reshape not 
only societal values but also political, legal, and even economic systems. While 
fundamentalists within (and across) each religious tradition might differ 
significantly on precise interpretations of scripture or their vision for 
society, they are usually united around who or what they oppose. This unity is 
grounded in the heteropatriarchal foundations of each major world religion, 
which provide the focus for disciplining and punishing the behaviors (and 
bodies) of women, and gays and lesbians. Studies of religious fundamentalism 
have generally examined individual religions-Christian fundamentalism in the 
United States, Hindu fundamentalism in India, Islamic fundamentalism across the 
Muslim world, Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, etc. Even though some observers 
have argued that they sometimes have a causal effect on each other-rising 
Islamic fundamentalism contributes to increasing Hindu fundamentalism or vice 
versa-what has been emphasized is essentially their antagonism towards each 
other. What has been less studied is the growing phenomenon of religious 
fundamentalists collaborating across faith systems either to discipline/punish 
those whose behaviors they see as blasphemous or against tradition; to question 
the authority of the (either secular or imperialist) State and its disciplining 
strategies; or against a common other. The coming together of Christian and 
Muslim fundamentalists at the United Nations to oppose women's rights is 
evidence of the first; the feelers from the Pakistani Muslim fundamentalist 
coalition to the Hindu fundamentalists ruling in India around the increasing 
influence of the imperialist U.S. State in South and West Asia is an example of 
the second; and the growing cooperation between Jewish and Hindu fundamentalists 
against the Islamic other is an illustration of the third. This paper seeks to 
focus primarily on Christian and Muslim fundamentalism in particular. It will 
look at the theological/ideological influences of Calvinism and 
Wahabbism/Salafism on Christian and Islamic fundamentalism respectively, as well 
as the larger political-economic, social bases for and underpinnings of both 
fundamentalisms. And then, in this context, examine the factual evidence of 
fundamentalist collaborations and their impact on women/gays/lesbians as well as 
liberal/progressive Christians/Muslim denominations."

What world do you live in? No evidence? Pull the other one :-)

Kendall K Down wrote:
  nor do I think that gun
> ownership is consistent with Christian faith.
> 

Amen and amen and amen!
-- 


Revd. Eric Potts

"I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able
to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day."

X-No-Archive: yes

"Philip Saunders"  wrote in message 
news:JaWJk.46481$IX7.33855@newsfe20.ams2...
> "Paul Roberts"  wrote in message 
> news:1224193949.367931@nntpgw.ncl.ac.uk...
>> In news:XCMJk.33217$xU3.25450@newsfe19.ams2,
>> Philip Saunders  articulated:
>>
>>>>>> On 2008-10-16, pg wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>>>>>> Are liberal Christians in this country not concerned about the
>>>>>>> increasing influence of Evangelists/fundamentalists in the the
>>>>>>> decision-making processes of major nations around the world?
>>
>> [snip a few of us agreeing]
>>> Why are you unhappy about something that is not the case?
>>>
>>> Do you have some evidence that the "influence" is increasing?
>>>
>>> Do you have some evidence that it has to do with the "decision making
>>> of major nations"?
>>>
>>> It seems liberals will line up to support a stance just because it is
>>> anti their fellow Christians even if it isnt based on truth.
>>>
>>> Shame on them.
>>>
>>> Does any atheist want to claim that George Bush snr killed JFK? I'm
>>> sure my liberal brothers will sign the petition to have him charged.
>>>
>>> Is there any lie that you liberals wouldn't support if it was anti
>>> evangelical?
>>
>> Nice little caricature, Phil. A pity it bears no resemblance to reality.
>> -- 
>> Paul R.
>> Remove nospam for valid email address
>
> Yeah right. You are all not happy about something that isnt happening.
>
> I note you have no evidence.
>
> What a shock


I'm sure any evidence will be discounted by you but.... evidence there is:

George Bush.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
containing the following....

"The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. 
Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know 
that God is not neutral between them.  (Applause.)

Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice -- assured of the 
rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come.  In all that 
lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United 
States of America."



And then this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

containing the following...

"George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the 
invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian 
politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.

Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a 
Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egyptian 
resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 
2003.

