[Scott Dorsey]

TimR wrote:
I see that I did not read precisely enough the first time.

I thought people were recommending a sound system expert, and that's
what seemed reasonable to me. But an acoustician is differerent, I
think?

Yes. If the hall acoustics are lousy, a PA system will make things worse.
If the hall acoustics are designed for the job, a PA system install will
be comparatively cheap and easy.

It may be too late to affect the acoustical design of the hall, and I
can pretty much guarantee this is not a factor that was considered,
because I review a lot of designs for this organization. I have
access to a similar church already built about a three hour drive
away, I guess I need to get up there and look at it.

Similar-looking rooms can sound dramatically different from one another,
and you can make a lot of changes to the room in terms of materials
even after the first set of plans have been drawn up. You can't do
things like move walls around and cock them in and out so they are
not quite parallel, perhaps, but you can add diffusion and diffraction
and you can change drywall out for acoustical materials.

My home church (not this one) is an older traditional liturgical
church. If I drop a handbell, I can polish it and put it back in the
case before the room stops echoing. (slight exaggeration, but it's
pretty live) We don't do contemporary but tried it once and it was
truly awful. Is sustain the biggest thing to look for?

No you want the SHORTEST POSSIBLE sustain (as measured as RT60 or T30)
possible, if you're going to have contemporary services in there. You
want the room dry, dry, dry. A room that sounds great with a choir
will turn into a horrible nightmare when you have a rock band playing
in it. Go back and read my last four posts on this thread.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

This is exactly the kind of anti-faith pile of excrement that has made
a.a.p.l-s useless. Please don't wreck what is left of r.a.p with the same
kind of dreck. Hypocricy is undesirable on both sides.

[Arkansan Raider]

Richard Webb wrote:
Thanks for the vote of confidence.


Regards,
Richard

No problem at all. It's deserved.

---Jeff

[Michael Dobony]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:27:19 +0100, Joe Kotroczo wrote:

On 27/08/09 3:56, in article
, "TimR"
wrote:

I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
point me in the right direction. The recent thread on lecture halls
was VERY instructive.

I'm building a church. Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
for.

My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. And,
wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. Even the
HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
that if it weren't.


For some reason the OP's posts are not coming through my server and the
above address is not receiving mail. You say the design is well thought
out. This is off-topic, but like sound reinforcement, it is an issue not
considered by church architects, do you have RV hookup for evangelists who
live on the road? I know of many evangelists who live out of RV's and I
have not been to any churches that think ahead when building to accommodate
these people. Just a thought to consider.

[Chris Whealy]

TimR wrote:
I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
point me in the right direction. The recent thread on lecture halls
was VERY instructive.

I'm building a church. Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
for.

My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. And,
wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. Even the
HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
that if it weren't.

Unfortunately there is no sound system design beyond "include a sound
system." Why that was missed I don't know, when every detail of
foundation, plumbing, electrical, etc., was included, but it was, and
I have to deal with it.

And while I'm a musician I'm not knowledgable about sound systems.
I'm sure you can't make me an expert, any more than I could teach HVAC
design in one post, but ....... are there any suggestions?

I can post dimensions, etc., if that helps; there are even layout
drawings available online, though I'm kind of going to give up
plausible deniability once I post that link.

Tim, talk to Joe de Buglio in Toronto (http://www.jdbsound.com). He has
specialised in church acoustics and church sound systems for 25 years now.
He'll be able to help you avoid many of the common mistakes made during
church construction projects.

Chris W

--
The voice of ignorance speaks loud and long,
But the words of the wise are quiet and few.
---

[Michael Dobony]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:33:04 -0400, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 06:57:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not
growing faster:

actually both in the USA and the world christianity is shrinking
most likely due to good folks meeting christians like you
'george

Ignorance is such bliss. Yes, it is shrinking in the US, but NOT
world-wide. BTW, Abraham Maslow said spirituality was the HIGHEST level of
performance and motivation. Unfortunately, psychobabilists ignore this fact
and that is why they have a terrible track record on abuse recovery and
Christianity has such a great track record on abuse recovery.

[Michael Dobony]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:09:12 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:57:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

actually both in the USA and the world christianity (sic) is
shrinking

I can find many sources that contradict this claim.

George, I challenge you to provide one reliable audited source that agrees
with you.

Furthermore, given reports of explosive growth of Christianity in China and
Africa, it appears that you have cherry picked your statistics to make a
false point.

OK, so Christianity's still a growing problem. Pity. Next?

It is a pity that the people who broke slavery in UK are a shrinking group?
It is a pit that the people who fought for equal rights for women and
minorities are a shrinking group? It is a pity that the people who brought
us abused women's shelters and aids hospices and hospitals and public
school are a shrinking group? What kind of sicko are you?

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:23:17 -0500, Michael Dobony
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:09:12 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:57:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

actually both in the USA and the world christianity (sic) is
shrinking

I can find many sources that contradict this claim.

George, I challenge you to provide one reliable audited source that agrees
with you.

Furthermore, given reports of explosive growth of Christianity in China and
Africa, it appears that you have cherry picked your statistics to make a
false point.

OK, so Christianity's still a growing problem. Pity. Next?

