"steve" wrote in message
...


WillStG wrote:

steve
I think "appeal" is the wrong term. For the most part, middle America
seems to be manipulated into voting out of fear, and the Republican
party is far better at creating issues that make them crazy afraid.
Saying things like Kerry would ban the Bible is true inspiration when it
comes to fear mongering.


Middle America heard that kind of insult thrown their way ad naseum
during
the election, and responded decisively to it at the ballot box. You
still
don't get it. If you tell people they are stupid, bigoted, just too
scared
to think straight if they vote for the other Party, you come off as
harsh,
shrill, unreasonable, manipulative and totally disrespectful for people
who
have honest policy disagreements with you.

That kind of thinking is the problem. People who get their panties in a
wad whenever reality collides with their ideology are exactly the
targets of Rove and co. Part of the manipulation is just what you stated
above, "those immoral liberals are insulting you, they say you're
stupid, etc." The real issues like jobs, healthcare, Social Security,
Federal deficit, how to conduct war on terror and other pressing issues
are glossed over and substituted with gay marriage, prayer in school,
ten commandments. That says to me that Middle America is being led into
having their personal beliefs put ahead of bigger, tougher issues that
our politicians really don't want to deal with. It's not really about
voting for one party or the other, but making both parties step up and
deal with the real issues facing America. As I see it, the strategy is
keeping us divided using ideologues like yourself, while our country
goes further down the drain.


Extremely nicely put Steve!

Instant runoff voting (http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6177)
seems like the most popular idea to put the country back in the citizens
hands.

I recommend we move this conversation to rec.audio.opinion

--

-Hev
find me he
www.michaelSCREWspringerROBOTS.com

"Hev" wrote in message
...
"steve" wrote in message
...


WillStG wrote:

steve
I think "appeal" is the wrong term. For the most part, middle
America
seems to be manipulated into voting out of fear, and the Republican
party is far better at creating issues that make them crazy afraid.
Saying things like Kerry would ban the Bible is true inspiration when
it
comes to fear mongering.


Middle America heard that kind of insult thrown their way ad naseum
during
the election, and responded decisively to it at the ballot box. You
still
don't get it. If you tell people they are stupid, bigoted, just too
scared
to think straight if they vote for the other Party, you come off as
harsh,
shrill, unreasonable, manipulative and totally disrespectful for people
who
have honest policy disagreements with you.

That kind of thinking is the problem. People who get their panties in a
wad whenever reality collides with their ideology are exactly the
targets of Rove and co. Part of the manipulation is just what you stated
above, "those immoral liberals are insulting you, they say you're
stupid, etc." The real issues like jobs, healthcare, Social Security,
Federal deficit, how to conduct war on terror and other pressing issues
are glossed over and substituted with gay marriage, prayer in school,
ten commandments. That says to me that Middle America is being led into
having their personal beliefs put ahead of bigger, tougher issues that
our politicians really don't want to deal with. It's not really about
voting for one party or the other, but making both parties step up and
deal with the real issues facing America. As I see it, the strategy is
keeping us divided using ideologues like yourself, while our country
goes further down the drain.


Extremely nicely put Steve!

Instant runoff voting (http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6177)
seems like the most popular idea to put the country back in the citizens
hands.

I recommend we move this conversation to rec.audio.opinion

--

-Hev
find me he
www.michaelSCREWspringerROBOTS.com


If we had done this in 1992, Clinton may not have been elected President
since Perot received 19% of the vote in 1992 and almost 8% in 1996, and a
majority of them stolen from the Republican vote.

We kicked the Bible and any mention of God out of school and see how much
we've progressed since then. I'm not for shoving religion down anybody's
throat but there are some good lesson's to be learned from the Bible. All I
ask is that I am afforded the same right to share what I believe as those
who don't believe are able to do.

squig wrote:


We kicked the Bible and any mention of God out of school and see how much
we've progressed since then. I'm not for shoving religion down anybody's
throat but there are some good lesson's to be learned from the Bible. All I
ask is that I am afforded the same right to share what I believe as those
who don't believe are able to do.