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at 
the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a 
mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists 
in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end 
the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get 
the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get 
peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

Mr Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly 
religious leaders to occupy the White House, a fact which brings him much 
support in middle America."



Then, more generally..

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/president/invoking.html





Then we have Palin:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

containing the following...

"Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in 
Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will 
of the Lord.

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. 
Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending 
[U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the 
congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that 
there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."



And forget not that if it were not for Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair would 
have expressed his religious beliefs far more openly and overtly than he 
did.

Consider also the many speeches containing fundamentalist diatribe from the 
Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ....



Closer to home we see the upsurge in 'creationist' and 'evangelical' and 
fundamentalist websites such as Answers in Genesis.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

An annual budget of $13M it already has offices in the UK from where staff 
circulate giving talks on how humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth 
together. (I'm not making this up..!)

Much of the website contains disgraceful *quote mining* and pseudo 
scientific evidence for it's fundamentalist agenda.

Then we have Truth in Science

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/

A lobbying organisation that has adopted a strategy of "Teaching the 
Controversy"  in an attempt to get Intelligent Design (creationism..) taught 
alongside evolution in schools.  In 2006 it sent resource packs to every 
British secondary school in the UK. I have seen estimates that 59 schools 
have used or are planning to use this material.

At another level we find increasingingly the activities of religious lobby 
groups in parliament such as the Evangelical Alliance

http://www.eauk.org/publictheology/index.cfm

The Christian Institute

http://www.christian.org.uk/whoweare/index.htm

Christian Action Research Education

http://www.care.org.uk/Publisher/Article.aspx?ID=109696



All actively working as lobbyists to promote their particular brand of 
religious dogma

(Christian Institute:  We believe that the Bible is the supreme authority 
for all of life and we hold to the inerrancy of Scripture. We are committed 
to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.) is certainly not a 
liberal Christian ideology.

We have evidence that culture is shifting to extremist views from, for 
example, Prof. Steve Jones who has taught genetics and evolutionary biology 
for more than 30 years at University College, London when (religious) 
students, even those studying medicine, are beginning to demand exemption 
from classes and exam questions on the subject he teaches....

There is ample evidence for a growing shift in religious culture to the 
right of centre, much more than  this brief posting has indicated but it 
will always be denied by those who are either in that movement or those who 
hold similar fundamentalist views.





Mark

"Kendall K Down"  wrote in message 
news:6e808cef4f.diggings@diggingsonline.com...
> In message <XCMJk.33217$xU3.25450@newsfe19.ams2>
>          "Philip Saunders"  wrote:
>
>> It seems liberals will line up to support a stance just because it is 
>> anti
>> their fellow Christians even if it isnt based on truth.
>
> I can't speak for liberals, but being opposed to the American
> religious right is *not* an anti-Christian stance. For example, I do
> not believe that religious freedom is dependent upon being allowed to
> have an Uzi submachine gun in my lounge room, nor do I think that gun
> ownership is consistent with Christian faith.

So you too support a false claim.

Phil

"pg" wrote:

> Yet it isn't this issue but the economic and financial crises that are mainly 
> responsible for causing McCain to drop back in the polls.

Yup, and quite right too. I've been somewhat heartened by the signs
that many of the American People seem to be being cynical enough to
see through the smear campaigning. It's a shame that it's taken such
a lot to make it happen. (And, looking at the numbers, it seems like
there's something like 40% of the US population who will vote for
McCain even if he is caught blowing up buildings, having sex with
small children, or whatever. I expect the same is true on the other
side. This is all very sad.)

>                                                           The American voting 
> public should have been outraged by this blatant manipulation, adding insult to 
> injury after his selection of Palin as running mate to appeal to the rednecks 
> and Christian Right. McCain is effectively saying "you are stupid and will 
> believe anything".

Palin appears to think that it just doesn't matter what lies she
tells, no one will notice. I think a lot of voters feel insulted
by that. At least, I hope they do, and that would be a partial
explanation for the anti-Palin backlash that seems to have done
the McCain campaign some damage.

>                    The opinion polls demonstrate that his judgement of human 
> nature is hardly misplaced, even if the gambit hasn't worked to the extent he 
> would have liked.

Well, I dunno. It looks to me as if *some* voters -- the ones you
describe as the rednecks and the Christian Right -- were excited
and energized by Palin, but th