Croaker's older than I, Mr. Reed. Are insults permitted to be hurled only one way on these threads?

Jenny--It doesn?t really matter if ?holy communion? is real-time or symbolic, catholic or voodoo. The need for such a belief is what I deplore. Religion is at the center of Ground Zero and nearly every other troubling aspect of humanity. We haven?t yet grown up. When we do, science and technology will prevail?contained with a civility that is very young by today?s civilized standards. That?s probably several more 4Ts down the line.

God?s death has been under-exaggerated. Come on, Marc, tell me it?s not all about religion and $$$, and about $$$ as religion.

Meanwhile Wilson?s Bottleneck is staring us down the throat.

"We haven?t yet grown up. When we do, science and technology will prevail?contained with a civility that is very young by today?s civilized standards. That?s probably several more 4Ts down the line."

Yeah, right, Croaker. Didn't the Nazis get a real good handle on this perfection business via science and technology, Croaker? Come on, I thought you were a little brighter than this.

You forget, sir, that during a "spiritual" Awakening, the power of collectivist thinking, and the so-called "new age" science and technology that drives it, is broken, so that you and I can enjoy that little church in our own mind!




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc S. Lamb on 2002-01-31 11:10 ]</font>

No little church for me, Marc. I'm going to hell. And when I get there I'm going to challenge you to a shuffleboard game.

Unless one is completely null and void, every man, woman and child has a little church in their own mind, Croaker; It's called their belief system. And you never leave home without.

BTW, Ms. Genser, I'm not a Roman Catholic. I am a born-again Christian. While all Christians celebrate the Lord's Supper, only Roman Catholics do so strickly via a priest.

Protestants adhere to the doctrine that every Christian is a priest.


And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. --Revelation 5:9-10

[quote]On 2002-01-31 11:00, Croaker'39 wrote:

We haven?t yet grown up. When we do, science and technology will prevail?contained with a civility that is very young by today?s civilized standards.

Could you flesh out this "civility" which will ensue as soon as man rejects religion completely and embraces science and technology?

On 2002-01-31 11:34, Marc S. Lamb wrote:

BTW, Ms. Genser, I'm not a Roman Catholic. I am a born-again Christian. While all Christians celebrate the Lord's Supper, only Roman Catholics do so strickly via a priest.

I didn't think you were a Catholic, although in my mind, Catholic and "born again" are not mutually exclusive (in other words, it is possible to be a born again Catholic, and since Catholicism is a form of Christianity, such a person would be a born-again Christian".

Out of curiousity and respect, not out of nastiness, do you believe that the bread and wine is the body of Christ or is it purely symbolic? In other words, is the difference between Protestant and Catholic belief about communion is the need for the priest or is it actually what happens to the bread and wine during communion?

Croaker, I personally believe that it is useful to understand and RESPECT different religious traditions, even if you don't share them. It's the lack of TOLERANCE that leads to Bin Laden-type hatred, not the belief or non-belief in God.

On 2002-01-31 12:26, choselh wrote:

On 2002-01-31 10:09, madscientist wrote: Marc, that is enough. Start acting your age, not your shoe size!

As an Xer, I really get a kick out of seeing a Millie tell a Boomer to grow up. :smile:

As a Boomer, I get it from my Millie kid all the time! :lol:

I have addressed your questions, Ms. Genser, here. :smile:

And yes, I'm used to those little rugrat millies trying to set me straight as well.

"Out of the mouths of babes," was it written? Only rarely though, do I listen. :smile:

Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. I say it's the disease of the masses. What's there to RESPECT? Why should I be TOLERANT of something that infects people for silly reasons that I don't understand?

Science is just another word for nothing left to believe. Belief systems are sewers for society. Science and technology are the aquaducts. If that weren't true, then we'd still be blaming the Jews for the Plague, and the homosexuals for AIDS. Oh, you mean we still do?

It's a hard road that leads away from childhood indocrination, but in the end there'll be apples all around. How's that for a belief system?

"How's that for a belief system?" Well, no one accused you of being "nul and void," Croaker. We all knew that "little church" was in there somewhere, just aching to get out. :smile:


p.s. Now can't we all just get along?

On 2002-01-31 15:11, Croaker'39 wrote:

Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. I say it's the disease of the masses. What's there to RESPECT?

Why don't you answer your own question?

Why should I be TOLERANT of something that infects people for silly reasons that I don't understand?

Why do you judge something you do not understand?

Science is just another word for nothing left to believe.

Yeah, and freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

Belief systems are sewers for society. Science and technology are the aquaducts.

Would you qualify the Cloaca Maxima as an aqueduct?

If that weren't true, then we'd still be blaming the Jews for the Plague, and the homosexuals for AIDS.

So which religion is responsible for the mythology of manmade global warming?