B.S. Though shall not kill? Commit adultry? etc.etc.? We need the bible
to tell us this?

Maybe the bible is the problem. Some people tend to do whatever they are
told not to do.

squig wrote:
"Hev" wrote in message
...

"steve" wrote in message
...


WillStG wrote:

steve
I think "appeal" is the wrong term. For the most part, middle

America

seems to be manipulated into voting out of fear, and the Republican
party is far better at creating issues that make them crazy afraid.
Saying things like Kerry would ban the Bible is true inspiration when

it

comes to fear mongering.


Middle America heard that kind of insult thrown their way ad naseum
during
the election, and responded decisively to it at the ballot box. You
still
don't get it. If you tell people they are stupid, bigoted, just too
scared
to think straight if they vote for the other Party, you come off as
harsh,
shrill, unreasonable, manipulative and totally disrespectful for people
who
have honest policy disagreements with you.

That kind of thinking is the problem. People who get their panties in a
wad whenever reality collides with their ideology are exactly the
targets of Rove and co. Part of the manipulation is just what you stated
above, "those immoral liberals are insulting you, they say you're
stupid, etc." The real issues like jobs, healthcare, Social Security,
Federal deficit, how to conduct war on terror and other pressing issues
are glossed over and substituted with gay marriage, prayer in school,
ten commandments. That says to me that Middle America is being led into
having their personal beliefs put ahead of bigger, tougher issues that
our politicians really don't want to deal with. It's not really about
voting for one party or the other, but making both parties step up and
deal with the real issues facing America. As I see it, the strategy is
keeping us divided using ideologues like yourself, while our country
goes further down the drain.


Extremely nicely put Steve!

Instant runoff voting (http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6177)
seems like the most popular idea to put the country back in the citizens
hands.

I recommend we move this conversation to rec.audio.opinion

--

-Hev
find me he
www.michaelSCREWspringerROBOTS.com



If we had done this in 1992, Clinton may not have been elected President
since Perot received 19% of the vote in 1992 and almost 8% in 1996, and a
majority of them stolen from the Republican vote.

We kicked the Bible and any mention of God out of school and see how much
we've progressed since then. I'm not for shoving religion down anybody's
throat but there are some good lesson's to be learned from the Bible. All I
ask is that I am afforded the same right to share what I believe as those
who don't believe are able to do.



So invite them to your church
Public school by law protects us from having to live under your god, as
it should
George

"Pete Dimsman" wrote in message
...


squig wrote:


We kicked the Bible and any mention of God out of school and see how
much
we've progressed since then. I'm not for shoving religion down anybody's
throat but there are some good lesson's to be learned from the Bible.
All I
ask is that I am afforded the same right to share what I believe as
those
who don't believe are able to do.


B.S. Though shall not kill? Commit adultry? etc.etc.? We need the bible
to tell us this?

Maybe the bible is the problem. Some people tend to do whatever they are
told not to do.
The Bible isn't the problem -- we've kicked it out of our schools and public
buildings. Soon, we'll be having to hold church underground. Evidently,
there is still a good number of people who haven't learned "thou shall not
kill" and "thou shalt not commit adultery".

squig wrote:


Evidently,
there is still a good number of people who haven't learned "thou shall not
kill" and "thou shalt not commit adultery".

But those people aren't going to change their minds by reading the
bible. Especially with all the church leaders setting such a fine
example by molesting the kids.

"George Gleason" wrote in message
...
squig wrote:
"Hev" wrote in message
...

"steve" wrote in message
...


WillStG wrote:

steve
I think "appeal" is the wrong term. For the most part, middle

America

seems to be manipulated into voting out of fear, and the Republican
party is far better at creating issues that make them crazy afraid.
Saying things like Kerry would ban the Bible is true inspiration when

it

comes to fear mongering.


Middle America heard that kind of insult thrown their way ad
naseum
during
the election, and responded decisively to it at the ballot box. You
still
don't get it. If you tell people they are stupid, bigoted, just too
scared
to think straight if they vote for the other Party, you come off as
harsh,
shrill, unreasonable, manipulative and totally disrespectful for
people
who
have honest policy disagreements with you.

That kind of thinking is the problem. People who get their panties in a
wad whenever reality collides with their ideology are exactly the
targets of Rove and co. Part of the manipulation is just what you
stated
above, "those immoral liberals are insulting you, they say you're
stupid, etc." The real issues like jobs, healthcare, Social Security,
Federal deficit, how to conduct war on terror and other pressing issues
are glossed over and substituted with gay marriage, prayer in school,
ten commandments. That says to me that Middle America is being led
into
having their personal beliefs put ahead of bigger, tougher issues that
our politicians really don't want to deal with. It's not really about
voting for one party or the other, but making both parties step up and
deal with the real issues facing America. As I see it, the strategy is
keeping us divided using ideologues like yourself, while our country
goes further down the drain.


Extremely nicely put Steve!

Instant runoff voting (http://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6177)
seems like the most popular idea to put the country back in the citizens
hands.

I recommend we move this conversation to rec.audio.opinion

--

-Hev
find me he
www.michaelSCREWspringerROBOTS.com



If we had done this in 1992, Clinton may not have been elected President
since Perot received 19% of the vote in 1992 and almost 8% in 1996, and
a
majority of them stolen from the Republican vote.

We kicked the Bible and any mention of God out of school and see how
much
we've progressed since then. I'm not for shoving religion down anybody's
throat but there are some good lesson's to be learned from the Bible.
All I
ask is that I am afforded the same right to share what I believe as
those
who don't believe are able to do.



So invite them to your church

I do invite them whenever I get a chance.

Public school by law protects us from having to live under your god, as
it should
George

Shouldn't it then, by law, protect my children from learning anything
contrary to what I am teaching them at home?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Pete Dimsman said:

But those people aren't going to change their minds by reading the
bible. Especially with all the church leaders setting such a fine
example by molesting the kids.

That's the crime of Catholic old farts. The Protestant ones are much more
given to adultery, embezzling, and outright fraud.




When we compare ourselves to others, I'm certain we can find those who are
less moral. Compare ourselves to Christ and we don't appear nearly as well.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


squig said:

there are some good lesson's to be learned from the Bible

If you're offering your own testimony as an example, I think we can take
it
as an axiom that your Christian crapola doesn't make the cut on grammar.



Not any worse than your crapola.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


squig said:

That's the crime of Catholic old farts. The Protestant ones are much
more
given to adultery, embezzling, and outright fraud.

When we compare ourselves to others, I'm certain we can find those who
are
less moral. Compare ourselves to Christ and we don't appear nearly as
well.

You mean compare yourself to a fantastic ideal. That person is not among
the living. Dream on if you want to.



In the end, one of us is right and the other is wrong. If I'm wrong, little
is lost. If you're wrong, much is lost.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


squig said:

there are some good lesson's to be learned from the Bible

If you're offering your own testimony as an example, I think we can
take it
as an axiom that your Christian crapola doesn't make the cut on
grammar.

Not any worse than your crapola.

Another Bible-thumping moron who can't set up his news client correctly.
Gee, what a surprise.




I at least respect your opinion and don't revert to petty name-calling. My
comment about crapola was your use of the (non-existent) word. I'm not a
Bible-thumping moron. I don't force you (or anyone else) to believe what I
do. I'm entitled to sharing my belief just like you, except you seem to
suggest you have a right to do so and I don't.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


squig said:

That's the crime
more
given to adultery,

When we compare
are
less moral. Compare
well.

You mean compare yourself to a fantastic ideal. That person is not
among
the living. Dream on if you want to.

In the end, one of us is right and the other is wrong. If I'm wrong,
little
is lost. If you're wrong, much is lost.

Is that kind of "logic" your way of keeping the despair at bay?



No. Actually that idea was put forth by Pascal who happened to be a very
logical thinker. Unfortunately, there are many that think the way you do
but, of course, the Bible predicts that.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


squig said:

there are some good lesson's

If you're offering your own tes
take it
as an axiom that your Christian
grammar.

Not any worse than your crapola.

Another Bible-thumping moron who can't set up his news client
correctly.
Gee, what a surprise.

I at least respect your opinion and don't revert to petty name-calling.

You mean you don't take it to heart when people identify you as a moron?
I'd guess you've gotten used to it after years of repetition.

No, I don't take it to heart. The Bible predicts exactly what you are doing.


comment about crapola was your use of the (non-existent) word. I'm not a
Bible-thumping moron.

Are too.

See above.


I don't force you (or anyone else) to believe what I
do. I'm entitled to sharing my belief just like you, except you seem to
suggest you have a right to do so and I don't.

I suggest you don't have a right to kill yourself. Please prove me wrong.



I agree with you. I don't believe anyone has a right to kill themselves.

"squig" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


squig said:

That's the crime
more
given to adultery,

When we compare
are
less moral. Compare
well.

You mean compare yourself to a fantastic ideal. That person is not
among
the living. Dream on if you want to.

In the end, one of us is right and the other is wrong. If I'm wrong,
little
is lost. If you're wrong, much is lost.

Is that kind of "logic" your way of keeping the despair at bay?



No. Actually that idea was put forth by Pascal who happened to be a very
logical thinker. Unfortunately, there are many that think the way you do
but, of course, the Bible predicts that.

Pascal's Wager doesn't actually do what you think it should:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

Glenn D.

"Glenn Dowdy" wrote in message
...

"squig" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


squig said:

That's the crime
more
given to adultery,

When we compare
are
less moral. Compare
well.

You mean compare yourself to a fantastic ideal. That person is not
among
the living. Dream on if you want to.

In the end, one of us is right and the other is wrong. If I'm wrong,
little
is lost. If you're wrong, much is lost.

Is that kind of "logic" your way of keeping the despair at bay?



No. Actually that idea was put forth by Pascal who happened to be a very
logical thinker. Unfortunately, there are many that think the way you do
but, of course, the Bible predicts that.

Pascal's Wager doesn't actually do what you think it should:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

Glenn D.


It is exactly as I thought. I'm not saying that we should believe in God
just because it's the best bet. I was merely pointing out that I was not the
one who came up with the idea.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


squig said:

It is exactly as I thought. I'm not saying that we should believe in God
just because it's the best bet. I was merely pointing out that I was not
the
one who came up with the idea.

Two questions:

Although you only posted one.


1. If you believe in the Easter Bunny, you'll get lots (that's "lot's" to
you) of goodies every April.

if you think so.


2. Why deny you're a moron? It's not just the public displays of your
"God"
superstition. It's also your inability to use your newsreader. Moron.



ok

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
news
"squig" emitted :

The Bible isn't the problem -- we've kicked it out of our schools and
public
buildings. Soon, we'll be having to hold church underground. Evidently,
there is still a good number of people who haven't learned "thou shall
not
kill" and "thou shalt not commit adultery".

Are you one of those dickheads who interprets the Bible literally?


S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
-----------------------------------
It's Grim up north..
The liberal view isn't very liberal in allowing others to have their
opinion. I'm supposed to be the one that's close-minded. I respect any view,
even one that's contrary to mine. Those who have responded to me don't
afford me the same. When you decide to respect my opinion, I'll answer your
questions.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


squig said:

The Bible isn't
public
buildings. Soo
there is still a g
not
kill" and "thou

Are you one of those dickheads who interprets the Bible literally?

The liberal view isn't very liberal in allowing others to have their
opinion. I'm supposed to be the one that's close-minded. I respect any
view,
even one that's contrary to mine. Those who have responded to me don't
afford me the same. When you decide to respect my opinion, I'll answer
your
questions.

Hey, I think this is the solution -- just keep heaping disrespect on the
peabrain, and he'll be too miffed to post any more of his "God" crapola.



Keep posting and reinforcing my position.

squig wrote:

When we compare ourselves to others, I'm certain we can find those who are
less moral.

You are certain ?
Interesting, how do you do that ?

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"Lionel" emitted :

When we compare ourselves to others, I'm certain we can find those who
are
less moral.

You are certain ?
Interesting, how do you do that ?

Non-christians.


S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
-----------------------------------
It's Grim up north..
I don't believe you can say that those who profess to be Christians are more
moral than those who categorize themselves as non-Christians. I would
(sadly) have to say that there are many "Christians" that are much less
moral than "non-Christians". I'm not concerned with how I compare to anyone
else. If I try to be like the most moral person in the world and succeed, I
would still miss the mark. That was my point.

squig wrote:
"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" emitted :


When we compare ourselves to others, I'm certain we can find those who

are

less moral.

You are certain ?
Interesting, how do you do that ?

Non-christians.


S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
-----------------------------------
It's Grim up north..

I don't believe you can say that those who profess to be Christians are more
moral than those who categorize themselves as non-Christians. I would
(sadly) have to say that there are many "Christians" that are much less
moral than "non-Christians". I'm not concerned with how I compare to anyone
else. If I try to be like the most moral person in the world and succeed, I
would still miss the mark. That was my point.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"...

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
squig wrote:
"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" emitted :


When we compare ourselves to others, I'm certain we can find those who

are

less moral.

You are certain ?
Interesting, how do you do that ?

Non-christians.


S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
-----------------------------------
It's Grim up north..

I don't believe you can say that those who profess to be Christians are
more
moral than those who categorize themselves as non-Christians. I would
(sadly) have to say that there are many "Christians" that are much less
moral than "non-Christians". I'm not concerned with how I compare to
anyone
else. If I try to be like the most moral person in the world and
succeed, I
would still miss the mark. That was my point.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"...
Well said.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
...
"squig" emitted :

I don't believe you can say that those who profess to be Christians
are more
moral than those who categorize themselves as non-Christians. I would
(sadly) have to say that there are many "Christians" that are much
less
moral than "non-Christians". I'm not concerned with how I compare to
anyone
else. If I try to be like the most moral person in the world and
succeed, I
would still miss the mark. That was my point.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"...

Well said.

Err.. you sure you got that straight there, squid?


S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
-----------------------------------
It's Grim up north..
I believe there are those who have very good intentions in what they do. We
don't earn salvation -- it is given freely. It is our choice to do with it
(or without it). If we choose to accept it, I believe we should commit
ourselves to it 100%. Do I commit myself to it 100% all the time? No. Do I
want to? Yes. You can disagree with me (and I with you) and continue to call
me names, but in the end it doesn't matter. I have complete confidence in
what I believe.

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I...I took the one less traveled by, and
that has made all the difference." Robert Frost

The paranoid personality postings as "George M. Middius" groaned:

George M. Middius

Hey, I think this is the solution -- just keep heaping disrespect on the
peabrain, and he'll be too miffed to post any more of his "God" crapola.

Isn't that your SOP for anyone who dares disagree with you, you ****
eating, semen drinking cocksucker?

you ****
eating, semen drinking cocksucker?
Hey I think I saw that video over at www.stileproject.com
George

"Pete Dimsman" wrote in message
...


squig wrote:


Evidently,
there is still a good number of people who haven't learned "thou shall
not
kill" and "thou shalt not commit adultery".

But those people aren't going to change their minds by reading the bible.
Especially with all the church leaders setting such a fine example by
molesting the kids.

All the church leaders?

A few priests, is the literal truth.

"squig" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Pete Dimsman said:

But those people aren't going to change their minds by reading the
bible. Especially with all the church leaders setting such a fine
example by molesting the kids.

That's the crime of Catholic old farts. The Protestant ones are much more
given to adultery, embezzling, and outright fraud.




When we compare ourselves to others, I'm certain we can find those who are
less moral. Compare ourselves to Christ and we don't appear nearly as
well.


Then let's pick a realistic role model, not one carved from myth.

"squig" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Pete Dimsman said:

But those people aren't going to change their minds by reading the
bible. Especially with all the church leaders setting such a fine
example by molesting the kids.

That's the crime of Catholic old farts. The Protestant ones are much more
given to adultery, embezzling, and outright fraud.




When we compare ourselves to others, I'm certain we can find those who are
less moral. Compare ourselves to Christ and we don't appear nearly as
well.


Then let's pick a realistic role model, not one carved from myth.

"squig" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


squig said:

That's the crime of Catholic old farts. The Protestant ones are much
more
given to adultery, embezzling, and outright fraud.

When we compare ourselves to others, I'm certain we can find those who
are
less moral. Compare ourselves to Christ and we don't appear nearly as
well.

You mean compare yourself to a fantastic ideal. That person is not among
the living. Dream on if you want to.



In the end, one of us is right and the other is wrong. If I'm wrong,
little
is lost. If you're wrong, much is lost.


Actually it's possible for both of you to be wrong.

You are wrong in assuming Christian philosophy is one that men should or
even can live by.

George is wrong in exaggerating the failings of the clergy.

"squig" wrote in message
...
"Glenn Dowdy" wrote in message
...

"squig" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


squig said:

That's the crime
more
given to adultery,

When we compare
are
less moral. Compare
well.

You mean compare yourself to a fantastic ideal. That person is
not
among
the living. Dream on if you want to.

In the end, one of us is right and the other is wrong. If I'm
wrong,
little
is lost. If you're wrong, much is lost.

Is that kind of "logic" your way of keeping the despair at bay?



No. Actually that idea was put forth by Pascal who happened to be a
very
logical thinker. Unfortunately, there are many that think the way you
do
but, of course, the Bible predicts that.

Pascal's Wager doesn't actually do what you think it should:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

Glenn D.


It is exactly as I thought. I'm not saying that we should believe in God
just because it's the best bet. I was merely pointing out that I was not
the
one who came up with the idea.

One hopes you are a rational enough person to realize that when rational
thought is applied to the concept of Supreme beings and the philosophy
allegedly espoused by them, that there is no reason to believe in the
impossible.

Compare Christianity to Communism, substitute the state for God and they are
the same philosophy. I betting you wouldn't want to live under a communist
government. There's no reason to want to live under a theocracy. This is
the reason we have freedom of religion, which is also freedom FROM religion.

We need a code of values that is livable, workable, and applicable to human
beings, not supreme ones.

"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
news
"squig" emitted :

The Bible isn't the problem -- we've kicked it out of our schools and
public
buildings. Soon, we'll be having to hold church underground. Evidently,
there is still a good number of people who haven't learned "thou shall not
kill" and "thou shalt not commit adultery".

Are you one of those dickheads who interprets the Bible literally?


If you're going to interpret it at all, it should be literally. It hastens
the insanity and thereafter (one hopes) the recovery.

"squig" wrote in message
...
"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
news
"squig" emitted :

The Bible isn't the problem -- we've kicked it out of our schools and
public
buildings. Soon, we'll be having to hold church underground. Evidently,
there is still a good number of people who haven't learned "thou shall
not
kill" and "thou shalt not commit adultery".

Are you one of those dickheads who interprets the Bible literally?


S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
-----------------------------------
It's Grim up north..
The liberal view isn't very liberal in allowing others to have their
opinion.

Nor is the Christian one, if you aren't saved you go to Hell.

I'm supposed to be the one that's close-minded. I respect any view,
even one that's contrary to mine. Those who have responded to me don't
afford me the same. When you decide to respect my opinion, I'll answer
your
questions.

I'll afford you the same, I just won't pretend that it's a good philosophy.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Nor is the Christian one, if you aren't saved you go to Hell.

Where have you reead this one McKelvy ?
Is it also a movie that you haven't seen ?

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Nor is the Christian one, if you aren't saved you go to Hell.

Where have you reead this one McKelvy ?
Is it also a movie that you haven't seen ?

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"squig" wrote in message
...

"Glenn Dowdy" wrote in message
...

"squig" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
m...


squig said:


That's the crime

more

given to adultery,

When we compare

are

less moral. Compare

well.

You mean compare yourself to a fantastic ideal. That person is
not

among

the living. Dream on if you want to.

In the end, one of us is right and the other is wrong. If I'm
wrong,

little

is lost. If you're wrong, much is lost.

Is that kind of "logic" your way of keeping the despair at bay?




No. Actually that idea was put forth by Pascal who happened to be a
very
logical thinker. Unfortunately, there are many that think the way you
do
but, of course, the Bible predicts that.


Pascal's Wager doesn't actually do what you think it should:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

Glenn D.



It is exactly as I thought. I'm not saying that we should believe in God
just because it's the best bet. I was merely pointing out that I was not
the
one who came up with the idea.


One hopes you are a rational enough person to realize that when rational
thought is applied to the concept of Supreme beings and the philosophy
allegedly espoused by them, that there is no reason to believe in the
impossible.

Compare Christianity to Communism, substitute the state for God and they are
the same philosophy.

The smallest difference is perhaps that religion concerns only the
individuals and that communism concerns countries and citizens.
But I am afraid that this small difference will not disturb you.

I betting you wouldn't want to live under a communist
government.

Why not ?

There's no reason to want to live under a theocracy.

Agree

This is
the reason we have freedom of religion, which is also freedom FROM religion.

Agree.

We need a code of values that is livable, workable, and applicable to human
beings, not supreme ones.

Agree.

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"squig" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
. ..


squig said:


That's the crime of Catholic old farts. The Protestant ones are much

more

given to adultery, embezzling, and outright fraud.

When we compare ourselves to others, I'm certain we can find those who

are

less moral. Compare ourselves to Christ and we don't appear nearly as

well.

You mean compare yourself to a fantastic ideal. That person is not among
the living. Dream on if you want to.




In the end, one of us is right and the other is wrong. If I'm wrong,
little
is lost. If you're wrong, much is lost.



Actually it's possible for both of you to be wrong.

You are wrong in assuming Christian philosophy is one that men should or
even can live by.

Did you try ? Or are you still speaking of something that you don't know ?
Have you done theology studies ? Catechism at least ?

George is wrong in exaggerating the failings of the clergy.

Considering *THE* standard, the failings of the clergy are so monstruous
that they cannot be exagerated.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Then let's pick a realistic role model, not one carved from myth.

G.W. Bush ? :-)

Crosspost removed.
"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:
"squig" wrote in message
...

"Glenn Dowdy" wrote in message
...

"squig" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
m...


squig said:


That's the crime

more

given to adultery,

When we compare

are

less moral. Compare

well.

You mean compare yourself to a fantastic ideal. That person is
not

among

the living. Dream on if you want to.

In the end, one of us is right and the other is wrong. If I'm
wrong,

little

is lost. If you're wrong, much is lost.

Is that kind of "logic" your way of keeping the despair at bay?




No. Actually that idea was put forth by Pascal who happened to be a
very
logical thinker. Unfortunately, there are many that think the way you
do
but, of course, the Bible predicts that.


Pascal's Wager doesn't actually do what you think it should:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

Glenn D.



It is exactly as I thought. I'm not saying that we should believe in God
just because it's the best bet. I was merely pointing out that I was not
the
one who came up with the idea.


One hopes you are a rational enough person to realize that when rational
thought is applied to the concept of Supreme beings and the philosophy
allegedly espoused by them, that there is no reason to believe in the
impossible.



Your comment of "no reason to believe in the impossible" makes me wonder how
you think we got here.

Compare Christianity to Communism, substitute the state for God and they
are
the same philosophy.

The smallest difference is perhaps that religion concerns only the
individuals and that communism concerns countries and citizens.
But I am afraid that this small difference will not disturb you.

I betting you wouldn't want to live under a communist
government.

Why not ?


Your comparison of Christianity to Communism is faulty ("they have eyes but
they do not see"). I would not want to live under a Communist government.
Our government may not be perfect, but it's better than any other form of
government I'm aware of.

There's no reason to want to live under a theocracy.

Agree

This is
the reason we have freedom of religion, which is also freedom FROM
religion.

Agree.

I agree with this. However, is it right to say your freedom FROM religion
should override my freedom of religion?


We need a code of values that is livable, workable, and applicable to
human
beings, not supreme ones.

Agree.

What do you suggest we use as a baseline for a "code of values"? Will that
baseline ever change? If so, who decides what and when it should change?

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...

"squig" wrote in message
...
"Paul Dormer" wrote in message
news
"squig" emitted :

The Bible isn't the problem -- we've kicked it out of our schools and
public
buildings. Soon, we'll be having to hold church underground.
Evidently,
there is still a good number of people who haven't learned "thou shall
not
kill" and "thou shalt not commit adultery".

Are you one of those dickheads who interprets the Bible literally?


S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t
-----------------------------------
It's Grim up north..
The liberal view isn't very liberal in allowing others to have their
opinion.

Nor is the Christian one, if you aren't saved you go to Hell.

The Christian view allows others to have their opinion.


I'm supposed to be the one that's close-minded. I respect any view,
even one that's contrary to mine. Those who have responded to me don't
afford me the same. When you decide to respect my opinion, I'll answer
your
questions.

I'll afford you the same, I just won't pretend that it's a good
philosophy.


ok.

squig wrote:
Crosspost removed.
"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Michael McKelvy wrote:

"squig" wrote in message
...


"Glenn Dowdy" wrote in message
...


"squig" wrote in message
om...


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
news:8p90p0d6plkpn31kqr42hnf8bcv71cn5qt@4ax. com...


squig said:



That's the crime

more


given to adultery,

When we compare

are


less moral. Compare

well.

You mean compare yourself to a fantastic ideal. That person is
not

among


the living. Dream on if you want to.

In the end, one of us is right and the other is wrong. If I'm
wrong,

little


is lost. If you're wrong, much is lost.

Is that kind of "logic" your way of keeping the despair at bay?




No. Actually that idea was put forth by Pascal who happened to be a
very
logical thinker. Unfortunately, there are many that think the way you
do
but, of course, the Bible predicts that.


Pascal's Wager doesn't actually do what you think it should:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

Glenn D.



It is exactly as I thought. I'm not saying that we should believe in God
just because it's the best bet. I was merely pointing out that I was not
the
one who came up with the idea.


One hopes you are a rational enough person to realize that when rational
thought is applied to the concept of Supreme beings and the philosophy
allegedly espoused by them, that there is no reason to believe in the
impossible.




Your comment of "no reason to believe in the impossible" makes me wonder how
you think we got here.


Compare Christianity to Communism, substitute the state for God and they

are

the same philosophy.

The smallest difference is perhaps that religion concerns only the
individuals and that communism concerns countries and citizens.
But I am afraid that this small difference will not disturb you.


I betting you wouldn't want to live under a communist
government.

Why not ?



Your comparison of Christianity to Communism is faulty ("they have eyes but
they do not see").

I never compare Christianity to Communism. Only McKelvy can do such
comparison.
Me (Lionel) wrote :
"The smallest difference is perhaps that religion concerns only the
individuals and that communism concerns countries and citizens.
But I am afraid that this small difference will not disturb you."

I would not want to live under a Communist government.
Our government may not be perfect, but it's better than any other form of
government I'm aware of.

If you are happy, I'm happy.

There's no reason to want to live under a theocracy.

Agree

This is

the reason we have freedom of religion, which is also freedom FROM

religion.

Agree.


I agree with this. However, is it right to say your freedom FROM religion
should override my freedom of religion?


We need a code of values that is livable, workable, and applicable to

human

beings, not supreme ones.

Agree.


What do you suggest we use as a baseline for a "code of values"? Will that
baseline ever change?

Yes

If so, who decides what and when it should change?

Nobody.
Today "Codes of values" is the sum of all human beings karma ponderate
with the Karma of all our ancesters. ;-)