It is a pity that the people who broke slavery in UK are a shrinking group?
It is a pit that the people who fought for equal rights for women and
minorities are a shrinking group? It is a pity that the people who brought
us abused women's shelters and aids hospices and hospitals and public
school are a shrinking group? What kind of sicko are you?

In your bible you will find instructions from God on how to take and
keep slaves, how much you must pay their previous owners and how you
should mark their ears to identify them.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that you
must prevent your wife or daughter from voicing any opinions, and must
behave in a totally servile manner.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
your daughter is rude to you, you must stone her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
you marry, but suspect that your wife is not a virgin, you must stone
her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God to Jephthah that he
must kill his own daughter in payment for a favour during an ethnic
cleansing operation, which was also commanded by God.

In your bible you find instructions from God to slaughter an entire
population, taking care to run a sword through the stomachs of all the
women in case they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your soldiers use.

Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
Clear enough?

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:18:17 -0500, Michael Dobony
wrote:

actually both in the USA and the world christianity is shrinking
most likely due to good folks meeting christians like you
'george

Ignorance is such bliss. Yes, it is shrinking in the US, but NOT
world-wide. BTW, Abraham Maslow said spirituality was the HIGHEST level of
performance and motivation. Unfortunately, psychobabilists ignore this fact
and that is why they have a terrible track record on abuse recovery and
Christianity has such a great track record on abuse recovery.

Sure, if you can swallow the story that some Sky Fairy is looking out
for you, it must be very comforting. If a victim CAN swallow it, I'd
be loth to deny them their fluffy feeling of security. Let's all
believe in the Easter Bunny too.

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:23:17 -0500, Michael Dobony
wrote:

OK, so Christianity's still a growing problem. Pity. Next?

It is a pity that the people who broke slavery in UK are a shrinking group?
It is a pit that the people who fought for equal rights for women and
minorities are a shrinking group? It is a pity that the people who brought
us abused women's shelters and aids hospices and hospitals and public
school are a shrinking group? What kind of sicko are you?

That is just SO misinformed :-)

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Michael Dobony" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:33:04 -0400, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
news On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 06:57:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not
growing faster:

actually both in the USA and the world christianity is shrinking
most likely due to good folks meeting christians like you
'george

Ignorance is such bliss. Yes, it is shrinking in the US, but NOT
world-wide.

actually Mike , it is shrinking WORLDWIDE, there are some hot spots of
growth, (africa, china)but worldwide the % of people who identify themselves
as christian is falling
statistics are a dangerous thing
if you have a country with no christians and one person converts that is a
100% increase
you add up several of these and next thing you know people are saying "we
have a 70% growth of christianity" when in fact they have only a few dozen
converts
george

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:23:17 -0500, Michael Dobony
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:09:12 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:57:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

actually both in the USA and the world christianity (sic) is
shrinking

I can find many sources that contradict this claim.

George, I challenge you to provide one reliable audited source that
agrees
with you.

Furthermore, given reports of explosive growth of Christianity in China
and
Africa, it appears that you have cherry picked your statistics to make a
false point.

OK, so Christianity's still a growing problem. Pity. Next?

It is a pity that the people who broke slavery in UK are a shrinking
group?
It is a pit that the people who fought for equal rights for women and
minorities are a shrinking group? It is a pity that the people who
brought
us abused women's shelters and aids hospices and hospitals and public
school are a shrinking group? What kind of sicko are you?

In your bible you will find instructions from God on how to take and
keep slaves, how much you must pay their previous owners and how you
should mark their ears to identify them.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that you
must prevent your wife or daughter from voicing any opinions, and must
behave in a totally servile manner.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
your daughter is rude to you, you must stone her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
you marry, but suspect that your wife is not a virgin, you must stone
her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God to Jephthah that he
must kill his own daughter in payment for a favour during an ethnic
cleansing operation, which was also commanded by God.

In your bible you find instructions from God to slaughter an entire
population, taking care to run a sword through the stomachs of all the
women in case they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your soldiers use.

Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
Clear enough?
pretty much how I see it
thanks Don
George

[Les Cargill]

Michael Dobony wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:33:04 -0400, George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
news On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 06:57:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There are 3 major reasons why Christianity is not
growing faster:
actually both in the USA and the world christianity is shrinking
most likely due to good folks meeting christians like you
'george

Ignorance is such bliss. Yes, it is shrinking in the US, but NOT
world-wide. BTW, Abraham Maslow said spirituality was the HIGHEST level of
performance and motivation. Unfortunately, psychobabilists ignore this fact
and that is why they have a terrible track record on abuse recovery and
Christianity has such a great track record on abuse recovery.

Maslow is truly a great figure in science. He's also
firmly identified as a Humanist.

"Higher" in Maslow does not mean "loftier" - it simply means
dependent on the layers below it. And I wouldn't make any claims
about any sort of "abuse recovery" without a big wad of
statistics and a qualified interpreter of them. AA, for example
is strictly nonsectarian - one cannot get more generic
than the phrase "higher power".

Not *my* idea, either - "render unto Ceaser" and all that

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:18:17 -0500, Michael Dobony
wrote:

actually both in the USA and the world christianity is shrinking
most likely due to good folks meeting christians like you
'george
Ignorance is such bliss. Yes, it is shrinking in the US, but NOT
world-wide. BTW, Abraham Maslow said spirituality was the HIGHEST level of
performance and motivation. Unfortunately, psychobabilists ignore this fact
and that is why they have a terrible track record on abuse recovery and
Christianity has such a great track record on abuse recovery.