The Cult of Ignorance, of course. Do I need to define ignorance?

On 2002-01-31 15:44, Croaker'39 wrote:

The Cult of Ignorance, of course. Do I need to define ignorance?

Actually "cult" is the word which is difficult to define legally. But to what are you responding with this post?

Stonewall--Would you say that S&H-type turnings have anything to do with cults, religions, science, and technology? As the 4Ts roll by, humans will have less to do with religion and more to do with science. Or have I been missing something about modernism and post-moderism?

I'm not saying science is always put to good use, or that religion always put to bad use. I'm saying we don't need to kill anymore chickens to prove God is still in charge. Let's give the old Guy a break. He's done enough already.

On 2002-01-31 16:45, Croaker'39 wrote:

Stonewall--Would you say that S&H-type turnings have anything to do with cults, religions, science, and technology? As the 4Ts roll by, humans will have less to do with religion and more to do with science. Or have I been missing something about modernism and post-moderism?

I would suspect that we will see a merging of theology and science. However I am not sure that you would agree. S&H's theory is intact either way (subject to refinement as always).

I'm not saying science is always put to good use, or that religion always put to bad use. I'm saying we don't need to kill anymore chickens to prove God is still in charge. Let's give the old Guy a break. He's done enough already.

Well, it's really not clear what you are saying about religion. I have never been a kill-a-chicken, stick-a-pin-in-the-doll kind of guy myself. But I have no desire to do anything to these sorts of people so long as they do not impose their beliefs on me. Some of your posts suggest that you might wish to "do something" about people who do not believe as you do. It is not at all clear where you draw the line between what is "acceptable" and what is not.

But never mind. You heard Junior. We have to fight the "Axle of Elvis." If you catch anybody eating peanut butter and banana sandwiches, report them to the Gestapo.

Stonewall--Last night, Larry King gave a full hour to Oral Roberts, so that we all might benefit from his immense knowlegde of what is right, moral, and good. It was so enlightening. Now, when will Larry bring ME on to explain why Oral is wrong, immoral, and bad? Not very soon, here in God-Bless-America. Religion is axiomatically good in our society...so long as it's about Jesus. The fact is, Stonewall, religion hangs everywhere in America like bogus bumper sticker and a bleeding crucifix. And I'm supposed to keep my bloody mouth shut?

In my model world there is only one "religion": NATURE! I find spirituality there, but Christians say that's somehow wrong if it doesn't include You-Know-Who. Every kid should be taught Darwinian evolution from the start, instead of being indoctrinated with foolish old beliefs and traditions, and threats of hellfire and brimstone.

I heard that after Larry King Live was over last night, there was an unprecedented run on the chicken coops. Thank God the frogs are safe...for now!

Who will stand up and say these awful things if I don't? It's a dirty job...

On 2002-02-01 06:10, Croaker'39 wrote:


In my model world there is only one "religion": NATURE! Every kid should be taught Darwinian evolution from the start.

Does not "Separation of Church and State" preclude the extension of what Coleridge called Orang-Utan theology as well as all the other superstitions and enthusiasms? Much like other atheist religions such as Marxism, this one always gets a Progressive Pass (by Progressives in the main).

On 2002-02-01 06:10, Croaker'39 wrote:

Stonewall--Last night, Larry King gave a full hour to Oral Roberts, so that we all might benefit from his immense knowlegde of what is right, moral, and good. It was so enlightening. Now, when will Larry bring ME on to explain why Oral is wrong, immoral, and bad? Not very soon, here in God-Bless-America.

Why don't you call up Larry, "The Frog," and ask him to put you on his show? How could froggy Larry turn down a guy who ribbits all the time? "Huuu..ribbit, ribbit...go ahead (wheezing), you're on the air...ribbit, ribbit."

But I do not understand your point. Our society, media, and politics are dominated by people hostile to religion and this has been true for the past 40 years. You cannot turn on the TV without hearing about the ACLU fighting Christians somewhere. Look at all the relevant Court decisions of the past 40 years. And you hear plenty of politicians announcing their contempt for Christians. For example, John McCain made a point of it in his campaign. I don't get what you mean when you say that America is dominated by religious types. For the past 40 years, just the opposite has been true, has it not?

Religion is axiomatically good in our society...so long as it's about Jesus. The fact is, Stonewall, religion hangs everywhere in America like bogus bumper sticker and a bleeding crucifix. And I'm supposed to keep my bloody mouth shut?

Can you give specific examples of how Christians have interfered with your existence? This is an honest question because I just cannot see how Bible-thumping Christians have had much of an influence on the laws of the past 40 years. I have never been very religious, but I have never known any hatred toward Bible thumpers because they have never been allowed to interfere with my existence. For example, I had the choice not to watch Oral Roberts on Larry King and I did not do so, so Oral Roberts did not interfere with my existence last night. (Actually, I have nothing against Oral Roberts but I rarely watch Larry the Frog.) You had the same choice last night and you could have changed the channel, BUT YOU WATCHED IT. Why? Why are you all bent out of shape about something you could have obliterated from your existence with the push of a button?

