Re: OT 'There is a god!'

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>> --cut--
>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
>>>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
>>>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
>>>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith then
>>>>> it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
>>>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
>>>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your own
>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see how
>>>> disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>
>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>
>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>
>>> snip<
>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>
>>> quote:
>>> Secularist
>>> n.
>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>> element.
>>>
>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>> unquote
>>>
>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>
>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>
>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for
>> by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>> proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief
>> system on those who simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible
>> facts cannot account for all that is the Universe and that morality
>> is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>> --
>>
>> - Philip
>>
>>
> In other words, if you can't account for something through
> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
> will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
> like a good plan.

Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is required in order
to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do not know with
secular certainty that the pavement will support the weight of your car at
any given moment. Examples abound .... witness the sink holes under roadways
in southern California right now. Do you consider yourself a religious
person, ToMh?
--

- Philip

In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
"ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> > Gord Beaman wrote:
> >> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
> >> --cut--
> >>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
> >>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
> >>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
> >>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
> >>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith then
> >>>> it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
> >>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
> >>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
> >>>
> >>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your own
> >>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see how
> >>> disconnected you post appears to me.
> >>
> >> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
> >> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
> >> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
> >
> > Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
> >
> >>snip<
> >> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
> >>
> >> quote:
> >> Secularist
> >> n.
> >> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
> >> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
> >> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
> >> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
> >> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
> >> element.
> >>
> >> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
> >> should be excluded from government and education
> >> unquote
> >>
> >> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
> >
> > Now that you know, we shall continue.
> >
> > Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for by
> > logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers proselytize,
> > intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on those who
> > simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot account for
> > all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in religion instead
> > of politics.
> > --
> >
> > - Philip
> >
> >
> In other words, if you can't account for something through
> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts will be
> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds like
> a good plan.

Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're beaten.....Move-on......org
--

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
>>>>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
>>>>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
>>>>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith then
>>>>>> it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
>>>>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
>>>>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your own
>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see how
>>>>> disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>
>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>
>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>
>>>> snip<
>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>
>>>> quote:
>>>> Secularist
>>>> n.
>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>> element.
>>>>
>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>> unquote
>>>>
>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>
>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>
>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for
>>> by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>> proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief
>>> system on those who simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible
>>> facts cannot account for all that is the Universe and that morality
>>> is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>> --
>>>
>>> - Philip
>>>
>>>
>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>> will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
>> like a good plan.
>
> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is required in
> order to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do not know
> with secular certainty that the pavement will support the weight of your
> car at any given moment. Examples abound .... witness the sink holes under
> roadways in southern California right now. Do you consider yourself a
> religious person, ToMh?
> --
>
> - Philip

No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with beliefs
insead
of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to explain why
the sun
moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports ignorance.
It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just keep them out of
politics
and science, to do so just perverts both.

<diel@spam.com> wrote in message
news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> > Gord Beaman wrote:
>> >> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>> >> --cut--
>> >>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
>> >>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
>> >>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
>> >>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>> >>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith then
>> >>>> it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
>> >>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
>> >>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>> >>>
>> >>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your own
>> >>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see how
>> >>> disconnected you post appears to me.
>> >>
>> >> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>> >> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>> >> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>> >
>> > Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>> >
>> >>snip<
>> >> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>> >>
>> >> quote:
>> >> Secularist
>> >> n.
>> >> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>> >> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>> >> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>> >> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>> >> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>> >> element.
>> >>
>> >> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>> >> should be excluded from government and education
>> >> unquote
>> >>
>> >> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>> >
>> > Now that you know, we shall continue.
>> >
>> > Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for by
>> > logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers proselytize,
>> > intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on those who
>> > simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot account for
>> > all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in religion
>> > instead
>> > of politics.
>> > --
>> >
>> > - Philip
>> >
>> >
>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts will
>> be
>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds like
>> a good plan.
>
> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're beaten.....Move-on......org
> --
>
Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly replying to
post that your not smart enough to participate in. At least Phillip gives an
argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.

In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
"ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
> > "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> >> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> >> > Gord Beaman wrote:
> >> >> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
> >> >> --cut--
> >> >>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
> >> >>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
> >> >>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
> >> >>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
> >> >>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith then
> >> >>>> it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
> >> >>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
> >> >>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your own
> >> >>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see how
> >> >>> disconnected you post appears to me.
> >> >>
> >> >> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
> >> >> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
> >> >> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
> >> >
> >> > Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
> >> >
> >> >>snip<
> >> >> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
> >> >>
> >> >> quote:
> >> >> Secularist
> >> >> n.
> >> >> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
> >> >> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
> >> >> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
> >> >> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
> >> >> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
> >> >> element.
> >> >>
> >> >> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
> >> >> should be excluded from government and education
> >> >> unquote
> >> >>
> >> >> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
> >> >
> >> > Now that you know, we shall continue.
> >> >
> >> > Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for by
> >> > logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers proselytize,
> >> > intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on those who
> >> > simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot account for
> >> > all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in religion
> >> > instead
> >> > of politics.
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > - Philip
> >> >
> >> >
> >> In other words, if you can't account for something through
> >> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
> >> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
> >> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
> >> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts will
> >> be
> >> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds like
> >> a good plan.
> >
> > Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're beaten.....Move-on......org
> > --
> >
> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly replying to
> post that your not smart enough to participate in. At least Phillip gives an
> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.

Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
--

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
>>>>>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
>>>>>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
>>>>>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
>>>>>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
>>>>>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>>>>>> own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>
>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>
>>>>> snip<
>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>
>>>>> quote:
>>>>> Secularist
>>>>> n.
>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>>> element.
>>>>>
>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>> unquote
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>
>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>
>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for
>>>> by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>> proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief
>>>> system on those who simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible
>>>> facts cannot account for all that is the Universe and that morality
>>>> is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> - Philip
>>>>
>>>>
>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>>> will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned.
>>> Sounds like a good plan.
>>
>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is required
>> in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do
>> not know with secular certainty that the pavement will support the
>> weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound .... witness
>> the sink holes under roadways in southern California right now. Do
>> you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>> --
>>
>> - Philip
>
> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
> beliefs insead
> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
> explain why the sun
> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports ignorance.
> It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just keep them out of
> politics and science, to do so just perverts both.

ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular humanism. Look it
up. Learn about your seducer.

Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first. A baby
goes about this process as does the adult. Study human behavior. As for
your naive conclusion, politics IS little more than beliefs and science is
riddled with postulations.
--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
>>>>>>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
>>>>>>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
>>>>>>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
>>>>>>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
>>>>>>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>>>>>>> own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
>>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>
>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>
>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>> n.
>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>>>> element.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for
>>>>> by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>> proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief
>>>>> system on those who simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible
>>>>> facts cannot account for all that is the Universe and that morality
>>>>> is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>>>> will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned.
>>>> Sounds like a good plan.
>>>
>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is required
>>> in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do
>>> not know with secular certainty that the pavement will support the
>>> weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound .... witness
>>> the sink holes under roadways in southern California right now. Do
>>> you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>>> --
>>>
>>> - Philip
>>
>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
>> beliefs insead
>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>> explain why the sun
>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports ignorance.
>> It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just keep them out of
>> politics and science, to do so just perverts both.
>
> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular humanism. Look
> it up. Learn about your seducer.
>

I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.


> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first. A baby
> goes about this process as does the adult. Study human behavior. As for
> your naive conclusion, politics IS little more than beliefs and science is
> riddled with postulations.
> --
>
Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even begin to
compare science with religion.

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no free
>>>>>>>>>>> lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with
>>>>>>>>> 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of
>>>>>>>>> some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>>>>>>>> own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll
>>>>>>>> see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>>>>> element.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>> for by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>> proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief
>>>>>> system on those who simply accept that logic, reason, and
>>>>>> tangible facts cannot account for all that is the Universe and
>>>>>> that morality is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>>>>> will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned.
>>>>> Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>
>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is required
>>>> in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do
>>>> not know with secular certainty that the pavement will support the
>>>> weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound ....
>>>> witness the sink holes under roadways in southern California right
>>>> now. Do you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> - Philip
>>>
>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
>>> beliefs insead
>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>> explain why the sun
>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports ignorance.
>>> It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just keep them out
>>> of politics and science, to do so just perverts both.
>>
>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular humanism. Look
>> it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>
>
> I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.
>
>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first.
>> A baby goes about this process as does the adult. Study human
>> behavior. As for your naive conclusion, politics IS little more
>> than beliefs and science is riddled with postulations.
>> --
>>
> Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even begin to
> compare science with religion.

That is quite false, ToMh. The secular humanism you ascribe to has all the
trapping of a religion and in the extreme ... a cult. You believe human
intelligence can know all. On this belief you proceed on faith in the hope
that those you trust are right. Problems and shortcomings abound because
your beliefs are politically based. So much for consistency.
--

- Philip

ToMh wrote:
> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no free
>>>>>>>>>>> lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with
>>>>>>>>> 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of
>>>>>>>>> some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
>>>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>>>>> element.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>> for by
>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>> proselytize,
>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on
>>>>>> those who
>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
>>>>>> account for
>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in religion
>>>>>> instead
>>>>>> of politics.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>>>>> will
>>>>> be
>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
>>>>> like a good plan.
>>>>
>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
>>>>
>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in. At
>>> least Phillip gives an
>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
>>
>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>> --
>>
> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.

Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a religious person
when he cannot provide a provable, scientific accounting.

Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion and is the only
worldview allowed in the public schools. All other competing worldviews have
been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court and effectively eliminated
bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer), 1963 (the Bible), 1980 (Ten Commandments), and
1987 (God) .
--
- Philip

In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:eXNSd.4152$Ba3.1034@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no free
>>>>>>>>>>>> lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with
>>>>>>>>>> 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of
>>>>>>>>>> some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>>>>>>>>> own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll
>>>>>>>>> see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>>>>>> element.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>>> for by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>>> proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief
>>>>>>> system on those who simply accept that logic, reason, and
>>>>>>> tangible facts cannot account for all that is the Universe and
>>>>>>> that morality is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>>>>>> will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned.
>>>>>> Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is required
>>>>> in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do
>>>>> not know with secular certainty that the pavement will support the
>>>>> weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound ....
>>>>> witness the sink holes under roadways in southern California right
>>>>> now. Do you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> - Philip
>>>>
>>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
>>>> beliefs insead
>>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>>> explain why the sun
>>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports ignorance.
>>>> It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just keep them out
>>>> of politics and science, to do so just perverts both.
>>>
>>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular humanism. Look
>>> it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>>
>>
>> I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.
>>
>>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first.
>>> A baby goes about this process as does the adult. Study human
>>> behavior. As for your naive conclusion, politics IS little more
>>> than beliefs and science is riddled with postulations.
>>> --
>>>
>> Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even begin to
>> compare science with religion.
>
> That is quite false, ToMh. The secular humanism you ascribe to has all
> the trapping of a religion and in the extreme ... a cult. You believe
> human intelligence can know all. On this belief you proceed on faith in
> the hope that those you trust are right. Problems and shortcomings abound
> because your beliefs are politically based. So much for consistency.
> --
>
I don't believe that at all. I don't think human beings knows it all,
and probably never will, but we learn more every day and what we
do learn should not be discounted by religion which has no
basis in fact at all.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:fXNSd.4153$Ba3.1120@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no free
>>>>>>>>>>>> lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with
>>>>>>>>>> 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of
>>>>>>>>>> some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
>>>>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>>>>>> element.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>>> for by
>>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>>> proselytize,
>>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on
>>>>>>> those who
>>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
>>>>>>> account for
>>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in religion
>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>> of politics.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
>>>>>> like a good plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
>>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
>>>>>
>>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
>>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in. At
>>>> least Phillip gives an
>>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
>>>
>>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>>> --
>>>
>> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.
>
> Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a religious person
> when he cannot provide a provable, scientific accounting.
>
> Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion and is the only
> worldview allowed in the public schools. All other competing worldviews
> have been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court and effectively
> eliminated bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer), 1963 (the Bible), 1980 (Ten
> Commandments), and 1987 (God) .
> --
> - Philip
>
> In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
> and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.
>
>
>

I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning tools,
that is why religion was created. Funny how conservatives keep bringing
up the 10 commandments who's first rule is to not kill, yet push war and
the death penalty and their right to kill people who mess with them.
I guess the new conservative 10 commands has an asterisk after the rules.

In article <oKLSd.8768$x53.2761@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

> >
> > Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>
> As long as ToMh refrains from further name calling, you won't have to send
> him to the Naughty Rug. ;-)

Easy to get old tom to cuss and swear LOL>>
--

In article <381p59F5kfaqeU1@individual.net>,
"ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:fXNSd.4153$Ba3.1120@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> > ToMh wrote:
> >> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
> >>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
> >>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> >>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> --cut--
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
> >>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no free
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either I think)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
> >>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
> >>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with
> >>>>>>>>>> 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of
> >>>>>>>>>> some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
> >>>>>>>>> own
> >>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
> >>>>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
> >>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
> >>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> snip<
> >>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> quote:
> >>>>>>>> Secularist
> >>>>>>>> n.
> >>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
> >>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
> >>>>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
> >>>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
> >>>>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
> >>>>>>>> element.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
> >>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
> >>>>>>>> unquote
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
> >>>>>>> for by
> >>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
> >>>>>>> proselytize,
> >>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on
> >>>>>>> those who
> >>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
> >>>>>>> account for
> >>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in religion
> >>>>>>> instead
> >>>>>>> of politics.
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Philip
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
> >>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
> >>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
> >>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
> >>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
> >>>>>> will
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
> >>>>>> like a good plan.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
> >>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
> >>>>>
> >>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
> >>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in. At
> >>>> least Phillip gives an
> >>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
> >>>
> >>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
> >>> --
> >>>
> >> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.
> >
> > Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a religious person
> > when he cannot provide a provable, scientific accounting.
> >
> > Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion and is the only
> > worldview allowed in the public schools. All other competing worldviews
> > have been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court and effectively
> > eliminated bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer), 1963 (the Bible), 1980 (Ten
> > Commandments), and 1987 (God) .
> > --
> > - Philip
> >
> > In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
> > and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning tools,
> that is why religion was created. Funny how conservatives keep bringing
> up the 10 commandments who's first rule is to not kill, yet push war and
> the death penalty and their right to kill people who mess with them.
> I guess the new conservative 10 commands has an asterisk after the rules.
>

Old tom is so easy to dissect. We know where he's coming from, THE
LEFT, LOL.
--

diel@spam.com wrote:
> In article <oKLSd.8768$x53.2761@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>>
>> As long as ToMh refrains from further name calling, you won't have
>> to send him to the Naughty Rug. ;-)
>
> Easy to get old tom to cuss and swear LOL>>

Cursing and general coarseness is simply a stress indicator. ;-)
--

- Philip

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:eXNSd.4152$Ba3.1034@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking
>>>>>>>>>>> with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens
>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee
>>>>>>>>>>> now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>>> your own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up,
>>>>>>>>>> you'll see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>>> life; also, one who believes that education and other matters
>>>>>>>>> of civil policy should be managed without the introduction of
>>>>>>>>> a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>>>> for by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular
>>>>>>>> believers proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force
>>>>>>>> their belief system on those who simply accept that logic,
>>>>>>>> reason, and tangible facts cannot account for all that is the
>>>>>>>> Universe and
>>>>>>>> that morality is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>> facts will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be
>>>>>>> questioned. Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is
>>>>>> required in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on
>>>>>> faith. You do not know with secular certainty that the pavement will
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> the weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound ....
>>>>>> witness the sink holes under roadways in southern California
>>>>>> right now. Do you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
>>>>> beliefs insead
>>>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>>>> explain why the sun
>>>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports
>>>>> ignorance. It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just
>>>>> keep them out of politics and science, to do so just perverts both.
>>>>
>>>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular
>>>> humanism. Look it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.
>>>
>>>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first.
>>>> A baby goes about this process as does the adult. Study human
>>>> behavior. As for your naive conclusion, politics IS little more
>>>> than beliefs and science is riddled with postulations.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>> Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even begin
>>> to compare science with religion.
>>
>> That is quite false, ToMh. The secular humanism you ascribe to has
>> all the trapping of a religion and in the extreme ... a cult. You
>> believe human intelligence can know all. On this belief you proceed
>> on faith in the hope that those you trust are right. Problems and
>> shortcomings abound because your beliefs are politically based. So
>> much for consistency. --
>>
> I don't believe that at all. I don't think human beings knows it all,
> and probably never will, but we learn more every day and what we
> do learn should not be discounted by religion which has no
> basis in fact at all.

Ahhh. But secularism believes that all is knowable. I would like to delve
into the basis for your continued assertion that religion has no basis.

What do you make of these affirmations from the secular humanist manifesto?

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not
created.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human
personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and
fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's
social passion.
--

- Philip

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:fXNSd.4153$Ba3.1120@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking
>>>>>>>>>>> with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens
>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee
>>>>>>>>>>> now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>>> your own
>>>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
>>>>>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>>> life; also, one who believes that education and other matters
>>>>>>>>> of civil policy should be managed without the introduction of
>>>>>>>>> a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>>>> for by
>>>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>>>> proselytize,
>>>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on
>>>>>>>> those who
>>>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
>>>>>>>> account for
>>>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in
>>>>>>>> religion instead
>>>>>>>> of politics.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>> facts will
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
>>>>>>> like a good plan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
>>>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
>>>>>>
>>>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
>>>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in. At
>>>>> least Phillip gives an
>>>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
>>>>
>>>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.
>>
>> Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a religious
>> person when he cannot provide a provable, scientific accounting.
>>
>> Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion and is the
>> only worldview allowed in the public schools. All other competing
>> worldviews have been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court and
>> effectively eliminated bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer), 1963 (the
>> Bible), 1980 (Ten Commandments), and 1987 (God) .
>> --
>> - Philip
>>
>> In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
>> and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning
> tools, that is why religion was created. Funny how conservatives keep
> bringing up the 10 commandments who's first rule is to not kill, yet
> push war and the death penalty and their right to kill people who
> mess with them. I guess the new conservative 10 commands has an
> asterisk after the rules.

More ignorance on your part. But you are not to blame, exactly. The sixth
commandment reads, "Thou shall not kill." The New International Version
translates it, "Thou shall not murder." This is more accurate because the
Hebrew word so translated does not refer to killing in general but to
malicious and unlawful killing.
Neither accidental killing (Numbers 35:22-25) nor justifiable homicide (Ex.
22:2) are a breaking of the sixth commandment. Neither killing in war nor
capital punishment are necessarily forbidden in this commandment since God
required both in certain cases (Ex.21:12). So the preferred translation is,
"You shall not murder."

--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:1tQSd.4252$Ba3.1953@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:fXNSd.4153$Ba3.1120@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking
>>>>>>>>>>>> with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee
>>>>>>>>>>>> now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>>>> your own
>>>>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
>>>>>>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>>>> life; also, one who believes that education and other matters
>>>>>>>>>> of civil policy should be managed without the introduction of
>>>>>>>>>> a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>>>>> for by
>>>>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>>>>> proselytize,
>>>>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on
>>>>>>>>> those who
>>>>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
>>>>>>>>> account for
>>>>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in
>>>>>>>>> religion instead
>>>>>>>>> of politics.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>>> facts will
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
>>>>>>>> like a good plan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
>>>>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
>>>>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in. At
>>>>>> least Phillip gives an
>>>>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.
>>>
>>> Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a religious
>>> person when he cannot provide a provable, scientific accounting.
>>>
>>> Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion and is the
>>> only worldview allowed in the public schools. All other competing
>>> worldviews have been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court and
>>> effectively eliminated bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer), 1963 (the
>>> Bible), 1980 (Ten Commandments), and 1987 (God) .
>>> --
>>> - Philip
>>>
>>> In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
>>> and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning
>> tools, that is why religion was created. Funny how conservatives keep
>> bringing up the 10 commandments who's first rule is to not kill, yet
>> push war and the death penalty and their right to kill people who
>> mess with them. I guess the new conservative 10 commands has an
>> asterisk after the rules.
>
> More ignorance on your part. But you are not to blame, exactly. The sixth
> commandment reads, "Thou shall not kill." The New International Version
> translates it, "Thou shall not murder." This is more accurate because the
> Hebrew word so translated does not refer to killing in general but to
> malicious and unlawful killing.
> Neither accidental killing (Numbers 35:22-25) nor justifiable homicide
> (Ex. 22:2) are a breaking of the sixth commandment. Neither killing in war
> nor capital punishment are necessarily forbidden in this commandment since
> God required both in certain cases (Ex.21:12). So the preferred
> translation is, "You shall not murder."
>
> --
>
> - Philip
>

How convenient.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:1tQSd.4250$Ba3.531@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:eXNSd.4152$Ba3.1034@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking
>>>>>>>>>>>> with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee
>>>>>>>>>>>> now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>>>> your own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up,
>>>>>>>>>>> you'll see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>>>> life; also, one who believes that education and other matters
>>>>>>>>>> of civil policy should be managed without the introduction of
>>>>>>>>>> a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>>>>> for by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular
>>>>>>>>> believers proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force
>>>>>>>>> their belief system on those who simply accept that logic,
>>>>>>>>> reason, and tangible facts cannot account for all that is the
>>>>>>>>> Universe and
>>>>>>>>> that morality is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>>> facts will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be
>>>>>>>> questioned. Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is
>>>>>>> required in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on
>>>>>>> faith. You do not know with secular certainty that the pavement will
>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>> the weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound ....
>>>>>>> witness the sink holes under roadways in southern California
>>>>>>> right now. Do you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
>>>>>> beliefs insead
>>>>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>>>>> explain why the sun
>>>>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports
>>>>>> ignorance. It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just
>>>>>> keep them out of politics and science, to do so just perverts both.
>>>>>
>>>>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular
>>>>> humanism. Look it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.
>>>>
>>>>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first.
>>>>> A baby goes about this process as does the adult. Study human
>>>>> behavior. As for your naive conclusion, politics IS little more
>>>>> than beliefs and science is riddled with postulations.
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>> Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even begin
>>>> to compare science with religion.
>>>
>>> That is quite false, ToMh. The secular humanism you ascribe to has
>>> all the trapping of a religion and in the extreme ... a cult. You
>>> believe human intelligence can know all. On this belief you proceed
>>> on faith in the hope that those you trust are right. Problems and
>>> shortcomings abound because your beliefs are politically based. So
>>> much for consistency. --
>>>
>> I don't believe that at all. I don't think human beings knows it all,
>> and probably never will, but we learn more every day and what we
>> do learn should not be discounted by religion which has no
>> basis in fact at all.
>
> Ahhh. But secularism believes that all is knowable. I would like to delve
> into the basis for your continued assertion that religion has no basis.
>
> What do you make of these affirmations from the secular humanist
> manifesto?
>

I have know idea what a secular manifest is. Sounds like something
the religious types made up. In any case I have not nor know of anybody
that subscribes to this so called secular manifest that in your opinion
makes man
God. I never said religion has no basis, it just has no basis in fact.

> FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not
> created.
>
Good for them, why is this any less relevant than your fictional accounts?

> EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human
> personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and
> fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's
> social passion.
> --

So what, it has more merit as any fictitous religous belief.

>
> - Philip


>
>
>

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:1tQSd.4252$Ba3.1953@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:fXNSd.4153$Ba3.1120@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government legislation. Gotta make sure you include them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> frolicking with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>> heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>>>>> your own
>>>>>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll
>>>>>>>>>>>> see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>>>>> life; also, one who believes that education and other
>>>>>>>>>>> matters of civil policy should be managed without the
>>>>>>>>>>> introduction
>>>>>>>>>>> of a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that
>>>>>>>>>>> religion should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be
>>>>>>>>>> accounted for by
>>>>>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>>>>>> proselytize,
>>>>>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on
>>>>>>>>>> those who
>>>>>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
>>>>>>>>>> account for
>>>>>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in
>>>>>>>>>> religion instead
>>>>>>>>>> of politics.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>>>> facts will
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
>>>>>>>>> like a good plan.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
>>>>>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
>>>>>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in.
>>>>>>> At least Phillip gives an
>>>>>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.
>>>>
>>>> Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a religious
>>>> person when he cannot provide a provable, scientific accounting.
>>>>
>>>> Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion and is the
>>>> only worldview allowed in the public schools. All other competing
>>>> worldviews have been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court and
>>>> effectively eliminated bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer), 1963 (the
>>>> Bible), 1980 (Ten Commandments), and 1987 (God) .
>>>> --
>>>> - Philip
>>>>
>>>> In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
>>>> and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning
>>> tools, that is why religion was created. Funny how conservatives
>>> keep bringing up the 10 commandments who's first rule is to not
>>> kill, yet push war and the death penalty and their right to kill
>>> people who mess with them. I guess the new conservative 10 commands has
>>> an
>>> asterisk after the rules.
>>
>> More ignorance on your part. But you are not to blame, exactly. The
>> sixth commandment reads, "Thou shall not kill." The New
>> International Version translates it, "Thou shall not murder." This
>> is more accurate because the Hebrew word so translated does not
>> refer to killing in general but to malicious and unlawful killing.
>> Neither accidental killing (Numbers 35:22-25) nor justifiable
>> homicide (Ex. 22:2) are a breaking of the sixth commandment. Neither
>> killing in war nor capital punishment are necessarily forbidden in
>> this commandment since God required both in certain cases
>> (Ex.21:12). So the preferred translation is, "You shall not murder."
>>
>> --
>>
>> - Philip
>>
>
> How convenient.

Well ... like I said. You are not to blame up until now. Your viewpoints
are the result of taking religion out of public schools. The result are
people who think like you do ridiculing a long established belief system of
which you know little. So ... you've just lost another factual argument
with a religious person. Are you done?
--

- Philip

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:1tQSd.4250$Ba3.531@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:eXNSd.4152$Ba3.1034@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>> news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government legislation. Gotta make sure you include them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> frolicking with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>> heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>>>>> your own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>>>>> life; also, one who believes that education and other
>>>>>>>>>>> matters of civil policy should be managed without the
>>>>>>>>>>> introduction
>>>>>>>>>>> of a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that
>>>>>>>>>>> religion should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be
>>>>>>>>>> accounted for by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These
>>>>>>>>>> secular believers proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means
>>>>>>>>>> force
>>>>>>>>>> their belief system on those who simply accept that logic,
>>>>>>>>>> reason, and tangible facts cannot account for all that is the
>>>>>>>>>> Universe and
>>>>>>>>>> that morality is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>>>> facts will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be
>>>>>>>>> questioned. Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is
>>>>>>>> required in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on
>>>>>>>> faith. You do not know with secular certainty that the
>>>>>>>> pavement will support
>>>>>>>> the weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound
>>>>>>>> .... witness the sink holes under roadways in southern
>>>>>>>> California right now. Do you consider yourself a religious person,
>>>>>>>> ToMh?
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown
>>>>>>> with beliefs insead
>>>>>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>>>>>> explain why the sun
>>>>>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports
>>>>>>> ignorance. It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just
>>>>>>> keep them out of politics and science, to do so just perverts
>>>>>>> both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular
>>>>>> humanism. Look it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates
>>>>>> first. A baby goes about this process as does the adult. Study human
>>>>>> behavior. As for your naive conclusion, politics IS little more
>>>>>> than beliefs and science is riddled with postulations.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>> Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even
>>>>> begin to compare science with religion.
>>>>
>>>> That is quite false, ToMh. The secular humanism you ascribe to has
>>>> all the trapping of a religion and in the extreme ... a cult. You
>>>> believe human intelligence can know all. On this belief you proceed
>>>> on faith in the hope that those you trust are right. Problems and
>>>> shortcomings abound because your beliefs are politically based. So
>>>> much for consistency. --
>>>>
>>> I don't believe that at all. I don't think human beings knows it
>>> all, and probably never will, but we learn more every day and what
>>> we do learn should not be discounted by religion which has no
>>> basis in fact at all.
>>
>> Ahhh. But secularism believes that all is knowable. I would like to
>> delve into the basis for your continued assertion that religion has
>> no basis. What do you make of these affirmations from the secular
>> humanist
>> manifesto?
>>
>
> I have know idea what a secular manifest is. Sounds like something the
> religious types made up.

I sensed you did not. There IS such a thing and it has 15 tenants written
colaberatively by it's founders.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html.

> In any case I have not nor know of
> anybody that subscribes to this so called secular manifest that in
> your opinion makes man
> God. I never said religion has no basis, it just has no basis in fact.
>
>> FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and
>> not created.
>>
> Good for them, why is this any less relevant than your fictional
> accounts?
>> EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of
>> human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its
>> development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the
>> explanation of the humanist's social passion.
>> --
>
> So what, it has more merit as any fictitous religous belief.
>
>>
>> - Philip

ToMh. The Dead Sea Scrolls ... the archive Catacombs of Rome ... these
sources and more document much of the historic mentions in the Bible and
Tora. But I see that you must save face by clinging and defending the
indefensible ... that all of religion is bunk ... except your own.

I'll let you have the final word. There is no debate with an person so
ignorant on the subject.
--

- Philip

"ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
>>>>>>>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
>>>>>>>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
>>>>>>>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
>>>>>>>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
>>>>>>>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>>>>>>>> own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
>>>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>>>>> element.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for
>>>>>> by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>> proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief
>>>>>> system on those who simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible
>>>>>> facts cannot account for all that is the Universe and that morality
>>>>>> is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>>>>> will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned.
>>>>> Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>
>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is required
>>>> in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do
>>>> not know with secular certainty that the pavement will support the
>>>> weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound .... witness
>>>> the sink holes under roadways in southern California right now. Do
>>>> you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> - Philip
>>>
>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
>>> beliefs insead
>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>> explain why the sun
>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports ignorance.
>>> It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just keep them out of
>>> politics and science, to do so just perverts both.
>>
>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular humanism. Look
>> it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>
>
>I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.
>
>
>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first. A baby
>> goes about this process as does the adult. Study human behavior. As for
>> your naive conclusion, politics IS little more than beliefs and science is
>> riddled with postulations.
>> --
>>
>Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even begin to
>compare science with religion.
>

And the very fact that he tries to is proof positive that he's
not using his noggin...a pregnant virgin?...a walking talking
corpse?...the sun 'dancing across the sky'?

I'm really disappointed in Philip, I really thought that he was
smarter than that...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

<diel@spam.com> wrote:

>Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>--

<snort>
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no
>>>>>>>>>>>> free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking
>>>>>>>>>> with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people
>>>>>>>>>> of some
>>>>>>>>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll
>>>>>>>>> see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>> life;
>>>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of
>>>>>>>> civil policy should be managed without the introduction of a
>>>>>>>> religious element.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>>> for by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular
>>>>>>> believers proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force
>>>>>>> their belief system on those who simply accept that logic,
>>>>>>> reason, and tangible facts cannot account for all that is the
>>>>>>> Universe and that morality is rooted in religion instead of
>>>>>>> politics. --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>> facts will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be
>>>>>> questioned.
>>>>>> Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is
>>>>> required
>>>>> in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do
>>>>> not know with secular certainty that the pavement will support the
>>>>> weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound ....
>>>>> witness the sink holes under roadways in southern California
>>>>> right now. Do
>>>>> you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> - Philip
>>>>
>>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
>>>> beliefs insead
>>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>>> explain why the sun
>>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports
>>>> ignorance. It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just
>>>> keep them out of politics and science, to do so just perverts both.
>>>
>>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular humanism.
>>> Look it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>>
>>
>> I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.
>>
>>
>>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first.
>>> A baby goes about this process as does the adult. Study human
>>> behavior. As for your naive conclusion, politics IS little more
>>> than beliefs and science is riddled with postulations.
>>> --
>>>
>> Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even begin
>> to compare science with religion.
>>
>
> And the very fact that he tries to is proof positive that he's
> not using his noggin...a pregnant virgin?...a walking talking
> corpse?...the sun 'dancing across the sky'?
>
> I'm really disappointed in Philip, I really thought that he was
> smarter than that...

The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.

It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a virgin
(mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young" and differs by a
letter) this fact is often disregarded by the Roman Catholic Church and
Christianity as a whole. There are two Hebrew words which are usually
translated as 'virgin' (or 'parthenos' in the Greek) - 'Bethulah' and
'Almah'. Bethulah definitely indicates a virgin, whereas Almah most
often means a young girl, depending on context.

--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

huge snip...(I was wearing my scroll wheel out...)

>
>Well ... like I said. You are not to blame up until now. Your viewpoints
>are the result of taking religion out of public schools. The result are
>people who think like you do ridiculing a long established belief system of
>which you know little. So ... you've just lost another factual argument
>with a religious person. Are you done?

You see him lose anything here?...I certainly didn't...so answer
me this Philip, why has a democratic gov't taken religion out of
schools?...I'll tell you, it's because people are starting to
question some of religion's ethics. For instance what do you
tell a bright kid who asks his teacher, 'How can it be possible
for a virgin woman to produce a child?' or "How can a human man
become alive, walk around and talk after he's been killed?'

They answer 'Well, you must have faith' and 'Well, God wrote it
in his book, the bible, so we mustn't question it'. What's a
bright kid to think?...you know and I know too...

And, don't use that crap that you used on ToMh about the 'long
established belief system',,,I'm a helluva lot older than you are
so I've lived with that system lots longer that you...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
> huge snip...(I was wearing my scroll wheel out...)

Well, Windows users usually know how to place the cursor over the verticle
slide bar in the lighter grey area and hold down the Left mouse button.

>> Well ... like I said. You are not to blame up until now. Your
>> viewpoints are the result of taking religion out of public schools.
>> The result are people who think like you do ridiculing a long
>> established belief system of which you know little. So ... you've
>> just lost another factual argument with a religious person. Are you
>> done?
>
> You see him lose anything here?...I certainly didn't...so answer
> me this Philip, why has a democratic gov't taken religion out of
> schools?

The answer is very similar to way your healthcare system became a
burgeoning, expensive, bureaucratic, social entitlement. Leftists made
their way into positions of public policy making. These people know they
can't get their agenda past the voters so they get their way by passing laws
that the public never get to vote on. We The People have in our Constitution
the Right to redress government. The pendulum swings the other way after an
excess has occurred ... and you're seeing it now.
--

- Philip



....I'll tell you, it's because people are starting to
> question some of religion's ethics. For instance what do you
> tell a bright kid who asks his teacher, 'How can it be possible
> for a virgin woman to produce a child?' or "How can a human man
> become alive, walk around and talk after he's been killed?'
>
> They answer 'Well, you must have faith' and 'Well, God wrote it
> in his book, the bible, so we mustn't question it'. What's a
> bright kid to think?...you know and I know too...
>
> And, don't use that crap that you used on ToMh about the 'long
> established belief system',,,I'm a helluva lot older than you are
> so I've lived with that system lots longer that you...

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:grSSd.9149$x53.8844@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:1tQSd.4252$Ba3.1953@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:fXNSd.4153$Ba3.1120@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government legislation. Gotta make sure you include them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frolicking with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>>>>>> life; also, one who believes that education and other
>>>>>>>>>>>> matters of civil policy should be managed without the
>>>>>>>>>>>> introduction
>>>>>>>>>>>> of a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that
>>>>>>>>>>>> religion should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be
>>>>>>>>>>> accounted for by
>>>>>>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>>>>>>> proselytize,
>>>>>>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on
>>>>>>>>>>> those who
>>>>>>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> account for
>>>>>>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in
>>>>>>>>>>> religion instead
>>>>>>>>>>> of politics.
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>>>>> facts will
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
>>>>>>>>>> like a good plan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
>>>>>>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
>>>>>>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in.
>>>>>>>> At least Phillip gives an
>>>>>>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a religious
>>>>> person when he cannot provide a provable, scientific accounting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion and is the
>>>>> only worldview allowed in the public schools. All other competing
>>>>> worldviews have been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court and
>>>>> effectively eliminated bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer), 1963 (the
>>>>> Bible), 1980 (Ten Commandments), and 1987 (God) .
>>>>> --
>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>
>>>>> In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
>>>>> and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning
>>>> tools, that is why religion was created. Funny how conservatives
>>>> keep bringing up the 10 commandments who's first rule is to not
>>>> kill, yet push war and the death penalty and their right to kill
>>>> people who mess with them. I guess the new conservative 10 commands has
>>>> an
>>>> asterisk after the rules.
>>>
>>> More ignorance on your part. But you are not to blame, exactly. The
>>> sixth commandment reads, "Thou shall not kill." The New
>>> International Version translates it, "Thou shall not murder." This
>>> is more accurate because the Hebrew word so translated does not
>>> refer to killing in general but to malicious and unlawful killing.
>>> Neither accidental killing (Numbers 35:22-25) nor justifiable
>>> homicide (Ex. 22:2) are a breaking of the sixth commandment. Neither
>>> killing in war nor capital punishment are necessarily forbidden in
>>> this commandment since God required both in certain cases
>>> (Ex.21:12). So the preferred translation is, "You shall not murder."
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> - Philip
>>>
>>
>> How convenient.
>
> Well ... like I said. You are not to blame up until now. Your viewpoints
> are the result of taking religion out of public schools. The result are
> people who think like you do ridiculing a long established belief system
> of which you know little. So ... you've just lost another factual
> argument with a religious person. Are you done?
> --
>
> - Philip

I grew up Catholic and when to a Catholic school. I've gone to church the
majority of my life, first Catholic, then Episcopal, and then a non
denominational.
What factual argument did I lose? The fact that, as usual, you found some
passage
in the old testament to support your view and allow man to play god with
peoples lives. I have news for you, there are so many contradictions in the
bible,
anybody can justify anything they want. Why do you think there are so many
different version of Christianity? Go listen to some white supremacist quote
bible
verses that support their views.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:irSSd.9150$x53.2597@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:1tQSd.4250$Ba3.531@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:eXNSd.4152$Ba3.1034@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government legislation. Gotta make sure you include them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frolicking with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>>>>>> life; also, one who believes that education and other
>>>>>>>>>>>> matters of civil policy should be managed without the
>>>>>>>>>>>> introduction
>>>>>>>>>>>> of a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that
>>>>>>>>>>>> religion should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be
>>>>>>>>>>> accounted for by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These
>>>>>>>>>>> secular believers proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means
>>>>>>>>>>> force
>>>>>>>>>>> their belief system on those who simply accept that logic,
>>>>>>>>>>> reason, and tangible facts cannot account for all that is the
>>>>>>>>>>> Universe and
>>>>>>>>>>> that morality is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>>>>> facts will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be
>>>>>>>>>> questioned. Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is
>>>>>>>>> required in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on
>>>>>>>>> faith. You do not know with secular certainty that the
>>>>>>>>> pavement will support
>>>>>>>>> the weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound
>>>>>>>>> .... witness the sink holes under roadways in southern
>>>>>>>>> California right now. Do you consider yourself a religious
>>>>>>>>> person, ToMh?
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown
>>>>>>>> with beliefs insead
>>>>>>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>>>>>>> explain why the sun
>>>>>>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports
>>>>>>>> ignorance. It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just
>>>>>>>> keep them out of politics and science, to do so just perverts
>>>>>>>> both.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular
>>>>>>> humanism. Look it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates
>>>>>>> first. A baby goes about this process as does the adult. Study human
>>>>>>> behavior. As for your naive conclusion, politics IS little more
>>>>>>> than beliefs and science is riddled with postulations.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even
>>>>>> begin to compare science with religion.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is quite false, ToMh. The secular humanism you ascribe to has
>>>>> all the trapping of a religion and in the extreme ... a cult. You
>>>>> believe human intelligence can know all. On this belief you proceed
>>>>> on faith in the hope that those you trust are right. Problems and
>>>>> shortcomings abound because your beliefs are politically based. So
>>>>> much for consistency. --
>>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that at all. I don't think human beings knows it
>>>> all, and probably never will, but we learn more every day and what
>>>> we do learn should not be discounted by religion which has no
>>>> basis in fact at all.
>>>
>>> Ahhh. But secularism believes that all is knowable. I would like to
>>> delve into the basis for your continued assertion that religion has
>>> no basis. What do you make of these affirmations from the secular
>>> humanist
>>> manifesto?
>>>
>>
>> I have know idea what a secular manifest is. Sounds like something the
>> religious types made up.
>
> I sensed you did not. There IS such a thing and it has 15 tenants written
> colaberatively by it's founders.
> http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html.
>
>> In any case I have not nor know of
>> anybody that subscribes to this so called secular manifest that in
>> your opinion makes man
>> God. I never said religion has no basis, it just has no basis in fact.
>>
>>> FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and
>>> not created.
>>>
>> Good for them, why is this any less relevant than your fictional
>> accounts?
>>> EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of
>>> human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its
>>> development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the
>>> explanation of the humanist's social passion.
>>> --
>>
>> So what, it has more merit as any fictitous religous belief.
>>
>>>
>>> - Philip
>
> ToMh. The Dead Sea Scrolls ... the archive Catacombs of Rome ... these
> sources and more document much of the historic mentions in the Bible and
> Tora. But I see that you must save face by clinging and defending the
> indefensible ... that all of religion is bunk ... except your own.

>

Which contain no evidence or mention of Jesus being God or of the
resurrection.

> I'll let you have the final word. There is no debate with an person so
> ignorant on the subject.
> --
>
> - Philip
There is no debate with someone who thinks that God is on their side despite
all the proof in the world.

>

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

big snip

>The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.
>
>It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a virgin
>(mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young" and differs by a
>letter) this fact is often disregarded by the Roman Catholic Church and
>Christianity as a whole. There are two Hebrew words which are usually
>translated as 'virgin' (or 'parthenos' in the Greek) - 'Bethulah' and
>'Almah'. Bethulah definitely indicates a virgin, whereas Almah most
>often means a young girl, depending on context.

Why all the tippy toeing through the tulips here Philip?...who
cares about an error in translation made way back then?...don't
you suppose that the Catholic religion would have been smart
enough to realize the error and fix it?. I'll tell you why, it
was written as 'virgin' in the Bible and nobody dares to muck
with 'God's word'...gee... Most logical indeed,

You'd get much farther in life if you'd lay off the personal
insults.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:grSSd.9149$x53.8844@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:1tQSd.4252$Ba3.1953@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fXNSd.4153$Ba3.1120@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>>>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>>>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government legislation. Gotta make sure you include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frolicking with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose
>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion teaches them to either convert or kill that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are..." .
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only the facts and influences which are derived from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> present life; also, one who believes that education and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other matters of civil policy should be managed without the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduction
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> accounted for by
>>>>>>>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>>>>>>>> proselytize,
>>>>>>>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system
>>>>>>>>>>>> on those who
>>>>>>>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> account for
>>>>>>>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in
>>>>>>>>>>>> religion instead
>>>>>>>>>>>> of politics.
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the
>>>>>>>>>>> blanks with some religion's mythology. Of course it should
>>>>>>>>>>> be "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>>>>>> facts will
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned.
>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
>>>>>>>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
>>>>>>>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in.
>>>>>>>>> At least Phillip gives an
>>>>>>>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a
>>>>>> religious person when he cannot provide a provable, scientific
>>>>>> accounting. Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion
>>>>>> and is
>>>>>> the only worldview allowed in the public schools. All other
>>>>>> competing worldviews have been declared illegal by the U.S.
>>>>>> Supreme Court and effectively eliminated bit by bit -- 1962
>>>>>> (prayer), 1963 (the Bible), 1980 (Ten Commandments), and 1987 (God) .
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
>>>>>> and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning
>>>>> tools, that is why religion was created. Funny how conservatives
>>>>> keep bringing up the 10 commandments who's first rule is to not
>>>>> kill, yet push war and the death penalty and their right to kill
>>>>> people who mess with them. I guess the new conservative 10
>>>>> commands has an
>>>>> asterisk after the rules.
>>>>
>>>> More ignorance on your part. But you are not to blame, exactly.
>>>> The sixth commandment reads, "Thou shall not kill." The New
>>>> International Version translates it, "Thou shall not murder." This
>>>> is more accurate because the Hebrew word so translated does not
>>>> refer to killing in general but to malicious and unlawful killing.
>>>> Neither accidental killing (Numbers 35:22-25) nor justifiable
>>>> homicide (Ex. 22:2) are a breaking of the sixth commandment.
>>>> Neither killing in war nor capital punishment are necessarily
>>>> forbidden in this commandment since God required both in certain cases
>>>> (Ex.21:12). So the preferred translation is, "You shall not
>>>> murder." --
>>>>
>>>> - Philip
>>>>
>>>
>>> How convenient.
>>
>> Well ... like I said. You are not to blame up until now. Your
>> viewpoints are the result of taking religion out of public schools. The
>> result are people who think like you do ridiculing a long
>> established belief system of which you know little. So ... you've
>> just lost another factual argument with a religious person. Are you
>> done? --
>>
>> - Philip
>
> I grew up Catholic and when to a Catholic school. I've gone to church
> the majority of my life, first Catholic, then Episcopal, and then a
> non denominational.
> What factual argument did I lose? The fact that, as usual, you found
> some passage
> in the old testament to support your view and allow man to play god
> with peoples lives. I have news for you, there are so many
> contradictions in the bible,
> anybody can justify anything they want. Why do you think there are so
> many different version of Christianity? Go listen to some white
> supremacist quote bible
> verses that support their views.

I made no "justification". I did show you an translation error in your
Catholic and Episcopalian study. You did go to catechism didn't you? You
did attend some Episcopalian study (aka Catholic Lite), didn't you? Your
current choice of a non-denominational church suggests a progression to a
convenient social gathering place for the sake of appearances.

You lost the argument regarding secular humanism. It is a religion and is
identified as such by its leaders in the twentieth century.
--

- Philip

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
> big snip
>
>> The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.
>>
>> It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a virgin
>> (mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young" and differs by a
>> letter) this fact is often disregarded by the Roman Catholic Church
>> and Christianity as a whole. There are two Hebrew words which are
>> usually translated as 'virgin' (or 'parthenos' in the Greek) -
>> 'Bethulah' and 'Almah'. Bethulah definitely indicates a virgin,
>> whereas Almah most often means a young girl, depending on context.
>
> Why all the tippy toeing through the tulips here Philip?...who
> cares about an error in translation made way back then?
>snip<

As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of faulty
translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not become true.
--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:uS3Td.5213$Ba3.2553@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:grSSd.9149$x53.8844@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:1tQSd.4252$Ba3.1953@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fXNSd.4153$Ba3.1120@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>>>>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government legislation. Gotta make sure you include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frolicking with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion teaches them to either convert or kill that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are..." .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only the facts and influences which are derived from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present life; also, one who believes that education and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other matters of civil policy should be managed without the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accounted for by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proselytize,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on those who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> account for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion instead
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of politics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> blanks with some religion's mythology. Of course it should
>>>>>>>>>>>> be "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>>>>>>> facts will
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
>>>>>>>>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
>>>>>>>>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in.
>>>>>>>>>> At least Phillip gives an
>>>>>>>>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a
>>>>>>> religious person when he cannot provide a provable, scientific
>>>>>>> accounting. Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion
>>>>>>> and is
>>>>>>> the only worldview allowed in the public schools. All other
>>>>>>> competing worldviews have been declared illegal by the U.S.
>>>>>>> Supreme Court and effectively eliminated bit by bit -- 1962
>>>>>>> (prayer), 1963 (the Bible), 1980 (Ten Commandments), and 1987 (God)
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
>>>>>>> and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning
>>>>>> tools, that is why religion was created. Funny how conservatives
>>>>>> keep bringing up the 10 commandments who's first rule is to not
>>>>>> kill, yet push war and the death penalty and their right to kill
>>>>>> people who mess with them. I guess the new conservative 10
>>>>>> commands has an
>>>>>> asterisk after the rules.
>>>>>
>>>>> More ignorance on your part. But you are not to blame, exactly.
>>>>> The sixth commandment reads, "Thou shall not kill." The New
>>>>> International Version translates it, "Thou shall not murder." This
>>>>> is more accurate because the Hebrew word so translated does not
>>>>> refer to killing in general but to malicious and unlawful killing.
>>>>> Neither accidental killing (Numbers 35:22-25) nor justifiable
>>>>> homicide (Ex. 22:2) are a breaking of the sixth commandment.
>>>>> Neither killing in war nor capital punishment are necessarily
>>>>> forbidden in this commandment since God required both in certain cases
>>>>> (Ex.21:12). So the preferred translation is, "You shall not
>>>>> murder." --
>>>>>
>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How convenient.
>>>
>>> Well ... like I said. You are not to blame up until now. Your
>>> viewpoints are the result of taking religion out of public schools. The
>>> result are people who think like you do ridiculing a long
>>> established belief system of which you know little. So ... you've
>>> just lost another factual argument with a religious person. Are you
>>> done? --
>>>
>>> - Philip
>>
>> I grew up Catholic and when to a Catholic school. I've gone to church
>> the majority of my life, first Catholic, then Episcopal, and then a
>> non denominational.
>> What factual argument did I lose? The fact that, as usual, you found
>> some passage
>> in the old testament to support your view and allow man to play god
>> with peoples lives. I have news for you, there are so many
>> contradictions in the bible,
>> anybody can justify anything they want. Why do you think there are so
>> many different version of Christianity? Go listen to some white
>> supremacist quote bible
>> verses that support their views.
>
> I made no "justification". I did show you an translation error in your
> Catholic and Episcopalian study. You did go to catechism didn't you? You
> did attend some Episcopalian study (aka Catholic Lite), didn't you? Your
> current choice of a non-denominational church suggests a progression to a
> convenient social gathering place for the sake of appearances.
>
I made a tranlastion error, oh my.

> You lost the argument regarding secular humanism. It is a religion and is
> identified as such by its leaders in the twentieth century.
> --
>
I have no idea what you even mean by secular humanism, I certainly don't
belong to this organization and can't and wasn't arguing it's beliefs. I'm
arguing the validity of Christianity, which I regard as a big hoax, so
quoting the bible and declaring yourself the winner is meaningless to me
since
I regard the bible as a work of fiction.

> - Philip
>
>
>
>

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:vS3Td.5214$Ba3.2947@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> Gord Beaman wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>
>> big snip
>>
>>> The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.
>>>
>>> It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a virgin
>>> (mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young" and differs by a
>>> letter) this fact is often disregarded by the Roman Catholic Church
>>> and Christianity as a whole. There are two Hebrew words which are
>>> usually translated as 'virgin' (or 'parthenos' in the Greek) -
>>> 'Bethulah' and 'Almah'. Bethulah definitely indicates a virgin,
>>> whereas Almah most often means a young girl, depending on context.
>>
>> Why all the tippy toeing through the tulips here Philip?...who
>> cares about an error in translation made way back then?
>>snip<
>
> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of faulty
> translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not become true.
> --
You just described Christianity!

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>Gord Beaman wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>
>> big snip
>>
>>> The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.
>>>
>>> It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a virgin
>>> (mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young" and differs by a
>>> letter) this fact is often disregarded by the Roman Catholic Church
>>> and Christianity as a whole. There are two Hebrew words which are
>>> usually translated as 'virgin' (or 'parthenos' in the Greek) -
>>> 'Bethulah' and 'Almah'. Bethulah definitely indicates a virgin,
>>> whereas Almah most often means a young girl, depending on context.
>>
>> Why all the tippy toeing through the tulips here Philip?...who
>> cares about an error in translation made way back then?
>>snip<
>
>As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of faulty
>translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not become true.

Jesus! now you're criticizing God's word?!?...a sacrilege!...so
what about the walking talking man now?...a falsehood
too?...watch out for the lightning bolts...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>news:vS3Td.5214$Ba3.2947@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>
>>> big snip
>>>
>>>> The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.
>>>>
>>>> It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a virgin
>>>> (mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young" and differs by a
>>>> letter) this fact is often disregarded by the Roman Catholic Church
>>>> and Christianity as a whole. There are two Hebrew words which are
>>>> usually translated as 'virgin' (or 'parthenos' in the Greek) -
>>>> 'Bethulah' and 'Almah'. Bethulah definitely indicates a virgin,
>>>> whereas Almah most often means a young girl, depending on context.
>>>
>>> Why all the tippy toeing through the tulips here Philip?...who
>>> cares about an error in translation made way back then?
>>>snip<
>>
>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of faulty
>> translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not become true.
>> --
>You just described Christianity!
>

Precisely!...I'll just copy/paste the pertinent sentences so you
won't miss them!...pay attention to your words now!

>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of faulty
>> translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not become true.

There you go Philip!...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:irSSd.9150$x53.2597@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:1tQSd.4250$Ba3.531@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eXNSd.4152$Ba3.1034@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government legislation. Gotta make sure you include
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frolicking with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your own words. We'll go from there. After you look
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it up, you'll see how disconnected you post appears to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose
>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion teaches them to either convert or kill that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are..." .
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts
>>>>>>>>>>>>> only the facts and influences which are derived from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> present life; also, one who believes that education and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> other matters of civil policy should be managed without the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduction
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be
>>>>>>>>>>>> accounted for by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These
>>>>>>>>>>>> secular believers proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal
>>>>>>>>>>>> means force
>>>>>>>>>>>> their belief system on those who simply accept that logic,
>>>>>>>>>>>> reason, and tangible facts cannot account for all that is
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Universe and
>>>>>>>>>>>> that morality is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the
>>>>>>>>>>> blanks with some religion's mythology. Of course it should
>>>>>>>>>>> be "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>>>>>> facts will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be
>>>>>>>>>>> questioned. Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is
>>>>>>>>>> required in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on
>>>>>>>>>> faith. You do not know with secular certainty that the
>>>>>>>>>> pavement will support
>>>>>>>>>> the weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound
>>>>>>>>>> .... witness the sink holes under roadways in southern
>>>>>>>>>> California right now. Do you consider yourself a religious
>>>>>>>>>> person, ToMh?
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown
>>>>>>>>> with beliefs insead
>>>>>>>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>>>>>>>> explain why the sun
>>>>>>>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports
>>>>>>>>> ignorance. It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs,
>>>>>>>>> just keep them out of politics and science, to do so just
>>>>>>>>> perverts both.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular
>>>>>>>> humanism. Look it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any
>>>>>>> day.
>>>>>>>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates
>>>>>>>> first. A baby goes about this process as does the adult. Study
>>>>>>>> human behavior. As for your naive conclusion, politics IS
>>>>>>>> little more than beliefs and science is riddled with
>>>>>>>> postulations. --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even
>>>>>>> begin to compare science with religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is quite false, ToMh. The secular humanism you ascribe to
>>>>>> has all the trapping of a religion and in the extreme ... a
>>>>>> cult. You believe human intelligence can know all. On this
>>>>>> belief you proceed on faith in the hope that those you trust are
>>>>>> right. Problems and
>>>>>> shortcomings abound because your beliefs are politically based.
>>>>>> So much for consistency. --
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe that at all. I don't think human beings knows it
>>>>> all, and probably never will, but we learn more every day and what
>>>>> we do learn should not be discounted by religion which has no
>>>>> basis in fact at all.
>>>>
>>>> Ahhh. But secularism believes that all is knowable. I would like
>>>> to delve into the basis for your continued assertion that religion
>>>> has no basis. What do you make of these affirmations from the secular
>>>> humanist
>>>> manifesto?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have know idea what a secular manifest is. Sounds like something
>>> the religious types made up.
>>
>> I sensed you did not. There IS such a thing and it has 15 tenants
>> written colaberatively by it's founders.
>> http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html.
>>
>>> In any case I have not nor know of
>>> anybody that subscribes to this so called secular manifest that in
>>> your opinion makes man
>>> God. I never said religion has no basis, it just has no basis in
>>> fact.
>>>> FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and
>>>> not created.
>>>>
>>> Good for them, why is this any less relevant than your fictional
>>> accounts?
>>>> EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of
>>>> human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its
>>>> development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the
>>>> explanation of the humanist's social passion.
>>>> --
>>>
>>> So what, it has more merit as any fictitous religous belief.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Philip
>>
>> ToMh. The Dead Sea Scrolls ... the archive Catacombs of Rome ...
>> these sources and more document much of the historic mentions in the
>> Bible and Tora. But I see that you must save face by clinging and
>> defending the indefensible ... that all of religion is bunk ...
>> except your own.
>
>>
>
> Which contain no evidence or mention of Jesus being God or of the
> resurrection.

QUITE the contrary. Jesus was a Rabbi and his claims are cross documented.
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/article1.htm
http://artfuljesus.0catch.com/pazola.html
http://www.arsmar.com/ce_bib.htm

--

- Philip

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:28:40 GMT, <diel@spam.com> wrote:

>In article <3841juF5jq98gU1@individual.net>,
> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I have no idea what you even mean by secular humanism, I certainly don't
>> belong to this organization and can't and wasn't arguing it's beliefs. I'm
>> arguing the validity of Christianity, which I regard as a big hoax, so
>> quoting the bible and declaring yourself the winner is meaningless to me
>> since
>> I regard the bible as a work of fiction.
>
>It's mighty hot down there tom.

LOL...

He keeps stepping in deeper and deeper.

Wonder if he is a Democrat? <wink>


--
Scott in Florida

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:vS3Td.5214$Ba3.2947@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> big snip
>>>>
>>>>> The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a
>>>>> virgin (mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young" and
>>>>> differs by a letter) this fact is often disregarded by the Roman
>>>>> Catholic Church and Christianity as a whole. There are two
>>>>> Hebrew words which are usually translated as 'virgin' (or
>>>>> 'parthenos' in the Greek) - 'Bethulah' and 'Almah'. Bethulah
>>>>> definitely indicates a virgin, whereas Almah most often means a
>>>>> young girl, depending on context.
>>>>
>>>> Why all the tippy toeing through the tulips here Philip?...who
>>>> cares about an error in translation made way back then?
>>>> snip<
>>>
>>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of
>>> faulty translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not become
>>> true. --
>> You just described Christianity!
>>
>
> Precisely!...I'll just copy/paste the pertinent sentences so you
> won't miss them!...pay attention to your words now!
>
>>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of
>>> faulty translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not become
>>> true.
>
> There you go Philip!...

The intellectually lazy toss the baby out with the bath water, preferring to
defend their self styled prejudices. Do you find any hypocrisy in "ToMh's"
attendance of a non denominational Christian church?
--

- Philip

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>
>>> big snip
>>>
>>>> The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.
>>>>
>>>> It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a
>>>> virgin (mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young" and
>>>> differs by a letter) this fact is often disregarded by the Roman
>>>> Catholic Church and Christianity as a whole. There are two Hebrew
>>>> words which are usually translated as 'virgin' (or 'parthenos' in
>>>> the Greek) - 'Bethulah' and 'Almah'. Bethulah definitely
>>>> indicates a virgin, whereas Almah most often means a young girl,
>>>> depending on context.
>>>
>>> Why all the tippy toeing through the tulips here Philip?...who
>>> cares about an error in translation made way back then?
>>> snip<
>>
>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of
>> faulty translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not become
>> true.
>
> Jesus! now you're criticizing God's word?!?...a sacrilege!...so
> what about the walking talking man now?...a falsehood
> too?...watch out for the lightning bolts...

For the benefit of the lurkers, you COULD have punctuated that post with
some "winkie" faces. :^D
--

- Philip

diel@spam.com wrote:
> In article <3841juF5jq98gU1@individual.net>,
> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I have no idea what you even mean by secular humanism, I certainly
>> don't belong to this organization and can't and wasn't arguing it's
>> beliefs. I'm arguing the validity of Christianity, which I regard as
>> a big hoax, so quoting the bible and declaring yourself the winner
>> is meaningless to me since
>> I regard the bible as a work of fiction.
>
> It's mighty hot down there tom.

"ToMh" is battling his demons ... the stiff necked humanist ones mostly and
the lingering pagan ones secondarily. LOL
--

- Philip

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:uS3Td.5213$Ba3.2553@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>
>> I made no "justification". I did show you an translation error in
>> your Catholic and Episcopalian study. You did go to catechism
>> didn't you? You did attend some Episcopalian study (aka Catholic
>> Lite), didn't you? Your current choice of a non-denominational
>> church suggests a progression to a convenient social gathering place
>> for the sake of appearances.
> I made a tranlastion error, oh my.
>
>> You lost the argument regarding secular humanism. It is a religion
>> and is identified as such by its leaders in the twentieth century.
>> --
>>
> I have no idea what you even mean by secular humanism, I certainly
> don't belong to this organization and can't and wasn't arguing it's
> beliefs. I'm arguing the validity of Christianity, which I regard as
> a big hoax, so quoting the bible and declaring yourself the winner is
> meaningless to me since
> I regard the bible as a work of fiction.
>
>> - Philip

You do have been provided with a link to the movement's affirmations. You
may not claim ignorance any longer.

A fallen Catholic would have your view of the Bible. You rejected the
Catholic catechism and doctrines by taking up with the Episcopalians
(Catholic Lite). That's what you have reported.
--

- Philip

Scott in Florida wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:28:40 GMT, <diel@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <3841juF5jq98gU1@individual.net>,
>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I have no idea what you even mean by secular humanism, I certainly
>>> don't belong to this organization and can't and wasn't arguing it's
>>> beliefs. I'm arguing the validity of Christianity, which I regard
>>> as a big hoax, so quoting the bible and declaring yourself the
>>> winner is meaningless to me since
>>> I regard the bible as a work of fiction.
>>
>> It's mighty hot down there tom.
>
> LOL...
>
> He keeps stepping in deeper and deeper.
>
> Wonder if he is a Democrat? <wink>

"ToMh" revealed himself to be a lost soul long ago.
--

- Philip

In article <xL5Td.5303$Ba3.408@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.ne t>,
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

> Scott in Florida wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:28:40 GMT, <diel@spam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3841juF5jq98gU1@individual.net>,
> >> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I have no idea what you even mean by secular humanism, I certainly
> >>> don't belong to this organization and can't and wasn't arguing it's
> >>> beliefs. I'm arguing the validity of Christianity, which I regard
> >>> as a big hoax, so quoting the bible and declaring yourself the
> >>> winner is meaningless to me since
> >>> I regard the bible as a work of fiction.
> >>
> >> It's mighty hot down there tom.
> >
> > LOL...
> >
> > He keeps stepping in deeper and deeper.
> >
> > Wonder if he is a Democrat? <wink>
>
> "ToMh" revealed himself to be a lost soul long ago.

Brush him off as another lefty without a cause. Floundering in the sea
of life.
--

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>Gord Beaman wrote:
>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:vS3Td.5214$Ba3.2947@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> big snip
>>>>>
>>>>>> The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a
>>>>>> virgin (mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young" and
>>>>>> differs by a letter) this fact is often disregarded by the Roman
>>>>>> Catholic Church and Christianity as a whole. There are two
>>>>>> Hebrew words which are usually translated as 'virgin' (or
>>>>>> 'parthenos' in the Greek) - 'Bethulah' and 'Almah'. Bethulah
>>>>>> definitely indicates a virgin, whereas Almah most often means a
>>>>>> young girl, depending on context.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why all the tippy toeing through the tulips here Philip?...who
>>>>> cares about an error in translation made way back then?
>>>>> snip<
>>>>
>>>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of
>>>> faulty translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not become
>>>> true. --
>>> You just described Christianity!
>>>
>>
>> Precisely!...I'll just copy/paste the pertinent sentences so you
>> won't miss them!...pay attention to your words now!
>>
>>>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of
>>>> faulty translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not become
>>>> true.
>>
>> There you go Philip!...
>
>The intellectually lazy toss the baby out with the bath water, preferring to
>defend their self styled prejudices. Do you find any hypocrisy in "ToMh's"
>attendance of a non denominational Christian church?

Well, as you know, ToMh can certainly quite competently speak for
himself but I've never seen him 'speak' for -any- church... He,
like me, isn't too impressed by any religion. (I hope that I've
stated his position accurately - apologies if not)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>Gord Beaman wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>
>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> big snip
>>>>
>>>>> The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a
>>>>> virgin (mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young" and
>>>>> differs by a letter) this fact is often disregarded by the Roman
>>>>> Catholic Church and Christianity as a whole. There are two Hebrew
>>>>> words which are usually translated as 'virgin' (or 'parthenos' in
>>>>> the Greek) - 'Bethulah' and 'Almah'. Bethulah definitely
>>>>> indicates a virgin, whereas Almah most often means a young girl,
>>>>> depending on context.
>>>>
>>>> Why all the tippy toeing through the tulips here Philip?...who
>>>> cares about an error in translation made way back then?
>>>> snip<
>>>
>>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of
>>> faulty translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not become
>>> true.
>>
>> Jesus! now you're criticizing God's word?!?...a sacrilege!...so
>> what about the walking talking man now?...a falsehood
>> too?...watch out for the lightning bolts...
>
>For the benefit of the lurkers, you COULD have punctuated that post with
>some "winkie" faces. :^D

Yes, I could have, and -would- have had I been joking...what does
that tell you now?.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:uS3Td.5213$Ba3.2553@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>
>>> I made no "justification". I did show you an translation error in
>>> your Catholic and Episcopalian study. You did go to catechism
>>> didn't you? You did attend some Episcopalian study (aka Catholic
>>> Lite), didn't you? Your current choice of a non-denominational
>>> church suggests a progression to a convenient social gathering place
>>> for the sake of appearances.
>> I made a tranlastion error, oh my.
>>
>>> You lost the argument regarding secular humanism. It is a religion
>>> and is identified as such by its leaders in the twentieth century.
>>> --
>>>
>> I have no idea what you even mean by secular humanism, I certainly
>> don't belong to this organization and can't and wasn't arguing it's
>> beliefs. I'm arguing the validity of Christianity, which I regard as
>> a big hoax, so quoting the bible and declaring yourself the winner is
>> meaningless to me since
>> I regard the bible as a work of fiction.
>>
>>> - Philip
>
>You do have been provided with a link to the movement's affirmations. You
>may not claim ignorance any longer.
>
>A fallen Catholic would have your view of the Bible. You rejected the
>Catholic catechism and doctrines by taking up with the Episcopalians
>(Catholic Lite). That's what you have reported.

Hurry up Philip, report him to the church police, perhaps you'll
earn some holy brownie points...feel welcome to report me too,
perhaps you'll be issued with 25 virgins?...oops, wrong pew I
think...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:vS3Td.5214$Ba3.2947@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> big snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a
>>>>>>> virgin (mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young" and
>>>>>>> differs by a letter) this fact is often disregarded by the Roman
>>>>>>> Catholic Church and Christianity as a whole. There are two
>>>>>>> Hebrew words which are usually translated as 'virgin' (or
>>>>>>> 'parthenos' in the Greek) - 'Bethulah' and 'Almah'. Bethulah
>>>>>>> definitely indicates a virgin, whereas Almah most often means a
>>>>>>> young girl, depending on context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why all the tippy toeing through the tulips here Philip?...who
>>>>>> cares about an error in translation made way back then?
>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>
>>>>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of
>>>>> faulty translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not
>>>>> become true. --
>>>> You just described Christianity!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Precisely!...I'll just copy/paste the pertinent sentences so you
>>> won't miss them!...pay attention to your words now!
>>>
>>>>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of
>>>>> faulty translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not
>>>>> become true.
>>>
>>> There you go Philip!...
>>
>> The intellectually lazy toss the baby out with the bath water,
>> preferring to defend their self styled prejudices. Do you find any
>> hypocrisy in "ToMh's" attendance of a non denominational Christian
>> church?
>
> Well, as you know, ToMh can certainly quite competently speak for
> himself but I've never seen him 'speak' for -any- church... He,
> like me, isn't too impressed by any religion. (I hope that I've
> stated his position accurately - apologies if not)

Gord, your post is really hypocritical when one diagrams it.
--

- Philip

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> big snip
>>>>>
>>>>>> The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a
>>>>>> virgin (mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young" and
>>>>>> differs by a letter) this fact is often disregarded by the Roman
>>>>>> Catholic Church and Christianity as a whole. There are two
>>>>>> Hebrew words which are usually translated as 'virgin' (or
>>>>>> 'parthenos' in the Greek) - 'Bethulah' and 'Almah'. Bethulah
>>>>>> definitely indicates a virgin, whereas Almah most often means a
>>>>>> young girl, depending on context.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why all the tippy toeing through the tulips here Philip?...who
>>>>> cares about an error in translation made way back then?
>>>>> snip<
>>>>
>>>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of
>>>> faulty translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not become
>>>> true.
>>>
>>> Jesus! now you're criticizing God's word?!?...a sacrilege!...so
>>> what about the walking talking man now?...a falsehood
>>> too?...watch out for the lightning bolts...
>>
>> For the benefit of the lurkers, you COULD have punctuated that post
>> with some "winkie" faces. :^D
>
> Yes, I could have, and -would- have had I been joking...what does
> that tell you now?.

Definitely JOKING.
--

- Philip

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:uS3Td.5213$Ba3.2553@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> I made no "justification". I did show you an translation error in
>>>> your Catholic and Episcopalian study. You did go to catechism
>>>> didn't you? You did attend some Episcopalian study (aka Catholic
>>>> Lite), didn't you? Your current choice of a non-denominational
>>>> church suggests a progression to a convenient social gathering
>>>> place for the sake of appearances.
>>> I made a tranlastion error, oh my.
>>>
>>>> You lost the argument regarding secular humanism. It is a religion
>>>> and is identified as such by its leaders in the twentieth century.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>> I have no idea what you even mean by secular humanism, I certainly
>>> don't belong to this organization and can't and wasn't arguing it's
>>> beliefs. I'm arguing the validity of Christianity, which I regard as
>>> a big hoax, so quoting the bible and declaring yourself the winner
>>> is meaningless to me since
>>> I regard the bible as a work of fiction.
>>>
>>>> - Philip
>>
>> You do have been provided with a link to the movement's
>> affirmations. You may not claim ignorance any longer.
>>
>> A fallen Catholic would have your view of the Bible. You rejected
>> the Catholic catechism and doctrines by taking up with the
>> Episcopalians (Catholic Lite). That's what you have reported.
>
> Hurry up Philip, report him to the church police, perhaps you'll
> earn some holy brownie points...feel welcome to report me too,
> perhaps you'll be issued with 25 virgins?...oops, wrong pew I
> think...

We don't get "brownie points." Now you figure out who "We" are. LOL
--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>Gord Beaman wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>
>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>> news:vS3Td.5214$Ba3.2947@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> big snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a
>>>>>>>> virgin (mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young" and
>>>>>>>> differs by a letter) this fact is often disregarded by the Roman
>>>>>>>> Catholic Church and Christianity as a whole. There are two
>>>>>>>> Hebrew words which are usually translated as 'virgin' (or
>>>>>>>> 'parthenos' in the Greek) - 'Bethulah' and 'Almah'. Bethulah
>>>>>>>> definitely indicates a virgin, whereas Almah most often means a
>>>>>>>> young girl, depending on context.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why all the tippy toeing through the tulips here Philip?...who
>>>>>>> cares about an error in translation made way back then?
>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of
>>>>>> faulty translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not
>>>>>> become true. --
>>>>> You just described Christianity!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Precisely!...I'll just copy/paste the pertinent sentences so you
>>>> won't miss them!...pay attention to your words now!
>>>>
>>>>>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of
>>>>>> faulty translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not
>>>>>> become true.
>>>>
>>>> There you go Philip!...
>>>
>>> The intellectually lazy toss the baby out with the bath water,
>>> preferring to defend their self styled prejudices. Do you find any
>>> hypocrisy in "ToMh's" attendance of a non denominational Christian
>>> church?
>>
>> Well, as you know, ToMh can certainly quite competently speak for
>> himself but I've never seen him 'speak' for -any- church... He,
>> like me, isn't too impressed by any religion. (I hope that I've
>> stated his position accurately - apologies if not)
>
>Gord, your post is really hypocritical when one diagrams it.

Why so Philip?...don't you think that I believe what I profess
to?...or is it something else?...I'm honestly at a loss to know
what you're basing that statement on and I value your opinion
enough to ask...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>Gord Beaman wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>
>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> big snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a
>>>>>>> virgin (mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young" and
>>>>>>> differs by a letter) this fact is often disregarded by the Roman
>>>>>>> Catholic Church and Christianity as a whole. There are two
>>>>>>> Hebrew words which are usually translated as 'virgin' (or
>>>>>>> 'parthenos' in the Greek) - 'Bethulah' and 'Almah'. Bethulah
>>>>>>> definitely indicates a virgin, whereas Almah most often means a
>>>>>>> young girl, depending on context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why all the tippy toeing through the tulips here Philip?...who
>>>>>> cares about an error in translation made way back then?
>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>
>>>>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of
>>>>> faulty translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not become
>>>>> true.
>>>>
>>>> Jesus! now you're criticizing God's word?!?...a sacrilege!...so
>>>> what about the walking talking man now?...a falsehood
>>>> too?...watch out for the lightning bolts...
>>>
>>> For the benefit of the lurkers, you COULD have punctuated that post
>>> with some "winkie" faces. :^D
>>
>> Yes, I could have, and -would- have had I been joking...what does
>> that tell you now?.
>
>Definitely JOKING.

How could you possibly draw that conclusion?,,,c'mon now.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:vS3Td.5214$Ba3.2947@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> big snip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a
>>>>>>>>> virgin (mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young"
>>>>>>>>> and differs by a letter) this fact is often disregarded by
>>>>>>>>> the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity as a whole. There
>>>>>>>>> are two Hebrew words which are usually translated as 'virgin'
>>>>>>>>> (or 'parthenos' in the Greek) - 'Bethulah' and 'Almah'.
>>>>>>>>> Bethulah definitely indicates a virgin, whereas Almah most
>>>>>>>>> often means a young girl, depending on context.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why all the tippy toeing through the tulips here Philip?...who
>>>>>>>> cares about an error in translation made way back then?
>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of
>>>>>>> faulty translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not
>>>>>>> become true. --
>>>>>> You just described Christianity!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Precisely!...I'll just copy/paste the pertinent sentences so you
>>>>> won't miss them!...pay attention to your words now!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As a retired technician, you know full well the implications of
>>>>>>> faulty translations. Whatever is built on falsehood does not
>>>>>>> become true.
>>>>>
>>>>> There you go Philip!...
>>>>
>>>> The intellectually lazy toss the baby out with the bath water,
>>>> preferring to defend their self styled prejudices. Do you find any
>>>> hypocrisy in "ToMh's" attendance of a non denominational Christian
>>>> church?
>>>
>>> Well, as you know, ToMh can certainly quite competently speak for
>>> himself but I've never seen him 'speak' for -any- church... He,
>>> like me, isn't too impressed by any religion. (I hope that I've
>>> stated his position accurately - apologies if not)
>>
>> Gord, your post is really hypocritical when one diagrams it.
>
> Why so Philip?...don't you think that I believe what I profess
> to?...or is it something else?...I'm honestly at a loss to know
> what you're basing that statement on and I value your opinion
> enough to ask...

From a passive posture, you professed "ToMh" is competent to speak for
himself and then you go ahead a do just that ... in a passive way supported
by an apology. I'll let it slide. ;-)
--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>Gord Beaman wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>

snip

>>>>
>>>> Well, as you know, ToMh can certainly quite competently speak for
>>>> himself but I've never seen him 'speak' for -any- church... He,
>>>> like me, isn't too impressed by any religion. (I hope that I've
>>>> stated his position accurately - apologies if not)
>>>
>>> Gord, your post is really hypocritical when one diagrams it.
>>
>> Why so Philip?...don't you think that I believe what I profess
>> to?...or is it something else?...I'm honestly at a loss to know
>> what you're basing that statement on and I value your opinion
>> enough to ask...
>
>From a passive posture, you professed "ToMh" is competent to speak for
>himself and then you go ahead a do just that ... in a passive way supported
>by an apology. I'll let it slide. ;-)

Christ!...you don't read well do you?...I said:

> but I've never seen him 'speak' for -any- church...

I wasn't 'speaking for him'...I was merely stating what *I* had
observed about him, that's all...

And, I see nothing wrong with a 'standby apology' (it wasn't
tendered but was there merely 'in case'). One doesn't want to
'step on toes' unnecessarily.

It seems that you're really reaching Philip, you finding it a tad
tough maintaining your position here? If so, then I'll let you
off the hook...

I realize how tough it must be defending a position where you
must believe in literal happenings supported only by mythology
and accounts of physically impossible feats all written in a book
by some superior being who cannot be doubted on pain of being
forced to spend eternity in some flaming hell where there's lots
of golf courses, golf carts, balls, great weather...but no clubs.

No apologies required.

Cheers...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>
>
> snip
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, as you know, ToMh can certainly quite competently speak for
>>>>> himself but I've never seen him 'speak' for -any- church... He,
>>>>> like me, isn't too impressed by any religion. (I hope that I've
>>>>> stated his position accurately - apologies if not)
>>>>
>>>> Gord, your post is really hypocritical when one diagrams it.
>>>
>>> Why so Philip?...don't you think that I believe what I profess
>>> to?...or is it something else?...I'm honestly at a loss to know
>>> what you're basing that statement on and I value your opinion
>>> enough to ask...
>>
>> From a passive posture, you professed "ToMh" is competent to speak
>> for himself and then you go ahead a do just that ... in a passive
>> way supported by an apology. I'll let it slide. ;-)
>
> Christ!...you don't read well do you?...I said:
>
>> but I've never seen him 'speak' for -any- church...
>
> I wasn't 'speaking for him'...I was merely stating what *I* had
> observed about him, that's all...
>
> And, I see nothing wrong with a 'standby apology' (it wasn't
> tendered but was there merely 'in case'). One doesn't want to
> 'step on toes' unnecessarily.
>
> It seems that you're really reaching Philip, you finding it a tad
> tough maintaining your position here? If so, then I'll let you
> off the hook...
>
> I realize how tough it must be defending a position where you
> must believe in literal happenings supported only by mythology
> and accounts of physically impossible feats all written in a book
> by some superior being who cannot be doubted on pain of being
> forced to spend eternity in some flaming hell where there's lots
> of golf courses, golf carts, balls, great weather...but no clubs.

I see you share ToMh's freedom to speak about that which you have not
studied, meaning the original Hebrew and Greek Bibles. Best to study
accounts written by those close to the time of Christ.

Regarding that playful description of Hell, your rendition sounds like a
thick blooded Canadian who just got off the plane in the heat of a Palm
Springs summer (115 degrees F) with expectations of playing 18 holes at the
Bob Hope golf course before dinner. :^D
--

- Philip

ToMh wrote:
>
> I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning
tools,
> that is why religion was created.

"Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, [the] attempt to offer a
comprehensive view of reality."
-- Ayn Rand, 1966

google@thenetdr.com wrote:
> ToMh wrote:
>>
>> I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning
>> tools, that is why religion was created.
>
> "Religion is a primitive form of philosophy, [the] attempt to offer a
> comprehensive view of reality."
> -- Ayn Rand, 1966

An irony will be the future day when our contemporary philosophy will be
viewed as a continuation of "primitive religion." ;-)
--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

snip

>Gord Beaman wrote:
>>
>> And, I see nothing wrong with a 'standby apology' (it wasn't
>> tendered but was there merely 'in case'). One doesn't want to
>> 'step on toes' unnecessarily.
>>
>> It seems that you're really reaching Philip, you finding it a tad
>> tough maintaining your position here? If so, then I'll let you
>> off the hook...
>>
>> I realize how tough it must be defending a position where you
>> must believe in literal happenings supported only by mythology
>> and accounts of physically impossible feats all written in a book
>> by some superior being who cannot be doubted on pain of being
>> forced to spend eternity in some flaming hell where there's lots
>> of golf courses, golf carts, balls, great weather...but no clubs.
>
>I see you share ToMh's freedom to speak about that which you have not
>studied, meaning the original Hebrew and Greek Bibles. Best to study
>accounts written by those close to the time of Christ.
>

Amazing indeed...so you say that the only people who can claim to
be religious are those who have studied Hebrew and Greek
Bibles?!?...wonder what the percentages are? 1%?...less?...

>Regarding that playful description of Hell, your rendition sounds like a
>thick blooded Canadian who just got off the plane in the heat of a Palm
>Springs summer (115 degrees F) with expectations of playing 18 holes at the
>Bob Hope golf course before dinner. :^D

Well...It's somewhat on a parallel with our views of some thin
blooded Americans whose expectations, upon arriving at the
Canada/US border, of seeing a 12 foot wall of snow with nothing
north of that but husky dogs, polar bears and igloos. That sound
about right?

....aaand you wanna be careful with this pitting the average
American's knowledge of the world against the average Canadian's.

I've seen some pretty unbelievable examples of this comparison
believe me. You seem like a pretty knowledgeable guy, so you know
it's true.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>> I see you share ToMh's freedom to speak about that which you have not
>> studied, meaning the original Hebrew and Greek Bibles. Best to study
>> accounts written by those close to the time of Christ.
>
> Amazing indeed...so you say that the only people who can claim to
> be religious are those who have studied Hebrew and Greek
> Bibles?!?...wonder what the percentages are? 1%?...less?...

It is remarkable how you and I speak English yet you make these leaps in
logic to draw conclusions that could only be drawn by having different word
definitions or from inserting words that are not present into my text. How
do to get from my "studied" to your "religious?"

>> Regarding that playful description of Hell, your rendition sounds
>> like a thick blooded Canadian who just got off the plane in the heat
>> of a Palm Springs summer (115 degrees F) with expectations of
>> playing 18 holes at the Bob Hope golf course before dinner. :^D
>
> Well...It's somewhat on a parallel with our views of some thin
> blooded Americans whose expectations, upon arriving at the
> Canada/US border, of seeing a 12 foot wall of snow with nothing
> north of that but husky dogs, polar bears and igloos. That sound
> about right?

I was sooooo disappointed when I found British Colombia to be only wetter
than Washington instead of frozen. The only bears I saw were wearing police
uniforms. ;-)
--

- Philip

>
> QUITE the contrary. Jesus was a Rabbi and his claims are cross documented.
> http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/article1.htm
> http://artfuljesus.0catch.com/pazola.html
> http://www.arsmar.com/ce_bib.htm
>
> --

As long as you stay in your little world of Christian propaganda sites
you'll
be safe and never have to worry about your beliefs being challenged.
Try some non-Christian articles on the dead sea scrolls. Most scholars
not associate with the church have very different views.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:xL5Td.5301$Ba3.4399@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:uS3Td.5213$Ba3.2553@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>
>>> I made no "justification". I did show you an translation error in
>>> your Catholic and Episcopalian study. You did go to catechism
>>> didn't you? You did attend some Episcopalian study (aka Catholic
>>> Lite), didn't you? Your current choice of a non-denominational
>>> church suggests a progression to a convenient social gathering place
>>> for the sake of appearances.
>> I made a tranlastion error, oh my.
>>
>>> You lost the argument regarding secular humanism. It is a religion
>>> and is identified as such by its leaders in the twentieth century.
>>> --
>>>
>> I have no idea what you even mean by secular humanism, I certainly
>> don't belong to this organization and can't and wasn't arguing it's
>> beliefs. I'm arguing the validity of Christianity, which I regard as
>> a big hoax, so quoting the bible and declaring yourself the winner is
>> meaningless to me since
>> I regard the bible as a work of fiction.
>>
>>> - Philip
>
> You do have been provided with a link to the movement's affirmations. You
> may not claim ignorance any longer.
>
You make no sense. I could care less about the Secular movement. Go find
some and argue with them.

> A fallen Catholic would have your view of the Bible. You rejected the
> Catholic catechism and doctrines by taking up with the Episcopalians
> (Catholic Lite). That's what you have reported.
> --
Yup, and most all other Christian doctrines too.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> Gord Beaman wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>> --cut--
>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
>>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
>>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
>>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>
>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith then
>>>> it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
>>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
>>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>
>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your own
>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see how
>>> disconnected you post appears to me.
>>
>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>
> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>
>>snip<
>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>
>> quote:
>> Secularist
>> n.
>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>> element.
>>
>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>> should be excluded from government and education
>> unquote
>>
>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>
> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>
> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for by
> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers proselytize,
> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on those who
> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot account for
> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in religion instead
> of politics.
> --
>
> - Philip
>
>
In other words, if you can't account for something through
logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
"Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts will be
ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds like
a good plan.

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>> --cut--
>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
>>>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
>>>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
>>>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith then
>>>>> it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
>>>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
>>>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your own
>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see how
>>>> disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>
>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>
>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>
>>> snip<
>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>
>>> quote:
>>> Secularist
>>> n.
>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>> element.
>>>
>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>> unquote
>>>
>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>
>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>
>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for
>> by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>> proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief
>> system on those who simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible
>> facts cannot account for all that is the Universe and that morality
>> is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>> --
>>
>> - Philip
>>
>>
> In other words, if you can't account for something through
> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
> will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
> like a good plan.

Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is required in order
to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do not know with
secular certainty that the pavement will support the weight of your car at
any given moment. Examples abound .... witness the sink holes under roadways
in southern California right now. Do you consider yourself a religious
person, ToMh?
--

- Philip

In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
"ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> > Gord Beaman wrote:
> >> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
> >> --cut--
> >>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
> >>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
> >>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
> >>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
> >>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith then
> >>>> it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
> >>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
> >>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
> >>>
> >>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your own
> >>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see how
> >>> disconnected you post appears to me.
> >>
> >> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
> >> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
> >> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
> >
> > Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
> >
> >>snip<
> >> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
> >>
> >> quote:
> >> Secularist
> >> n.
> >> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
> >> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
> >> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
> >> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
> >> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
> >> element.
> >>
> >> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
> >> should be excluded from government and education
> >> unquote
> >>
> >> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
> >
> > Now that you know, we shall continue.
> >
> > Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for by
> > logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers proselytize,
> > intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on those who
> > simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot account for
> > all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in religion instead
> > of politics.
> > --
> >
> > - Philip
> >
> >
> In other words, if you can't account for something through
> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts will be
> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds like
> a good plan.

Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're beaten.....Move-on......org
--

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
>>>>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
>>>>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
>>>>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith then
>>>>>> it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
>>>>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
>>>>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your own
>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see how
>>>>> disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>
>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>
>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>
>>>> snip<
>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>
>>>> quote:
>>>> Secularist
>>>> n.
>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>> element.
>>>>
>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>> unquote
>>>>
>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>
>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>
>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for
>>> by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>> proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief
>>> system on those who simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible
>>> facts cannot account for all that is the Universe and that morality
>>> is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>> --
>>>
>>> - Philip
>>>
>>>
>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>> will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
>> like a good plan.
>
> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is required in
> order to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do not know
> with secular certainty that the pavement will support the weight of your
> car at any given moment. Examples abound .... witness the sink holes under
> roadways in southern California right now. Do you consider yourself a
> religious person, ToMh?
> --
>
> - Philip

No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with beliefs
insead
of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to explain why
the sun
moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports ignorance.
It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just keep them out of
politics
and science, to do so just perverts both.

<diel@spam.com> wrote in message
news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> > Gord Beaman wrote:
>> >> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>> >> --cut--
>> >>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
>> >>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
>> >>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
>> >>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>> >>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith then
>> >>>> it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
>> >>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
>> >>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>> >>>
>> >>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your own
>> >>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see how
>> >>> disconnected you post appears to me.
>> >>
>> >> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>> >> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>> >> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>> >
>> > Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>> >
>> >>snip<
>> >> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>> >>
>> >> quote:
>> >> Secularist
>> >> n.
>> >> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>> >> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>> >> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>> >> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>> >> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>> >> element.
>> >>
>> >> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>> >> should be excluded from government and education
>> >> unquote
>> >>
>> >> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>> >
>> > Now that you know, we shall continue.
>> >
>> > Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for by
>> > logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers proselytize,
>> > intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on those who
>> > simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot account for
>> > all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in religion
>> > instead
>> > of politics.
>> > --
>> >
>> > - Philip
>> >
>> >
>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts will
>> be
>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds like
>> a good plan.
>
> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're beaten.....Move-on......org
> --
>
Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly replying to
post that your not smart enough to participate in. At least Phillip gives an
argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.

In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
"ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
> > "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> >> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> >> > Gord Beaman wrote:
> >> >> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
> >> >> --cut--
> >> >>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
> >> >>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
> >> >>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
> >> >>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
> >> >>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith then
> >> >>>> it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
> >> >>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
> >> >>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your own
> >> >>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see how
> >> >>> disconnected you post appears to me.
> >> >>
> >> >> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
> >> >> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
> >> >> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
> >> >
> >> > Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
> >> >
> >> >>snip<
> >> >> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
> >> >>
> >> >> quote:
> >> >> Secularist
> >> >> n.
> >> >> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
> >> >> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
> >> >> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
> >> >> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
> >> >> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
> >> >> element.
> >> >>
> >> >> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
> >> >> should be excluded from government and education
> >> >> unquote
> >> >>
> >> >> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
> >> >
> >> > Now that you know, we shall continue.
> >> >
> >> > Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for by
> >> > logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers proselytize,
> >> > intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on those who
> >> > simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot account for
> >> > all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in religion
> >> > instead
> >> > of politics.
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > - Philip
> >> >
> >> >
> >> In other words, if you can't account for something through
> >> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
> >> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
> >> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
> >> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts will
> >> be
> >> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds like
> >> a good plan.
> >
> > Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're beaten.....Move-on......org
> > --
> >
> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly replying to
> post that your not smart enough to participate in. At least Phillip gives an
> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.

Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
--

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
>>>>>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
>>>>>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
>>>>>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
>>>>>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
>>>>>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>>>>>> own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>
>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>
>>>>> snip<
>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>
>>>>> quote:
>>>>> Secularist
>>>>> n.
>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>>> element.
>>>>>
>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>> unquote
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>
>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>
>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for
>>>> by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>> proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief
>>>> system on those who simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible
>>>> facts cannot account for all that is the Universe and that morality
>>>> is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> - Philip
>>>>
>>>>
>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>>> will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned.
>>> Sounds like a good plan.
>>
>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is required
>> in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do
>> not know with secular certainty that the pavement will support the
>> weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound .... witness
>> the sink holes under roadways in southern California right now. Do
>> you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>> --
>>
>> - Philip
>
> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
> beliefs insead
> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
> explain why the sun
> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports ignorance.
> It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just keep them out of
> politics and science, to do so just perverts both.

ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular humanism. Look it
up. Learn about your seducer.

Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first. A baby
goes about this process as does the adult. Study human behavior. As for
your naive conclusion, politics IS little more than beliefs and science is
riddled with postulations.
--

- Philip

diel@spam.com wrote:
> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
>>>>>>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that
>>>>>>>>>> are the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor
>>>>>>>>>> free virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with
>>>>>>>> 40
>>>>>>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
>>>>>>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>>>>>>> own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll
>>>>>>> see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>
>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>
>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>> n.
>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>>>> element.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>> for by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>> proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief
>>>>> system on those who simply accept that logic, reason, and
>>>>> tangible facts cannot account for all that is the Universe and
>>>>> that morality is rooted in religion instead
>>>>> of politics.
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>>>> will be
>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds like
>>>> a good plan.
>>>
>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
>>>
>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in. At
>> least Phillip gives an argument and I can respect that, you are just
>> a dumbass.
>
> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.

As long as ToMh refrains from further name calling, you won't have to send
him to the Naughty Rug. ;-)
--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
>>>>>>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
>>>>>>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
>>>>>>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
>>>>>>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
>>>>>>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>>>>>>> own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
>>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>
>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>
>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>> n.
>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>>>> element.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for
>>>>> by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>> proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief
>>>>> system on those who simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible
>>>>> facts cannot account for all that is the Universe and that morality
>>>>> is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>>>> will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned.
>>>> Sounds like a good plan.
>>>
>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is required
>>> in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do
>>> not know with secular certainty that the pavement will support the
>>> weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound .... witness
>>> the sink holes under roadways in southern California right now. Do
>>> you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>>> --
>>>
>>> - Philip
>>
>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
>> beliefs insead
>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>> explain why the sun
>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports ignorance.
>> It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just keep them out of
>> politics and science, to do so just perverts both.
>
> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular humanism. Look
> it up. Learn about your seducer.
>

I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.


> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first. A baby
> goes about this process as does the adult. Study human behavior. As for
> your naive conclusion, politics IS little more than beliefs and science is
> riddled with postulations.
> --
>
Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even begin to
compare science with religion.

<diel@spam.com> wrote in message
news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>> > In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>> > "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> >> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> >> > Gord Beaman wrote:
>> >> >> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>> >> >> --cut--
>> >> >>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
>> >> >>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
>> >> >>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
>> >> >>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>> >> >>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith then
>> >> >>>> it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
>> >> >>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
>> >> >>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>> >> >>> own
>> >> >>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see how
>> >> >>> disconnected you post appears to me.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>> >> >> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>> >> >> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>> >> >
>> >> > Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>> >> >
>> >> >>snip<
>> >> >> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> quote:
>> >> >> Secularist
>> >> >> n.
>> >> >> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>> >> >> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>> >> >> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>> >> >> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>> >> >> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>> >> >> element.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>> >> >> should be excluded from government and education
>> >> >> unquote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>> >> >
>> >> > Now that you know, we shall continue.
>> >> >
>> >> > Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for
>> >> > by
>> >> > logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>> >> > proselytize,
>> >> > intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on those
>> >> > who
>> >> > simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot account
>> >> > for
>> >> > all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in religion
>> >> > instead
>> >> > of politics.
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> > - Philip
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>> >> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>> >> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>> >> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>> >> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>> >> will
>> >> be
>> >> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds like
>> >> a good plan.
>> >
>> > Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're beaten.....Move-on......org
>> > --
>> >
>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly replying to
>> post that your not smart enough to participate in. At least Phillip gives
>> an
>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
>
> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
> --
>
Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no free
>>>>>>>>>>> lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with
>>>>>>>>> 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of
>>>>>>>>> some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>>>>>>>> own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll
>>>>>>>> see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>>>>> element.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>> for by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>> proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief
>>>>>> system on those who simply accept that logic, reason, and
>>>>>> tangible facts cannot account for all that is the Universe and
>>>>>> that morality is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>>>>> will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned.
>>>>> Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>
>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is required
>>>> in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do
>>>> not know with secular certainty that the pavement will support the
>>>> weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound ....
>>>> witness the sink holes under roadways in southern California right
>>>> now. Do you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> - Philip
>>>
>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
>>> beliefs insead
>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>> explain why the sun
>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports ignorance.
>>> It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just keep them out
>>> of politics and science, to do so just perverts both.
>>
>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular humanism. Look
>> it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>
>
> I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.
>
>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first.
>> A baby goes about this process as does the adult. Study human
>> behavior. As for your naive conclusion, politics IS little more
>> than beliefs and science is riddled with postulations.
>> --
>>
> Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even begin to
> compare science with religion.

That is quite false, ToMh. The secular humanism you ascribe to has all the
trapping of a religion and in the extreme ... a cult. You believe human
intelligence can know all. On this belief you proceed on faith in the hope
that those you trust are right. Problems and shortcomings abound because
your beliefs are politically based. So much for consistency.
--

- Philip

ToMh wrote:
> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no free
>>>>>>>>>>> lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with
>>>>>>>>> 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of
>>>>>>>>> some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
>>>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>>>>> element.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>> for by
>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>> proselytize,
>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on
>>>>>> those who
>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
>>>>>> account for
>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in religion
>>>>>> instead
>>>>>> of politics.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>>>>> will
>>>>> be
>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
>>>>> like a good plan.
>>>>
>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
>>>>
>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in. At
>>> least Phillip gives an
>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
>>
>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>> --
>>
> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.

Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a religious person
when he cannot provide a provable, scientific accounting.

Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion and is the only
worldview allowed in the public schools. All other competing worldviews have
been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court and effectively eliminated
bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer), 1963 (the Bible), 1980 (Ten Commandments), and
1987 (God) .
--
- Philip

In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:eXNSd.4152$Ba3.1034@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no free
>>>>>>>>>>>> lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with
>>>>>>>>>> 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of
>>>>>>>>>> some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>>>>>>>>> own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll
>>>>>>>>> see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>>>>>> element.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>>> for by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>>> proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief
>>>>>>> system on those who simply accept that logic, reason, and
>>>>>>> tangible facts cannot account for all that is the Universe and
>>>>>>> that morality is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>>>>>> will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned.
>>>>>> Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is required
>>>>> in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do
>>>>> not know with secular certainty that the pavement will support the
>>>>> weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound ....
>>>>> witness the sink holes under roadways in southern California right
>>>>> now. Do you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> - Philip
>>>>
>>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
>>>> beliefs insead
>>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>>> explain why the sun
>>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports ignorance.
>>>> It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just keep them out
>>>> of politics and science, to do so just perverts both.
>>>
>>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular humanism. Look
>>> it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>>
>>
>> I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.
>>
>>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first.
>>> A baby goes about this process as does the adult. Study human
>>> behavior. As for your naive conclusion, politics IS little more
>>> than beliefs and science is riddled with postulations.
>>> --
>>>
>> Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even begin to
>> compare science with religion.
>
> That is quite false, ToMh. The secular humanism you ascribe to has all
> the trapping of a religion and in the extreme ... a cult. You believe
> human intelligence can know all. On this belief you proceed on faith in
> the hope that those you trust are right. Problems and shortcomings abound
> because your beliefs are politically based. So much for consistency.
> --
>
I don't believe that at all. I don't think human beings knows it all,
and probably never will, but we learn more every day and what we
do learn should not be discounted by religion which has no
basis in fact at all.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:fXNSd.4153$Ba3.1120@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no free
>>>>>>>>>>>> lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with
>>>>>>>>>> 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of
>>>>>>>>>> some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
>>>>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>>>>>> element.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>>> for by
>>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>>> proselytize,
>>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on
>>>>>>> those who
>>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
>>>>>>> account for
>>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in religion
>>>>>>> instead
>>>>>>> of politics.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
>>>>>> like a good plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
>>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
>>>>>
>>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
>>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in. At
>>>> least Phillip gives an
>>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
>>>
>>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>>> --
>>>
>> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.
>
> Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a religious person
> when he cannot provide a provable, scientific accounting.
>
> Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion and is the only
> worldview allowed in the public schools. All other competing worldviews
> have been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court and effectively
> eliminated bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer), 1963 (the Bible), 1980 (Ten
> Commandments), and 1987 (God) .
> --
> - Philip
>
> In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
> and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.
>
>
>

I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning tools,
that is why religion was created. Funny how conservatives keep bringing
up the 10 commandments who's first rule is to not kill, yet push war and
the death penalty and their right to kill people who mess with them.
I guess the new conservative 10 commands has an asterisk after the rules.

In article <oKLSd.8768$x53.2761@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

> >
> > Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>
> As long as ToMh refrains from further name calling, you won't have to send
> him to the Naughty Rug. ;-)

Easy to get old tom to cuss and swear LOL>>
--

In article <381p59F5kfaqeU1@individual.net>,
"ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:fXNSd.4153$Ba3.1120@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> > ToMh wrote:
> >> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
> >> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
> >>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
> >>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> >>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> --cut--
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
> >>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no free
> >>>>>>>>>>>> lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either I think)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
> >>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
> >>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with
> >>>>>>>>>> 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of
> >>>>>>>>>> some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
> >>>>>>>>> own
> >>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
> >>>>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
> >>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
> >>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> snip<
> >>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> quote:
> >>>>>>>> Secularist
> >>>>>>>> n.
> >>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
> >>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
> >>>>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
> >>>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
> >>>>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
> >>>>>>>> element.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
> >>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
> >>>>>>>> unquote
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
> >>>>>>> for by
> >>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
> >>>>>>> proselytize,
> >>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on
> >>>>>>> those who
> >>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
> >>>>>>> account for
> >>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in religion
> >>>>>>> instead
> >>>>>>> of politics.
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Philip
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
> >>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
> >>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
> >>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
> >>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
> >>>>>> will
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
> >>>>>> like a good plan.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
> >>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
> >>>>>
> >>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
> >>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in. At
> >>>> least Phillip gives an
> >>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
> >>>
> >>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
> >>> --
> >>>
> >> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.
> >
> > Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a religious person
> > when he cannot provide a provable, scientific accounting.
> >
> > Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion and is the only
> > worldview allowed in the public schools. All other competing worldviews
> > have been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court and effectively
> > eliminated bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer), 1963 (the Bible), 1980 (Ten
> > Commandments), and 1987 (God) .
> > --
> > - Philip
> >
> > In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
> > and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning tools,
> that is why religion was created. Funny how conservatives keep bringing
> up the 10 commandments who's first rule is to not kill, yet push war and
> the death penalty and their right to kill people who mess with them.
> I guess the new conservative 10 commands has an asterisk after the rules.
>

Old tom is so easy to dissect. We know where he's coming from, THE
LEFT, LOL.
--

diel@spam.com wrote:
> In article <oKLSd.8768$x53.2761@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.n et>,
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>>
>> As long as ToMh refrains from further name calling, you won't have
>> to send him to the Naughty Rug. ;-)
>
> Easy to get old tom to cuss and swear LOL>>

Cursing and general coarseness is simply a stress indicator. ;-)
--

- Philip

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:eXNSd.4152$Ba3.1034@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking
>>>>>>>>>>> with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens
>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee
>>>>>>>>>>> now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>>> your own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up,
>>>>>>>>>> you'll see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>>> life; also, one who believes that education and other matters
>>>>>>>>> of civil policy should be managed without the introduction of
>>>>>>>>> a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>>>> for by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular
>>>>>>>> believers proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force
>>>>>>>> their belief system on those who simply accept that logic,
>>>>>>>> reason, and tangible facts cannot account for all that is the
>>>>>>>> Universe and
>>>>>>>> that morality is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>> facts will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be
>>>>>>> questioned. Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is
>>>>>> required in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on
>>>>>> faith. You do not know with secular certainty that the pavement will
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> the weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound ....
>>>>>> witness the sink holes under roadways in southern California
>>>>>> right now. Do you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
>>>>> beliefs insead
>>>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>>>> explain why the sun
>>>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports
>>>>> ignorance. It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just
>>>>> keep them out of politics and science, to do so just perverts both.
>>>>
>>>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular
>>>> humanism. Look it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.
>>>
>>>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first.
>>>> A baby goes about this process as does the adult. Study human
>>>> behavior. As for your naive conclusion, politics IS little more
>>>> than beliefs and science is riddled with postulations.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>> Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even begin
>>> to compare science with religion.
>>
>> That is quite false, ToMh. The secular humanism you ascribe to has
>> all the trapping of a religion and in the extreme ... a cult. You
>> believe human intelligence can know all. On this belief you proceed
>> on faith in the hope that those you trust are right. Problems and
>> shortcomings abound because your beliefs are politically based. So
>> much for consistency. --
>>
> I don't believe that at all. I don't think human beings knows it all,
> and probably never will, but we learn more every day and what we
> do learn should not be discounted by religion which has no
> basis in fact at all.

Ahhh. But secularism believes that all is knowable. I would like to delve
into the basis for your continued assertion that religion has no basis.

What do you make of these affirmations from the secular humanist manifesto?

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not
created.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human
personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and
fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's
social passion.
--

- Philip

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:fXNSd.4153$Ba3.1120@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking
>>>>>>>>>>> with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens
>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee
>>>>>>>>>>> now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>>> your own
>>>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
>>>>>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>>> life; also, one who believes that education and other matters
>>>>>>>>> of civil policy should be managed without the introduction of
>>>>>>>>> a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>>>> for by
>>>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>>>> proselytize,
>>>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on
>>>>>>>> those who
>>>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
>>>>>>>> account for
>>>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in
>>>>>>>> religion instead
>>>>>>>> of politics.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>> facts will
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
>>>>>>> like a good plan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
>>>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
>>>>>>
>>>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
>>>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in. At
>>>>> least Phillip gives an
>>>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
>>>>
>>>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.
>>
>> Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a religious
>> person when he cannot provide a provable, scientific accounting.
>>
>> Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion and is the
>> only worldview allowed in the public schools. All other competing
>> worldviews have been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court and
>> effectively eliminated bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer), 1963 (the
>> Bible), 1980 (Ten Commandments), and 1987 (God) .
>> --
>> - Philip
>>
>> In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
>> and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning
> tools, that is why religion was created. Funny how conservatives keep
> bringing up the 10 commandments who's first rule is to not kill, yet
> push war and the death penalty and their right to kill people who
> mess with them. I guess the new conservative 10 commands has an
> asterisk after the rules.

More ignorance on your part. But you are not to blame, exactly. The sixth
commandment reads, "Thou shall not kill." The New International Version
translates it, "Thou shall not murder." This is more accurate because the
Hebrew word so translated does not refer to killing in general but to
malicious and unlawful killing.
Neither accidental killing (Numbers 35:22-25) nor justifiable homicide (Ex.
22:2) are a breaking of the sixth commandment. Neither killing in war nor
capital punishment are necessarily forbidden in this commandment since God
required both in certain cases (Ex.21:12). So the preferred translation is,
"You shall not murder."

--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:1tQSd.4252$Ba3.1953@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:fXNSd.4153$Ba3.1120@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking
>>>>>>>>>>>> with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee
>>>>>>>>>>>> now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>>>> your own
>>>>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
>>>>>>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>>>> life; also, one who believes that education and other matters
>>>>>>>>>> of civil policy should be managed without the introduction of
>>>>>>>>>> a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>>>>> for by
>>>>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>>>>> proselytize,
>>>>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on
>>>>>>>>> those who
>>>>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
>>>>>>>>> account for
>>>>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in
>>>>>>>>> religion instead
>>>>>>>>> of politics.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>>> facts will
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
>>>>>>>> like a good plan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
>>>>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
>>>>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in. At
>>>>>> least Phillip gives an
>>>>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
>>>>>
>>>>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.
>>>
>>> Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a religious
>>> person when he cannot provide a provable, scientific accounting.
>>>
>>> Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion and is the
>>> only worldview allowed in the public schools. All other competing
>>> worldviews have been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court and
>>> effectively eliminated bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer), 1963 (the
>>> Bible), 1980 (Ten Commandments), and 1987 (God) .
>>> --
>>> - Philip
>>>
>>> In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
>>> and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning
>> tools, that is why religion was created. Funny how conservatives keep
>> bringing up the 10 commandments who's first rule is to not kill, yet
>> push war and the death penalty and their right to kill people who
>> mess with them. I guess the new conservative 10 commands has an
>> asterisk after the rules.
>
> More ignorance on your part. But you are not to blame, exactly. The sixth
> commandment reads, "Thou shall not kill." The New International Version
> translates it, "Thou shall not murder." This is more accurate because the
> Hebrew word so translated does not refer to killing in general but to
> malicious and unlawful killing.
> Neither accidental killing (Numbers 35:22-25) nor justifiable homicide
> (Ex. 22:2) are a breaking of the sixth commandment. Neither killing in war
> nor capital punishment are necessarily forbidden in this commandment since
> God required both in certain cases (Ex.21:12). So the preferred
> translation is, "You shall not murder."
>
> --
>
> - Philip
>

How convenient.

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:1tQSd.4250$Ba3.531@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:eXNSd.4152$Ba3.1034@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking
>>>>>>>>>>>> with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee
>>>>>>>>>>>> now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>>>> your own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up,
>>>>>>>>>>> you'll see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>>>> life; also, one who believes that education and other matters
>>>>>>>>>> of civil policy should be managed without the introduction of
>>>>>>>>>> a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>>>>> for by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular
>>>>>>>>> believers proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force
>>>>>>>>> their belief system on those who simply accept that logic,
>>>>>>>>> reason, and tangible facts cannot account for all that is the
>>>>>>>>> Universe and
>>>>>>>>> that morality is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>>> facts will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be
>>>>>>>> questioned. Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is
>>>>>>> required in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on
>>>>>>> faith. You do not know with secular certainty that the pavement will
>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>> the weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound ....
>>>>>>> witness the sink holes under roadways in southern California
>>>>>>> right now. Do you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
>>>>>> beliefs insead
>>>>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>>>>> explain why the sun
>>>>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports
>>>>>> ignorance. It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just
>>>>>> keep them out of politics and science, to do so just perverts both.
>>>>>
>>>>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular
>>>>> humanism. Look it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.
>>>>
>>>>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first.
>>>>> A baby goes about this process as does the adult. Study human
>>>>> behavior. As for your naive conclusion, politics IS little more
>>>>> than beliefs and science is riddled with postulations.
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>> Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even begin
>>>> to compare science with religion.
>>>
>>> That is quite false, ToMh. The secular humanism you ascribe to has
>>> all the trapping of a religion and in the extreme ... a cult. You
>>> believe human intelligence can know all. On this belief you proceed
>>> on faith in the hope that those you trust are right. Problems and
>>> shortcomings abound because your beliefs are politically based. So
>>> much for consistency. --
>>>
>> I don't believe that at all. I don't think human beings knows it all,
>> and probably never will, but we learn more every day and what we
>> do learn should not be discounted by religion which has no
>> basis in fact at all.
>
> Ahhh. But secularism believes that all is knowable. I would like to delve
> into the basis for your continued assertion that religion has no basis.
>
> What do you make of these affirmations from the secular humanist
> manifesto?
>

I have know idea what a secular manifest is. Sounds like something
the religious types made up. In any case I have not nor know of anybody
that subscribes to this so called secular manifest that in your opinion
makes man
God. I never said religion has no basis, it just has no basis in fact.

> FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not
> created.
>
Good for them, why is this any less relevant than your fictional accounts?

> EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human
> personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and
> fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's
> social passion.
> --

So what, it has more merit as any fictitous religous belief.

>
> - Philip


>
>
>

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:1tQSd.4252$Ba3.1953@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:fXNSd.4153$Ba3.1120@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government legislation. Gotta make sure you include them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> frolicking with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>> heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>>>>> your own
>>>>>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll
>>>>>>>>>>>> see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>>>>> life; also, one who believes that education and other
>>>>>>>>>>> matters of civil policy should be managed without the
>>>>>>>>>>> introduction
>>>>>>>>>>> of a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that
>>>>>>>>>>> religion should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be
>>>>>>>>>> accounted for by
>>>>>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>>>>>> proselytize,
>>>>>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on
>>>>>>>>>> those who
>>>>>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
>>>>>>>>>> account for
>>>>>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in
>>>>>>>>>> religion instead
>>>>>>>>>> of politics.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>>>> facts will
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
>>>>>>>>> like a good plan.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
>>>>>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
>>>>>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in.
>>>>>>> At least Phillip gives an
>>>>>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.
>>>>
>>>> Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a religious
>>>> person when he cannot provide a provable, scientific accounting.
>>>>
>>>> Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion and is the
>>>> only worldview allowed in the public schools. All other competing
>>>> worldviews have been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court and
>>>> effectively eliminated bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer), 1963 (the
>>>> Bible), 1980 (Ten Commandments), and 1987 (God) .
>>>> --
>>>> - Philip
>>>>
>>>> In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
>>>> and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning
>>> tools, that is why religion was created. Funny how conservatives
>>> keep bringing up the 10 commandments who's first rule is to not
>>> kill, yet push war and the death penalty and their right to kill
>>> people who mess with them. I guess the new conservative 10 commands has
>>> an
>>> asterisk after the rules.
>>
>> More ignorance on your part. But you are not to blame, exactly. The
>> sixth commandment reads, "Thou shall not kill." The New
>> International Version translates it, "Thou shall not murder." This
>> is more accurate because the Hebrew word so translated does not
>> refer to killing in general but to malicious and unlawful killing.
>> Neither accidental killing (Numbers 35:22-25) nor justifiable
>> homicide (Ex. 22:2) are a breaking of the sixth commandment. Neither
>> killing in war nor capital punishment are necessarily forbidden in
>> this commandment since God required both in certain cases
>> (Ex.21:12). So the preferred translation is, "You shall not murder."
>>
>> --
>>
>> - Philip
>>
>
> How convenient.

Well ... like I said. You are not to blame up until now. Your viewpoints
are the result of taking religion out of public schools. The result are
people who think like you do ridiculing a long established belief system of
which you know little. So ... you've just lost another factual argument
with a religious person. Are you done?
--

- Philip

ToMh wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:1tQSd.4250$Ba3.531@newsread2.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:eXNSd.4152$Ba3.1034@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>> news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government legislation. Gotta make sure you include them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> frolicking with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>> heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee
>>>>>>>>>>>>> now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>>>>> your own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>>>>> life; also, one who believes that education and other
>>>>>>>>>>> matters of civil policy should be managed without the
>>>>>>>>>>> introduction
>>>>>>>>>>> of a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that
>>>>>>>>>>> religion should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be
>>>>>>>>>> accounted for by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These
>>>>>>>>>> secular believers proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means
>>>>>>>>>> force
>>>>>>>>>> their belief system on those who simply accept that logic,
>>>>>>>>>> reason, and tangible facts cannot account for all that is the
>>>>>>>>>> Universe and
>>>>>>>>>> that morality is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>>>> facts will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be
>>>>>>>>> questioned. Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is
>>>>>>>> required in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on
>>>>>>>> faith. You do not know with secular certainty that the
>>>>>>>> pavement will support
>>>>>>>> the weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound
>>>>>>>> .... witness the sink holes under roadways in southern
>>>>>>>> California right now. Do you consider yourself a religious person,
>>>>>>>> ToMh?
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown
>>>>>>> with beliefs insead
>>>>>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>>>>>> explain why the sun
>>>>>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports
>>>>>>> ignorance. It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just
>>>>>>> keep them out of politics and science, to do so just perverts
>>>>>>> both.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular
>>>>>> humanism. Look it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates
>>>>>> first. A baby goes about this process as does the adult. Study human
>>>>>> behavior. As for your naive conclusion, politics IS little more
>>>>>> than beliefs and science is riddled with postulations.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>> Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even
>>>>> begin to compare science with religion.
>>>>
>>>> That is quite false, ToMh. The secular humanism you ascribe to has
>>>> all the trapping of a religion and in the extreme ... a cult. You
>>>> believe human intelligence can know all. On this belief you proceed
>>>> on faith in the hope that those you trust are right. Problems and
>>>> shortcomings abound because your beliefs are politically based. So
>>>> much for consistency. --
>>>>
>>> I don't believe that at all. I don't think human beings knows it
>>> all, and probably never will, but we learn more every day and what
>>> we do learn should not be discounted by religion which has no
>>> basis in fact at all.
>>
>> Ahhh. But secularism believes that all is knowable. I would like to
>> delve into the basis for your continued assertion that religion has
>> no basis. What do you make of these affirmations from the secular
>> humanist
>> manifesto?
>>
>
> I have know idea what a secular manifest is. Sounds like something the
> religious types made up.

I sensed you did not. There IS such a thing and it has 15 tenants written
colaberatively by it's founders.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html.

> In any case I have not nor know of
> anybody that subscribes to this so called secular manifest that in
> your opinion makes man
> God. I never said religion has no basis, it just has no basis in fact.
>
>> FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and
>> not created.
>>
> Good for them, why is this any less relevant than your fictional
> accounts?
>> EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of
>> human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its
>> development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the
>> explanation of the humanist's social passion.
>> --
>
> So what, it has more merit as any fictitous religous belief.
>
>>
>> - Philip

ToMh. The Dead Sea Scrolls ... the archive Catacombs of Rome ... these
sources and more document much of the historic mentions in the Bible and
Tora. But I see that you must save face by clinging and defending the
indefensible ... that all of religion is bunk ... except your own.

I'll let you have the final word. There is no debate with an person so
ignorant on the subject.
--

- Philip

"ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> ToMh wrote:
>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those lunatics
>>>>>>>>>>> whose religion teaches them to either convert or kill that are
>>>>>>>>>>> the ones who I object to. There ain't no free lunch (nor free
>>>>>>>>>>> virgins for killing heathens either I think)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking with 40
>>>>>>>>> nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people of some
>>>>>>>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in your
>>>>>>>> own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll see
>>>>>>>> how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only the
>>>>>>> facts and influences which are derived from the present life;
>>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of civil
>>>>>>> policy should be managed without the introduction of a religious
>>>>>>> element.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted for
>>>>>> by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>> proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief
>>>>>> system on those who simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible
>>>>>> facts cannot account for all that is the Universe and that morality
>>>>>> is rooted in religion instead of politics.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those facts
>>>>> will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned.
>>>>> Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>
>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is required
>>>> in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do
>>>> not know with secular certainty that the pavement will support the
>>>> weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound .... witness
>>>> the sink holes under roadways in southern California right now. Do
>>>> you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> - Philip
>>>
>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
>>> beliefs insead
>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>> explain why the sun
>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports ignorance.
>>> It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just keep them out of
>>> politics and science, to do so just perverts both.
>>
>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular humanism. Look
>> it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>
>
>I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.
>
>
>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first. A baby
>> goes about this process as does the adult. Study human behavior. As for
>> your naive conclusion, politics IS little more than beliefs and science is
>> riddled with postulations.
>> --
>>
>Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even begin to
>compare science with religion.
>

And the very fact that he tries to is proof positive that he's
not using his noggin...a pregnant virgin?...a walking talking
corpse?...the sun 'dancing across the sky'?

I'm really disappointed in Philip, I really thought that he was
smarter than that...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

<diel@spam.com> wrote:

>Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>--

<snort>
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:oKLSd.8767$x53.6547@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:MuJSd.8685$x53.8481@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert or
>>>>>>>>>>>> kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't no
>>>>>>>>>>>> free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either I
>>>>>>>>>>>> think)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by government
>>>>>>>>>>> legislation. Gotta make sure you include them on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular faith
>>>>>>>>>> then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be frolicking
>>>>>>>>>> with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few heathens (people
>>>>>>>>>> of some
>>>>>>>>>> faith other than yours)?... well...lessee now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> own words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll
>>>>>>>>> see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>> life;
>>>>>>>> also, one who believes that education and other matters of
>>>>>>>> civil policy should be managed without the introduction of a
>>>>>>>> religious element.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that religion
>>>>>>>> should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be accounted
>>>>>>> for by logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular
>>>>>>> believers proselytize, intimidate, and thru legal means force
>>>>>>> their belief system on those who simply accept that logic,
>>>>>>> reason, and tangible facts cannot account for all that is the
>>>>>>> Universe and that morality is rooted in religion instead of
>>>>>>> politics. --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>> facts will be ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be
>>>>>> questioned.
>>>>>> Sounds like a good plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Filling in the unknown and the unknowable with 'belief' is
>>>>> required
>>>>> in order to proceed. You drive down the highway on faith. You do
>>>>> not know with secular certainty that the pavement will support the
>>>>> weight of your car at any given moment. Examples abound ....
>>>>> witness the sink holes under roadways in southern California
>>>>> right now. Do
>>>>> you consider yourself a religious person, ToMh?
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> - Philip
>>>>
>>>> No, you replace facts with belief, and filling in the unkown with
>>>> beliefs insead
>>>> of finding out the truth is no different than creating gods to
>>>> explain why the sun
>>>> moves across the sky. It makes no sense and only supports
>>>> ignorance. It's alright to have faith and personal beliefs, just
>>>> keep them out of politics and science, to do so just perverts both.
>>>
>>> ToMh ... indeed your thinking has been seduced by secular humanism.
>>> Look it up. Learn about your seducer.
>>>
>>
>> I'll take secular humanism over mythology and ignorance any day.
>>
>>
>>> Beliefs are formed ... followed by discovery. One postulates first.
>>> A baby goes about this process as does the adult. Study human
>>> behavior. As for your naive conclusion, politics IS little more
>>> than beliefs and science is riddled with postulations.
>>> --
>>>
>> Religion is belief without proof whatsoever. You cannot even begin
>> to compare science with religion.
>>
>
> And the very fact that he tries to is proof positive that he's
> not using his noggin...a pregnant virgin?...a walking talking
> corpse?...the sun 'dancing across the sky'?
>
> I'm really disappointed in Philip, I really thought that he was
> smarter than that...

The uneducated Gord speaks from his dark side again.

It is known that the Hebrew Bible never mentions Mary being a virgin
(mistranslation from the Hebrew, the word is "young" and differs by a
letter) this fact is often disregarded by the Roman Catholic Church and
Christianity as a whole. There are two Hebrew words which are usually
translated as 'virgin' (or 'parthenos' in the Greek) - 'Bethulah' and
'Almah'. Bethulah definitely indicates a virgin, whereas Almah most
often means a young girl, depending on context.

--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

huge snip...(I was wearing my scroll wheel out...)

>
>Well ... like I said. You are not to blame up until now. Your viewpoints
>are the result of taking religion out of public schools. The result are
>people who think like you do ridiculing a long established belief system of
>which you know little. So ... you've just lost another factual argument
>with a religious person. Are you done?

You see him lose anything here?...I certainly didn't...so answer
me this Philip, why has a democratic gov't taken religion out of
schools?...I'll tell you, it's because people are starting to
question some of religion's ethics. For instance what do you
tell a bright kid who asks his teacher, 'How can it be possible
for a virgin woman to produce a child?' or "How can a human man
become alive, walk around and talk after he's been killed?'

They answer 'Well, you must have faith' and 'Well, God wrote it
in his book, the bible, so we mustn't question it'. What's a
bright kid to think?...you know and I know too...

And, don't use that crap that you used on ToMh about the 'long
established belief system',,,I'm a helluva lot older than you are
so I've lived with that system lots longer that you...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Gord Beaman wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>
> huge snip...(I was wearing my scroll wheel out...)

Well, Windows users usually know how to place the cursor over the verticle
slide bar in the lighter grey area and hold down the Left mouse button.

>> Well ... like I said. You are not to blame up until now. Your
>> viewpoints are the result of taking religion out of public schools.
>> The result are people who think like you do ridiculing a long
>> established belief system of which you know little. So ... you've
>> just lost another factual argument with a religious person. Are you
>> done?
>
> You see him lose anything here?...I certainly didn't...so answer
> me this Philip, why has a democratic gov't taken religion out of
> schools?

The answer is very similar to way your healthcare system became a
burgeoning, expensive, bureaucratic, social entitlement. Leftists made
their way into positions of public policy making. These people know they
can't get their agenda past the voters so they get their way by passing laws
that the public never get to vote on. We The People have in our Constitution
the Right to redress government. The pendulum swings the other way after an
excess has occurred ... and you're seeing it now.
--

- Philip



....I'll tell you, it's because people are starting to
> question some of religion's ethics. For instance what do you
> tell a bright kid who asks his teacher, 'How can it be possible
> for a virgin woman to produce a child?' or "How can a human man
> become alive, walk around and talk after he's been killed?'
>
> They answer 'Well, you must have faith' and 'Well, God wrote it
> in his book, the bible, so we mustn't question it'. What's a
> bright kid to think?...you know and I know too...
>
> And, don't use that crap that you used on ToMh about the 'long
> established belief system',,,I'm a helluva lot older than you are
> so I've lived with that system lots longer that you...

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:grSSd.9149$x53.8844@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> ToMh wrote:
>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>> news:1tQSd.4252$Ba3.1953@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>> news:fXNSd.4153$Ba3.1120@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>> ToMh wrote:
>>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:diel-427517.12310022022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>>> In article <381a4fF5i3k9oU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <diel@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:diel-603BEF.11061922022005@zeus-ge0.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>>>>>>>>> In article <38120cF5iteboU1@individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>> "ToMh" <te-elh@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:EqWRd.6334$x53.5954@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> Gord Beaman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> --cut--
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you to a certain point Nat...it's those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lunatics whose religion teaches them to either convert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or kill that are the ones who I object to. There ain't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no free lunch (nor free virgins for killing heathens either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup, it's those lunatic secularists. Convert by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government legislation. Gotta make sure you include them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your list.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see...so you think that if you're of some particular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frolicking with 40 nubile virgins after you kill a few
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heathens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (people of some faith other than yours)?... well...lessee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now...humm...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any clue as to what secularism is? Tell me in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your own
>>>>>>>>>>>>> words. We'll go from there. After you look it up, you'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>> see how disconnected you post appears to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -I'm- disconnected?...it was YOU who brought up 'lunatic
>>>>>>>>>>>> secularists'... I said "it's those lunatics whose religion
>>>>>>>>>>>> teaches them to either convert or kill that are..." .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Secularism is a "religion" to its strict followers.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> snip<
>>>>>>>>>>>> Btw, here's the meaning of secularist:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> quote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Secularist
>>>>>>>>>>>> n.
>>>>>>>>>>>> One who theoretically rejects every form of religious
>>>>>>>>>>>> faith, and every kind of religious worship, and accepts only
>>>>>>>>>>>> the facts and influences which are derived from the present
>>>>>>>>>>>> life; also, one who believes that education and other
>>>>>>>>>>>> matters of civil policy should be managed without the
>>>>>>>>>>>> introduction
>>>>>>>>>>>> of a religious element.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> an advocate of secularism; someone who believes that
>>>>>>>>>>>> religion should be excluded from government and education
>>>>>>>>>>>> unquote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds about right to me...you have other ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now that you know, we shall continue.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Secularists have a core belief that everything can be
>>>>>>>>>>> accounted for by
>>>>>>>>>>> logic, reason, and tangible facts. These secular believers
>>>>>>>>>>> proselytize,
>>>>>>>>>>> intimidate, and thru legal means force their belief system on
>>>>>>>>>>> those who
>>>>>>>>>>> simply accept that logic, reason, and tangible facts cannot
>>>>>>>>>>> account for
>>>>>>>>>>> all that is the Universe and that morality is rooted in
>>>>>>>>>>> religion instead
>>>>>>>>>>> of politics.
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, if you can't account for something through
>>>>>>>>>> logic and reason and facts, then we should fill in the blanks
>>>>>>>>>> with some religion's mythology. Of course it should be
>>>>>>>>>> "Your" religion since that is the only correct one,
>>>>>>>>>> and if the facts get in the way of that religion, then those
>>>>>>>>>> facts will
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> ignored, since the "word of God" cannot be questioned. Sounds
>>>>>>>>>> like a good plan.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why not just give it up Tom old boy, you're
>>>>>>>>> beaten.....Move-on......org --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only in your small ignorant mind. Why don't you quite blindly
>>>>>>>> replying to post that your not smart enough to participate in.
>>>>>>>> At least Phillip gives an
>>>>>>>> argument and I can respect that, you are just a dumbass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Face facts tom old boy you're WHIPPED and whipped good.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Explain how? Religous people are incapable of arguing facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the secular humanist becomes amazingly similar to a religious
>>>>> person when he cannot provide a provable, scientific accounting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Secular Humanism is our government's sanctioned religion and is the
>>>>> only worldview allowed in the public schools. All other competing
>>>>> worldviews have been declared illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court and
>>>>> effectively eliminated bit by bit -- 1962 (prayer), 1963 (the
>>>>> Bible), 1980 (Ten Commandments), and 1987 (God) .
>>>>> --
>>>>> - Philip
>>>>>
>>>>> In spite of wars, pestilence, Great Floods, volcanoes,
>>>>> and celestial collisions, the Earth and Mankind persist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem using the parables of religion as moral learning
>>>> tools, that is why religion was created. Funny how conservatives
>>>> keep bringing up the 10 commandments who's first rule is to not
>>>> kill, yet push war and the death penalty and their right to kill
>>>> people who mess with them. I guess the new conservative 10 commands has
>>>> an
>>>> asterisk after the rules.
>>>
>>> More ignorance on your part. But you are not to blame, exactly. The
>>> sixth commandment reads, "Thou shall not kill." The New
>>> International Version translates it, "Thou shall not murder." This
>>> is more accurate because the Hebrew word so translated does not
>>> refer to killing in general but to malicious and unlawful killing.
>>> Neither accidental killing (Numbers 35:22-25) nor justifiable
>>> homicide (Ex. 22:2) are a breaking of the sixth commandment. Neither
>>> killing in war nor capital punishment are necessarily forbidden in
>>> this commandment since God required both in certain cases
>>> (Ex.21:12). So the preferred translation is, "You shall not murder."
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> - Philip
>>>
>>
>> How convenient.
>
> Well ... like I said. You are not to blame up until now. Your viewpoints
> are the result of taking religion out of public schools. The result are
> people who think like you do ridiculing a long established belief system
> of which you know little. So ... you've just lost another factual
> argument with a religious person. Are you done?
> --
>
> - Philip

I grew up Catholic and when to a Catholic school. I've gone to church the
majority of my life, first Catholic, then Episcopal, and then a non
denominational.
What factual argument did I lose? The fact that, as usual, you found some
passage
in the old testament to support your view and allow man to play god with
peoples lives. I have news for you, there are so many contradictions in the
bible,
anybody can justify anything they want. Why do you think there are so many
different version of Christianity? Go listen to some white supremacist quote
bible
verses that support their views.