Sure, if you can swallow the story that some Sky Fairy is looking out
for you, it must be very comforting. If a victim CAN swallow it, I'd
be loth to deny them their fluffy feeling of security. Let's all
believe in the Easter Bunny too.

It's a Useful Metaphor. Being useful, it can be abused,
just like everything else. Think of Bizarro Superman,
man

--
Les Cargill

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:23:17 -0500, Michael Dobony
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:09:12 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:57:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

actually both in the USA and the world christianity (sic) is
shrinking
I can find many sources that contradict this claim.

George, I challenge you to provide one reliable audited source that agrees
with you.

Furthermore, given reports of explosive growth of Christianity in China and
Africa, it appears that you have cherry picked your statistics to make a
false point.
OK, so Christianity's still a growing problem. Pity. Next?
It is a pity that the people who broke slavery in UK are a shrinking group?
It is a pit that the people who fought for equal rights for women and
minorities are a shrinking group? It is a pity that the people who brought
us abused women's shelters and aids hospices and hospitals and public
school are a shrinking group? What kind of sicko are you?

In your bible you will find instructions from God on how to take and
keep slaves, how much you must pay their previous owners and how you
should mark their ears to identify them.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that you
must prevent your wife or daughter from voicing any opinions, and must
behave in a totally servile manner.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
your daughter is rude to you, you must stone her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
you marry, but suspect that your wife is not a virgin, you must stone
her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God to Jephthah that he
must kill his own daughter in payment for a favour during an ethnic
cleansing operation, which was also commanded by God.

In your bible you find instructions from God to slaughter an entire
population, taking care to run a sword through the stomachs of all the
women in case they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your soldiers use.

Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
Clear enough?

d

You ever figure out that cultural context thing?

Not enough time to discuss it now, but it truly is worth discussing.

Just look up the behavior of the surrounding nations of the time...

---Jeff

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

Arkansan Raider wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

.....snip...
Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
Clear enough?

d

You ever figure out that cultural context thing?

Not enough time to discuss it now, but it truly is worth discussing.

Just look up the behavior of the surrounding nations of the time...

---Jeff
Cool, so where's the Eastern Europe bible, North America bible,
orient bible, Australia bible, etc.? Hey, what about South America,
they even had pyramids?

What about the old school, nailed to the cross part?


Later...

Ron Capik
--

[TimR]

On Sep 1, 9:41*am, Michael Dobony wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:27:19 +0100, Joe Kotroczo wrote:
On 27/08/09 3:56, in article
, "TimR"
wrote:

I'm a little embarassed to even ask this one, but maybe somebody can
point me in the right direction. *The recent thread on lecture halls
was VERY instructive.

I'm building a church. *Actually it's the first of three I'm funded
for.

My employer requires me to use a cookie cutter standard design. *And,
wonder of wonders, it's actually quite well thought out. *Even the
HVAC is not too bad - although as a mechanical engineer I could fix
that if it weren't.

For some reason the OP's posts are not coming through my server and the
above address is not receiving mail. *You say the design is well thought
out. This is off-topic, but like sound reinforcement, it is an issue not
considered by church architects, do you have RV hookup for evangelists who
live on the road? I know of many evangelists who live out of RV's and I
have not been to any churches that think ahead when building to accommodate
these people. Just a thought to consider.

Thanks for the thought. That won't be necessary for this particular
location but I'll keep it in mind for the future.

[Arkansan Raider]

Ron Capik wrote:
Arkansan Raider wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

.....snip...
Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
Clear enough?

d

You ever figure out that cultural context thing?

Not enough time to discuss it now, but it truly is worth discussing.

Just look up the behavior of the surrounding nations of the time...

---Jeff
Cool, so where's the Eastern Europe bible, North America bible,
orient bible, Australia bible, etc.? Hey, what about South America,
they even had pyramids?

What about the old school, nailed to the cross part?


Later...

Ron Capik
--

Huh?

What does that have to do with context?

---Jeff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:41:27 -0500, Arkansan Raider
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:23:17 -0500, Michael Dobony
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:09:12 +0100, Laurence Payne wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:57:10 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

actually both in the USA and the world christianity (sic) is
shrinking
I can find many sources that contradict this claim.

George, I challenge you to provide one reliable audited source that agrees
with you.

Furthermore, given reports of explosive growth of Christianity in China and
Africa, it appears that you have cherry picked your statistics to make a
false point.
OK, so Christianity's still a growing problem. Pity. Next?
It is a pity that the people who broke slavery in UK are a shrinking group?
It is a pit that the people who fought for equal rights for women and
minorities are a shrinking group? It is a pity that the people who brought
us abused women's shelters and aids hospices and hospitals and public
school are a shrinking group? What kind of sicko are you?

In your bible you will find instructions from God on how to take and
keep slaves, how much you must pay their previous owners and how you
should mark their ears to identify them.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that you
must prevent your wife or daughter from voicing any opinions, and must
behave in a totally servile manner.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
your daughter is rude to you, you must stone her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
you marry, but suspect that your wife is not a virgin, you must stone
her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God to Jephthah that he
must kill his own daughter in payment for a favour during an ethnic
cleansing operation, which was also commanded by God.

In your bible you find instructions from God to slaughter an entire
population, taking care to run a sword through the stomachs of all the
women in case they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your soldiers use.

Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
Clear enough?

d

You ever figure out that cultural context thing?

Not enough time to discuss it now, but it truly is worth discussing.

Just look up the behavior of the surrounding nations of the time...

---Jeff

You're going to have to help me out here. Give me a context in which
slaughtering babies and raping little girls is OK, cos I don't see it.
But then I'm not a Christian or a Jew of course.

Here's a saying to chew on. In general, good people will do good
things, and bad people will do bad things, but to make a good person
behave wickedly - that takes religion.

d

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:

In your bible you will find instructions from God on how to take and
keep slaves, how much you must pay their previous owners and how you
should mark their ears to identify them.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that you
must prevent your wife or daughter from voicing any opinions, and must
behave in a totally servile manner.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
your daughter is rude to you, you must stone her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
you marry, but suspect that your wife is not a virgin, you must stone
her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God to Jephthah that he
must kill his own daughter in payment for a favour during an ethnic
cleansing operation, which was also commanded by God.

In your bible you find instructions from God to slaughter an entire
population, taking care to run a sword through the stomachs of all the
women in case they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your soldiers use.

Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
Clear enough?

d

I was in prison last night, so I couldn't take the time I wanted to
answer this. (Don't worry, I was leading singing for a Bible lesson for
the inmates.)

The first thing to take into consideration is the cultural context of
the time. Keep in mind that the Israelites have been in slavery
themselves--400 years in Egypt. The land across the Jordan--Canaan--is
filled with some very unsavory characters. God is deciding to punish
them for their wicked ways in like manner to how they've behaved.

In one instance, you have a king who has been cutting off the big toes
and thumbs of those whom he's subjugated, so when he is captured, guess
what happens to him? Of course, they cut off his big toes and thumbs.

All of these countries are guilty of mass murder, ramming swords into
the bellies of pregnant women, raping and pillaging, etc. So God orders
the Israelites to wipe them out. God doesn't want any of them to survive
because they are worthy of death. The women are complicit in these
activities, and teach their young the same, so everyone needs to be
wiped off the face of the earth. This is a judgement against their
practices--they are *not* innocent victims. They are wicked people who
practice genocide themselves.

That's point number one. If I'm up to it tomorrow, I may answer some of
your other points. But it's late, and I'm cranky without my beauty sleep.

Shut up! I'm 42!

You kids get off my lawn!!!!!!


---Jeff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:16:40 -0500, Arkansan Raider
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

In your bible you will find instructions from God on how to take and
keep slaves, how much you must pay their previous owners and how you
should mark their ears to identify them.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that you
must prevent your wife or daughter from voicing any opinions, and must
behave in a totally servile manner.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
your daughter is rude to you, you must stone her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God telling you that if
you marry, but suspect that your wife is not a virgin, you must stone
her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God to Jephthah that he
must kill his own daughter in payment for a favour during an ethnic
cleansing operation, which was also commanded by God.

In your bible you find instructions from God to slaughter an entire
population, taking care to run a sword through the stomachs of all the
women in case they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your soldiers use.

Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of ethics. It is
not. It is the most stinking **** that a perverted man ever invented.
Clear enough?

d

I was in prison last night, so I couldn't take the time I wanted to
answer this. (Don't worry, I was leading singing for a Bible lesson for
the inmates.)

The first thing to take into consideration is the cultural context of
the time. Keep in mind that the Israelites have been in slavery
themselves--400 years in Egypt. The land across the Jordan--Canaan--is
filled with some very unsavory characters. God is deciding to punish
them for their wicked ways in like manner to how they've behaved.

In one instance, you have a king who has been cutting off the big toes
and thumbs of those whom he's subjugated, so when he is captured, guess
what happens to him? Of course, they cut off his big toes and thumbs.

All of these countries are guilty of mass murder, ramming swords into
the bellies of pregnant women, raping and pillaging, etc. So God orders
the Israelites to wipe them out. God doesn't want any of them to survive
because they are worthy of death. The women are complicit in these
activities, and teach their young the same, so everyone needs to be
wiped off the face of the earth. This is a judgement against their
practices--they are *not* innocent victims. They are wicked people who
practice genocide themselves.

That's point number one. If I'm up to it tomorrow, I may answer some of
your other points. But it's late, and I'm cranky without my beauty sleep.

Shut up! I'm 42!


I'm 59, and you do understand that all of that simply doesn't wash.
None of that stuff is wicked to a god who approves of slavery,
torture, child molestation, cannibalism etc.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4a9f6da9.2598269921@localhost
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:16:40 -0500, Arkansan Raider
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

In your bible you will find instructions from God on
how to take and keep slaves, how much you must pay
their previous owners and how you should mark their
ears to identify them.

In your bible you will find instructions from God
telling you that you must prevent your wife or daughter
from voicing any opinions, and must behave in a totally
servile manner.

In your bible you will find instructions from God
telling you that if your daughter is rude to you, you
must stone her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God
telling you that if you marry, but suspect that your
wife is not a virgin, you must stone her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God to
Jephthah that he must kill his own daughter in payment
for a favour during an ethnic cleansing operation,
which was also commanded by God.

In your bible you find instructions from God to
slaughter an entire population, taking care to run a
sword through the stomachs of all the women in case
they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your
soldiers use.

Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of
ethics. It is not. It is the most stinking **** that a
perverted man ever invented. Clear enough?

d

I was in prison last night, so I couldn't take the time
I wanted to answer this. (Don't worry, I was leading
singing for a Bible lesson for the inmates.)

The first thing to take into consideration is the
cultural context of the time. Keep in mind that the
Israelites have been in slavery themselves--400 years in
Egypt. The land across the Jordan--Canaan--is filled
with some very unsavory characters. God is deciding to
punish them for their wicked ways in like manner to how
they've behaved.

In one instance, you have a king who has been cutting
off the big toes and thumbs of those whom he's
subjugated, so when he is captured, guess what happens
to him? Of course, they cut off his big toes and thumbs.

All of these countries are guilty of mass murder,
ramming swords into the bellies of pregnant women,
raping and pillaging, etc. So God orders the Israelites
to wipe them out. God doesn't want any of them to
survive because they are worthy of death. The women are
complicit in these activities, and teach their young the
same, so everyone needs to be wiped off the face of the
earth. This is a judgement against their practices--they
are *not* innocent victims. They are wicked people who
practice genocide themselves.

That's point number one. If I'm up to it tomorrow, I may
answer some of your other points. But it's late, and I'm
cranky without my beauty sleep.

Shut up! I'm 42!

I'm 59, and you do understand that all of that simply
doesn't wash.

I'm 63 (actually irrlevant) but it seems like an explanation that suits any
number of situations involving writings from over a period of thousands of
years.

Holding the Christian church of today (2 thousdand years after Christ) to
the Old Testament (a historic book that pre-existed Christ, some parts by
thousands of years) is like holding the modern government of Greece to what
happened during the Peloponnesian wars.

Also, what a lot of people don't seem to get is that the Bible contains any
number of negative examples. IOW, the lesson it teaches about some things is
"Don't do that!" Just because it happened in the Bible doesn't mean that it
is always right.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 07:57:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4a9f6da9.2598269921@localhost
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:16:40 -0500, Arkansan Raider
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

In your bible you will find instructions from God on
how to take and keep slaves, how much you must pay
their previous owners and how you should mark their
ears to identify them.

In your bible you will find instructions from God
telling you that you must prevent your wife or daughter
from voicing any opinions, and must behave in a totally
servile manner.

In your bible you will find instructions from God
telling you that if your daughter is rude to you, you
must stone her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God
telling you that if you marry, but suspect that your
wife is not a virgin, you must stone her to death.

In your bible you will find instructions from God to
Jephthah that he must kill his own daughter in payment
for a favour during an ethnic cleansing operation,
which was also commanded by God.

In your bible you find instructions from God to
slaughter an entire population, taking care to run a
sword through the stomachs of all the women in case
they are pregnant. But - and here's the good bit - you
must keep all the pretty young virgins alive for your
soldiers use.

Never, ever try to claim that religion is a source of
ethics. It is not. It is the most stinking **** that a
perverted man ever invented. Clear enough?

d

I was in prison last night, so I couldn't take the time
I wanted to answer this. (Don't worry, I was leading
singing for a Bible lesson for the inmates.)

The first thing to take into consideration is the
cultural context of the time. Keep in mind that the
Israelites have been in slavery themselves--400 years in
Egypt. The land across the Jordan--Canaan--is filled
with some very unsavory characters. God is deciding to
punish them for their wicked ways in like manner to how
they've behaved.

In one instance, you have a king who has been cutting
off the big toes and thumbs of those whom he's
subjugated, so when he is captured, guess what happens
to him? Of course, they cut off his big toes and thumbs.

All of these countries are guilty of mass murder,
ramming swords into the bellies of pregnant women,
raping and pillaging, etc. So God orders the Israelites
to wipe them out. God doesn't want any of them to
survive because they are worthy of death. The women are
complicit in these activities, and teach their young the
same, so everyone needs to be wiped off the face of the
earth. This is a judgement against their practices--they
are *not* innocent victims. They are wicked people who
practice genocide themselves.

That's point number one. If I'm up to it tomorrow, I may
answer some of your other points. But it's late, and I'm
cranky without my beauty sleep.

Shut up! I'm 42!

I'm 59, and you do understand that all of that simply
doesn't wash.

I'm 63 (actually irrlevant) but it seems like an explanation that suits any
number of situations involving writings from over a period of thousands of
years.

Holding the Christian church of today (2 thousdand years after Christ) to
the Old Testament (a historic book that pre-existed Christ, some parts by
thousands of years) is like holding the modern government of Greece to what
happened during the Peloponnesian wars.

Also, what a lot of people don't seem to get is that the Bible contains any
number of negative examples. IOW, the lesson it teaches about some things is
"Don't do that!" Just because it happened in the Bible doesn't mean that it
is always right.



Still won't do. The bible is either the work of God, or of man. If it
is the work of God, you have no choice but to accept it; if it is the
work of man it isn't holy, so no religion can be created from it.

The truth is that your morality, like mine, comes from yourself not
religion. You recoil, as will anybody decent, from the unpleasantness
you find there, so you reject it. I simply reject it out of hand, you
try to rationalize it away. Drop the religion and learn that you
already have everything you need within you and everything in the
world suddenly makes sense. Try it.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa0d931.18142796@localhost

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 07:57:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Holding the Christian church of today (2 thousand years
after Christ) to the Old Testament (a historic book
that pre-existed Christ, some parts by thousands of
years) is like holding the modern government of Greece
to what happened during the Peloponnesian wars.

Also, what a lot of people don't seem to get is that the
Bible contains any number of negative examples. IOW, the
lesson it teaches about some things is "Don't do that!"
Just because it happened in the Bible doesn't mean that
it is always right.

Still won't do.

Of course not. You are bound by your biases.

The bible is either the work of God, or of man.

Then you don't understand the Bible. The Bible does not say that God
magically made it into its original form here on earth, or the translations
and interpolations that we have today. So the Bible is clearly not a work
of God as those words would indicate if taken in the way those words are
usually interpreted. OTOH, neither you nor I have scientific proof that the
Bible either is or is not wholly the work of man.

So, your little excluded-middle assertion is not all there is.

If it is the work of God, you have no choice but to accept it;

Then you don't understand the Bible. Man has free will, more specifically
the ability to accept or deny the Bible in whole or part as he sees fit.

if it is the work of man it isn't holy, so no religion can be created from
it.

The you don't understand how people work. Mormonism was created from the
Book of Mormon, and that's about as highly questionable story as one can
find.

The truth is that your morality, like mine, comes from yourself not
religion.

Ya think?

The Bible is not really about morality, its about ethics or if you will, the
ideals that guide our moral choices. As a guide to making moral choices, it
can be helpful if intelligently followed. Of course most anti-Bible people
are not motivated to do much intelligent following of the Bible.

You recoil, as will anybody
decent, from the unpleasantness you find there, so you
reject it.

Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to understanding how to interpret
the Bible.

I simply reject it out of hand,

That's obvious and that ruins any claim you might have to objectivity.

you try to rationalize it away.


Wrong again. I try to rationalize my life around the Bible, which is far
different from what you say.

Drop the religion and learn that you
already have everything you need within you and
everything in the world suddenly makes sense. Try it.

The idea that everything I need is already within me was disproved to my
satisfaction the first time I read a book that contained something that I
didn't know. ;-)

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to understanding how to interpret
the Bible.


The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is gone.

I simply reject it out of hand,

That's obvious and that ruins any claim you might have to objectivity.


No, my rejection comes from my objectivity. I have examined it and
found it wanting.

you try to rationalize it away.


Wrong again. I try to rationalize my life around the Bible, which is far
different from what you say.


No you don't. You accept the bits of the bible that resonate with your
life, and ignore the bits that don't (like the examples I gave),
claiming them to lack some sort of relevance. I don't think that
Christianity was meant to be an a la carte deal; the menu is prix
fixe.

Drop the religion and learn that you
already have everything you need within you and
everything in the world suddenly makes sense. Try it.

The idea that everything I need is already within me was disproved to my
satisfaction the first time I read a book that contained something that I
didn't know. ;-)


Facile and silly. You know what I meant.

d

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to understanding how to interpret
the Bible.


The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is gone.

Au contraire, seafood plate. The OT is written in Hebrew. The NT is
written in a combination of Koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Are any of
those your native tongue?

If not, then it needs to be interpreted. Credibility is not an issue here.

Then again, we have many things we need to interpret in our lives. The
Bible is not a science book with nothing but statistics and such, but
even *those* need interpretation.

Sorry, but that statement doesn't wash.


I simply reject it out of hand,
That's obvious and that ruins any claim you might have to objectivity.


No, my rejection comes from my objectivity. I have examined it and
found it wanting.

You don't sound very objective to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
started to explain why some things were written, and you dismissed them
out of hand without even a listen.

I don't mean this as a flame, and don't take it that way--you're
carrying on a discussion like this without flaming, and I find that
commendable given our present environment.

Just callin' it like I see it.


you try to rationalize it away.

Wrong again. I try to rationalize my life around the Bible, which is far
different from what you say.


No you don't. You accept the bits of the bible that resonate with your
life, and ignore the bits that don't (like the examples I gave),
claiming them to lack some sort of relevance. I don't think that
Christianity was meant to be an a la carte deal; the menu is prix
fixe.

Nice. I totally agree with the a la carte thing. Way too many people are
"cafeterialists" who take what they want and discard the rest.
Christianity is a package deal.


Drop the religion and learn that you
already have everything you need within you and
everything in the world suddenly makes sense. Try it.
The idea that everything I need is already within me was disproved to my
satisfaction the first time I read a book that contained something that I
didn't know. ;-)


Facile and silly. You know what I meant.

d

I'll have more food for thought for you later.

---Jeff

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:19:02 -0500, Arkansan Raider
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to understanding how to interpret
the Bible.


The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is gone.

Au contraire, seafood plate. The OT is written in Hebrew. The NT is
written in a combination of Koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Are any of
those your native tongue?

If not, then it needs to be interpreted. Credibility is not an issue here.


No, not interpreted, translated. The moment you start interpreting,
you are changing the meaning, and that always means filtering through
a modern mind. The original meaning is then gone forever.

Then again, we have many things we need to interpret in our lives. The
Bible is not a science book with nothing but statistics and such, but
even *those* need interpretation.

Sorry, but that statement doesn't wash.


A God who not only likes, but demands child sacrifice, extermination,
rape and mutilation does not require interpretation. The picture is
far too clear in the original for that. Any interpretation that can
wash that away is simply fabrication.


I simply reject it out of hand,
That's obvious and that ruins any claim you might have to objectivity.


No, my rejection comes from my objectivity. I have examined it and
found it wanting.

You don't sound very objective to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
started to explain why some things were written, and you dismissed them
out of hand without even a listen.


No, not so. You can't explain why those things were written any more
than I can unless you have sources of information that are denied to
me. All you have is your personal speculation. Either take them at
their face value or ignore them is all you can do legitimately.

I don't mean this as a flame, and don't take it that way--you're
carrying on a discussion like this without flaming, and I find that
commendable given our present environment.

Just callin' it like I see it.


I enjoy these chats far too much to flame over them. Of course there
will be individuals who draw my ire, but that will be because they are
rude, not contrary.


you try to rationalize it away.

Wrong again. I try to rationalize my life around the Bible, which is far
different from what you say.


No you don't. You accept the bits of the bible that resonate with your
life, and ignore the bits that don't (like the examples I gave),
claiming them to lack some sort of relevance. I don't think that
Christianity was meant to be an a la carte deal; the menu is prix
fixe.

Nice. I totally agree with the a la carte thing. Way too many people are
"cafeterialists" who take what they want and discard the rest.
Christianity is a package deal.


Drop the religion and learn that you
already have everything you need within you and
everything in the world suddenly makes sense. Try it.
The idea that everything I need is already within me was disproved to my
satisfaction the first time I read a book that contained something that I
didn't know. ;-)


Facile and silly. You know what I meant.

d

I'll have more food for thought for you later.


OK. We both know that neither will convert the other, of course.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:19:02 -0500, Arkansan Raider
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to understanding how to interpret
the Bible.

The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is gone.
Au contraire, seafood plate. The OT is written in Hebrew. The NT is
written in a combination of Koine Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. Are any of
those your native tongue?

If not, then it needs to be interpreted. Credibility is not an issue here.


No, not interpreted, translated. The moment you start interpreting,
you are changing the meaning, and that always means filtering through
a modern mind. The original meaning is then gone forever.

Then again, we have many things we need to interpret in our lives. The
Bible is not a science book with nothing but statistics and such, but
even *those* need interpretation.

Sorry, but that statement doesn't wash.


A God who not only likes, but demands child sacrifice, extermination,
rape and mutilation does not require interpretation. The picture is
far too clear in the original for that. Any interpretation that can
wash that away is simply fabrication.


I'll go into that in another post. I disagree on a number of the points
you just mentioned, but I want to make it a separate post for the
purposes of clarity.

I simply reject it out of hand,
That's obvious and that ruins any claim you might have to objectivity.

No, my rejection comes from my objectivity. I have examined it and
found it wanting.
You don't sound very objective to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I
started to explain why some things were written, and you dismissed them
out of hand without even a listen.


No, not so. You can't explain why those things were written any more
than I can unless you have sources of information that are denied to
me. All you have is your personal speculation. Either take them at
their face value or ignore them is all you can do legitimately.


I will endeavor to bring some of those sources to you in a readable way,
along with illuminating some of the sources you may already think you
know--there are many things in the Bible that are easy to misread due to
lack of context. I hope I can be helpful here.

I don't mean this as a flame, and don't take it that way--you're
carrying on a discussion like this without flaming, and I find that
commendable given our present environment.

Just callin' it like I see it.


I enjoy these chats far too much to flame over them. Of course there
will be individuals who draw my ire, but that will be because they are
rude, not contrary.

Roger that. I've been plonked over disagreement before and not been
rude--and I appreciate your willing frank discussion without rudeness
yourself.


(snip)

I'll have more food for thought for you later.


OK. We both know that neither will convert the other, of course.

d


I won't totally discard the idea, I rarely ever do, but that's not the
intent in this discussion. I'm the eternal optimist, you know. ;^)

For now, I'm content to prove that a Christian and a non-Christian can
have a frank, no-nonsense religious discussion without the histrionics
and character assassination we usually see.


---Jeff

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
understanding how to interpret the Bible.


The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
gone.

I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe that we interpret our
environment.

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


The moment you start
interpreting, you are changing the meaning, and that
always means filtering through a modern mind.

I can't believe that you don't understand that we interpret everything that
we perceive.

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:11:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
understanding how to interpret the Bible.


The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
gone.

I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe that we interpret our
environment.


You can't talk rationally when your words are based on faith, which is
by definition irrational.

d
--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:11:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
understanding how to interpret the Bible.


The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
gone.

I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe
that we interpret our environment.

You can't talk rationally when your words are based on
faith, which is by definition irrational.

I'll ignore the intentional insult and knee-jerk attack on spirituality.
Atheism is as irrational as theism. Only agnosticism is truly rational.

Your problem is in the secular domain. You don't seem to understand that we
interpret everything we perceive, or you're simply being obtuse.

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
understanding how to interpret the Bible.


The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
gone.

I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe that we interpret
our environment.

arnii you can't talk rationally at all
you have serious issues that you have added Hank and Ty to your enemies list
I'd hate to be you on that dreadful day
george

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

I'll ignore the intentional insult and knee-jerk attack on spirituality.

odd way to ignore something arnii, by going out of your way to point it out
have trouble with what the word ignore means, again?
George

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:11:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
understanding how to interpret the Bible.

The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
gone.

I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe
that we interpret our environment.

You can't talk rationally when your words are based on
faith, which is by definition irrational.

I'll ignore the intentional insult and knee-jerk attack on spirituality.
Atheism is as irrational as theism. Only agnosticism is truly rational.

Your problem is in the secular domain. You don't seem to understand that we
interpret everything we perceive, or you're simply being obtuse.


From what I've seen of Don's posts I find it hard to believe
that any of his responses are knee-jerk. Just a guess but I
believe Don seems to be a general antiestablishmentarian, with
religion being but one of the [anachronistic] establishments.
....or I may be way out of line.


Later...

Ron Capik
--

[hank alrich]

George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
understanding how to interpret the Bible.


The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
gone.

I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe that we interpret
our environment.

arnii you can't talk rationally at all
you have serious issues that you have added Hank and Ty to your enemies list
I'd hate to be you on that dreadful day
george



George,

I deleted AAPL-S from my list of subscribed newsgroups because Arny,
Phildo, and _you_ couldn't drop the bull****.

So, if you feel the need to keep this crap up, please restrain it to
AAPL-S. I have doubts at this point if any of you can restrain yourself,
period, but I can always hope.

Please don't help **** up RAP the way you have "contributed" to the
demise of AAPL-S.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[George's Pro Sound Co.]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
George's Pro Sound Co. wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
understanding how to interpret the Bible.


The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
gone.

I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe that we
interpret
our environment.

arnii you can't talk rationally at all
you have serious issues that you have added Hank and Ty to your enemies
list
I'd hate to be you on that dreadful day
george



George,

I deleted AAPL-S from my list of subscribed newsgroups because Arny,
Phildo, and _you_ couldn't drop the bull****.

So, if you feel the need to keep this crap up, please restrain it to
AAPL-S. I have doubts at this point if any of you can restrain yourself,
period, but I can always hope.

Please don't help **** up RAP the way you have "contributed" to the
demise of AAPL-S.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

hank
I am working hard to not post here
I have passed on a couple of dozen posts
and am not going to dog arnii here
though I may not be 100% silent
george

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

hank alrich wrote:

I deleted AAPL-S from my list of subscribed newsgroups because Arny,
Phildo, and _you_ couldn't drop the bull****.

As did I.

So, if you feel the need to keep this crap up, please restrain it to
AAPL-S. I have doubts at this point if any of you can restrain
yourself, period, but I can always hope.

Seconded.

Please don't help **** up RAP the way you have "contributed" to the
demise of AAPL-S.

Seconded.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:55:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:11:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa1e1cf.20348921@localhost
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:26:29 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Not me. I am no doubt far closer than you to
understanding how to interpret the Bible.


The instant you use the word "interpret", credibility is
gone.

I can't talk rationally to someone who doesn't believe
that we interpret our environment.

You can't talk rationally when your words are based on
faith, which is by definition irrational.

I'll ignore the intentional insult and knee-jerk attack on spirituality.
Atheism is as irrational as theism. Only agnosticism is truly rational.

Your problem is in the secular domain. You don't seem to understand that we
interpret everything we perceive, or you're simply being obtuse.


No insult intended - that was literal fact. Faith is a certainty based
on no evidence while rationality is a near-certainty based on as much
evidence as possible.

And you are mistaken about Atheism. This is how Atheism works. I can't
say whether there is a god or not, but with absolutely no evidence for
one I cannot simply invent one to believe in.

There are two types of Atheist. Those who do not believe in a God, but
wish there were one, and those who do not, and are grateful that there
is no evidence for one. I am of the second persuasion, particularly
when it comes to the Judeo-Christian invention, which is cruel,
capricious, whimsical and egomaniacal (just read the first five
commandments for that one).

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4aa0b4da.74375984@localhost
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:55:37 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Your problem is in the secular domain. You don't seem to
understand that we interpret everything we perceive, or
you're simply being obtuse.

No insult intended - that was literal fact. Faith is a
certainty based on no evidence while rationality is a
near-certainty based on as much evidence as possible.

Well in an exclude-middle sort of way.

Nobody does anything based on pure rationality and nobody does anything
based on pure faith. That's because humans are incapable of either. We're
not pure but rather we are composites, shades of grey, and kinda-sorta.

And you are mistaken about Atheism. This is how Atheism
works. I can't say whether there is a god or not, but
with absolutely no evidence for one I cannot simply
invent one to believe in.

If you say that you can't say whether there is a god or not, then you are an
agnostic. A true atheist *knows* that there is no God.

From a typical dictionary:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


If you say that agnosticism does not lead to a belief in god, then that
makes sense. I think that is in fact what you said.

You could also say that you believe that there is a god, but you don't agree
that there is any purpose to worshiping him. That's just not being
worshipful.

I say that there is no scientific reason to believe in God. I believe in God
primarily due to my faith. I believe that it is good to worship God because
of my faith.


There are two types of Atheist. Those who do not believe
in a God, but wish there were one, and those who do not,
and are grateful that there is no evidence for one.

All fine and good, but irrelevant to the discussion that remains unresolved.