Do you see what I am saying, Croaker? Help me to understand why you would be bent out of shape about something that you can completely exclude from your existence by simply pushing a button.

In my model world there is only one "religion": NATURE! I find spirituality there, but Christians say that's somehow wrong if it doesn't include You-Know-Who.

If there is a God, then Nature is obviously His Creation. If a written word conflicts with what is revealed in God's Creation, then the presumption of Truth logically goes to Creation because it clearly is not of man whereas it is not at all clear that any given word is not in fact of man. I obviously get into similar difficulties with Christians but, unlike you, I do not see how nature necessarily excludes "You-Know-Who."

The sense I have made of the universe, with respect to both what is seen and what is unseen, leads me to believe that there is a God and that He has a purpose for each of us. But He gave me a brain to use (man certainly did not) and He has not appeared personally to make it clear that this one scripture is to be adhered to before all other "competing" scriptures pushed by mortal man in this world. The only way it would make sense to accept an unprovable word absolutely is if there were a categorical imperative in effect requiring that we believe anything any other mortal man may tell us. As a consequence, we would be buying any lemon on a used car lot as well as taking out loans on oceanfront property in Arizona and the Brooklyn Bridge. The mind that God must have given me tells me that such a categorical imperative is ridiculous. Obviously, He must not require that we adhere to this one word before all other competing words pushed by mortal man because He has not come down to make this clear to us unambiguously.

Now, you see how I run into similar trouble with by-the-book Christians. However I find no reason to despise them as you do. This difference in outlook toward Christians confounds me.

Every kid should be taught Darwinian evolution from the start, instead of being indoctrinated with foolish old beliefs and traditions, and threats of hellfire and brimstone.

It literally takes a leap of faith to buy the offered evolution from start to finish since the missing link coincidentally occurs at the most significant point in the progression. Just because natural selection is present does not mean that man developed along the precise lines commonly offered by evolutionists. Would you agree or disagree?

Who will stand up and say these awful things if I don't? It's a dirty job...

Turn on the news. Politicians and others say these things every day. What exactly are you not hearing that you would like to hear?



_________________
"I don't have any allegiances like that anymore. I don't ask what people's politics are. I ask what their principles are." -- Christopher Hitchens

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-02-01 08:03 ]</font>

On 2002-02-01 08:06, Croaker'39 wrote:

I don't face reality with that kind of insecurity. My insecurities come from those who try to warp it.

What?

Stonewall--I deleted it. Sorry.

I always thought the Bible itself (Genesis) made a pretty good case for evolution. I don't see why both can't be right. God created the universe and allowed it to evolve. Pretty darn wonderful, if you ask me.

Kiff '61

Kiff--I agree. I have no problem with The Creator. He hold plenty of mysteries.


Well, Stonewall, you overwhelm me with your well-placed words. I think I understand you. You are not an unreasonable person, that?s clear. Whatever, then, allows you to assume a God is not so clear. If you take God out of everything you say, nothing would change. I have an active Occam?s razor. Shave with it all the time with. And God got hacked off long ago.

But He?s still around to bother me. The Drug War bothers me, Stonewall, it?s a damn religious issue. Christian missionaries bother me like Coca Cola signs. Book burnings. The ablation of millions of young minds at the sacred alters of fear, indoctrinating them with false notions, telling them they?ll go to hell, scaring them with images of death...commuting the death sentence of a killer on account of a visit from the Pope...

How are we suppose to face our future, which is all about science and nature, with so much hysterical noise in the background?

Croaker, I think I understand where you're coming from, and I sympathize to some extent.

I sometimes think to myself, "Christ is cool. He was really on to something. He may have been the Son of God. But his 'followers'? They lost me along the way."

I see the same hypocrisy, zealotry and bigotry that you do. And I remind myself that Christ was not about that. Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson do *not* speak for all Christians. They don't even speak for a majority of Christians. They are modern-day Pharisees, and I firmly believe that Christ would condemn them today as he did with those of his own time.

Don't let the message get mangled by the "messengers."

Kiff '61

"How are we suppose to face our future, which is all about science and nature, with so much hysterical noise in the background?
"


We won't. The Scopes trial, in 1927, comes to mind. William Jennings Bryan, dying two days after the verdict, comes to mind. A discredited Billy Sunday, passing away shortly after the repeal of the 19th Amendment, comes to mind. The Presbyterian Church, succumbing to the wiles of Secular Humanism in the mid-thirties, comes to mind.

Shall I go on? :smile: