[Dieter Bohn]

Originally posted by terrysalmi
BTW - My avator was done with no knowledge of Septimus' hideous thoughts and his avator. He probably copied it off mine.

yep.

I didn't want to take the time to photoshop the image, so I just used a crappy imager to reduce the size, hence the low-res look..

...serious, terrysalmi, them republicans did more damage in the few months they had all three houses than the Dems did all through the 90s.

Now dubya is trying to deflect attention from the congressional inquiry by changing his position on the office of homeland security. I liked it better when it was a do-nothing.. now we may have a third major intelligence agency that will have to keep reigned in--it will be twice as hard to these days and with this administration.

seriously, John Ashcroft is one scary dude. now we've got registration for immigrants, especially arab ones... didn't we learn anything from mcveigh and kazynski? To steal a joke (well, hopefully a joke)--"What's next, a star and crescent patch for all Arab Americans?"

(Where the hell has Tom Ridge been, anway--all the latest announcements about homeland security have been by muller or ashcroft...)

Would the dems be better. Probably. But again, we need frickin proportional representation in the house (if not the senate) and we need it almost as bad as we need 100% gov't financed national elections.

[Toby]

Originally posted by ****-richardson
I disagree. Mold and fungus have been used for great benefit for humanity.

Not the mushrooms I was thinking of (although some people like certain mushrooms that grow that way).

I'd guess something more along the lines of tsetse flies.

I could go along with that.

[Toby]

Originally posted by septimus
[...] Would the dems be better. Probably.

History doesn't agree. It tends to illustrate that they _both_ suck.

But again, we need frickin proportional representation in the house (if not the senate)

Proportional to _what_?

and we need it almost as bad as we need 100% gov't financed national elections.

Bah...just force the media to provide real debates. No financing required. They've made quite a lot of money off the 'public' airwaves to cover their expenses.

[BobbyMike]

Sorry it took so long to respond Toby, been very very busy. About to take another 'leap of faith' in our lives and have been working overtime to prepare the jump ramp.

"No, it's not. The parents are still directing the child's education. They're just not directing it to a foregone conclusion."

No, actually the school of unschooling is about complete lack of direction from the parent. The parent is secondary to the process. If the child never decides to read, that's ok. If the child never desires to learn math, that's ok. How can a child - without any overview - "know" what they will need in the future?

"That's the purpose of educating them in multiple foundations."

Explain what you mean by foundations. I'm not sure what you mean. Basic science is still basic science. As a kid interested in being an artist I certainly didn't think I needed to know formulas on finding volumes in a cylinder, but it sure came in handy when I had to cast my own glass furnace as an adult. Thank God some adult made me learn the basics. I'm just talking about children being taught the basics about math, science, art, literature, social studies, etc. in a guided way. If you give them such a foundation, children are quite capable of rising beyond their teachers and going to places of their own. Learning is built on the "shoulders of giants" and best works that way.

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they were able we would allow them to drink, drive, and own handguns (no jokes about Louisiana!).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense."

When I lived in Texas there were too many bad jokes about underage drinking, driving, etc. about Louisiana. No offense meant, I just didn't want to hear them again.

"ITYM until the kid picks mommy or daddy."

Doesn't necessarily have to work like that. I'm assuming the parents involved actually have a good relationship. If the parents can actually trust the kids to make a decision and not influence what's going on. It is very hard though, for a committed Christian to be married to a non-believer. Not impossible, but hard. Children will eventually ask the question of who's right/wrong. We can at least choose what religion, or not, we want to follow openly in this country. People can claim to be Wiccan (I've never actually understood that one since it seems to have sprung full blown from a mish mash of sources in the '70s-'80s) or what ever they want. Try calling your self a Christian in Sudan and see what that gets you. We are very lucky/blessed to be able to even discuss these issues. ( try visting www.thepersecutedchurch.org sometime for a real eyeopener)

"Why would it be confusing?"

The same reason Creationism and Darwins' Theory of Evolution can't coexist as absolute Truths - irreconcilible differences. There is also that little thing about consistency. If you show your child that all things are equal, and no one is wrong they will get a very skewed and confused view of the universe. The will never be prepared to trust themselves that there is a right and wrong. A direct link can be clearly made between all of the school shootings that have happened recently and a lack of clear and definitive direction from the parents involved. These were not stupid kids. They were children who could not get direction from the adults closest to them so they turned to media and distant ideas that had no moral compass. Confusion leads to chaos. Chaos is not good.

Must leave now....

[Toby]

Originally posted by BobbyMike
[...] No, actually the school of unschooling is about complete lack of direction from the parent.

I'm not talking about the 'school of unschooling'. I'm talking about giving one's child a well-rounded view of religion/spirituality/etc. The child doesn't get to direct things. The parent still directs them. The parent just doesn't decide what conclusion the kid will reach. IMO, people treat religion like people used to treat family businesses. "Well, daddy was always a plumber. His daddy was a plumber. I'm supposed to be one too."

The parent is secondary to the process. If the child never decides to read, that's ok. If the child never desires to learn math, that's ok. How can a child - without any overview - "know" what they will need in the future?

Doesn't that seem more like an argument _for_ my approach. I'm speaking directly _about_ giving them an overview. This isn't going to happen overnight.

Explain what you mean by foundations. I'm not sure what you mean.

Different people believe different things for a multitude of different reasons. Explaining why a certain religion defines a certain experience a certain way is interesting, IMO. Furthermore, there are a plethora of Bibles out there. Why are they different? The learning process behind that will no doubt be invaluable regardless of whether or not the child ever 'gets religion'.

Basic science is still basic science.

Sure, but there is no 'basic religion' really (outside of a particular culture).

As a kid interested in being an artist I certainly didn't think I needed to know formulas on finding volumes in a cylinder, but it sure came in handy when I had to cast my own glass furnace as an adult. Thank God some adult made me learn the basics. I'm just talking about children being taught the basics about math, science, art, literature, social studies, etc. in a guided way. If you give them such a foundation, children are quite capable of rising beyond their teachers and going to places of their own. Learning is built on the "shoulders of giants" and best works that way.

Then what exactly is the problem with the approach I suggested. It sounds like the exact same thing. I'm just suggesting that 'the basics' where religion is concerned are a bit more broad than what mommy and daddy do or don't believe.

When I lived in Texas there were too many bad jokes about underage drinking, driving, etc. about Louisiana. No offense meant, I just didn't want to hear them again.

We don't seem to have many Texans, here, though, so I'm not sure why you thought someone might bring it up.

Doesn't necessarily have to work like that.

If those are the only two options given, that's how the average kid will see it, IMO.

I'm assuming the parents involved actually have a good relationship. If the parents can actually trust the kids to make a decision and not influence what's going on.

I thought that you _were_ suggesting they influence what's going on.

It is very hard though, for a committed Christian to be married to a non-believer. Not impossible, but hard.

Why would it be hard? If the stories are true, those were _exactly_ the people that Jesus hung around.

Children will eventually ask the question of who's right/wrong.

Who _is_ right or wrong? ; )-<

We can at least choose what religion, or not, we want to follow openly in this country.

Can we? You ever observe anyone trying to follow an 'alternative' religion in a predominantly 'Christian' area? _That's_ hard.

People can claim to be Wiccan (I've never actually understood that one since it seems to have sprung full blown from a mish mash of sources in the '70s-'80s) or what ever they want.

Even 'Christian'.

Try calling your self a Christian in Sudan and see what that gets you.

Try calling yourself something other than Christian in rural Mississippi and see what it gets you.

We are very lucky/blessed to be able to even discuss these issues. ( try visting www.thepersecutedchurch.org sometime for a real eyeopener)

ITYM http://www.persecutedchurch.org. The other was an eye-opener, but rather because of the banner ads popping up. Regardless, I don't consider the real link an eye-opener. Such is the history of man. The dominant religion of a place almost always oppresses the lesser(s), whether it be by overt violence or more subtle means. That's what happens usually when one group considers themselves the followers of an enitity whose authority they consider above all else.

The same reason Creationism and Darwins' Theory of Evolution can't coexist as absolute Truths - irreconcilible differences.

There's the catch, though. I never said that the parents should treat _any_ of them as an absolute Truth. That's another reason why I never understood your categorizing science as just another religion. Science _has_ no universal truths (even evolution - no matter _whose_ theory - is still only a theory).

There is also that little thing about consistency. If you show your child that all things are equal, and no one is wrong they will get a very skewed and confused view of the universe.

I never stated that no one is wrong. However, the only way to find out which one (if any) is right, is to leave this plane. Until then, I say present the cases over a period of time, and let them work out which ever one will make them happy.

The will never be prepared to trust themselves that there is a right and wrong.

Right and wrong do not exist solely because of religion.

A direct link can be clearly made between all of the school shootings that have happened recently and a lack of clear and definitive direction from the parents involved.

I'm not saying that parents shouldn't be involved.

These were not stupid kids. They were children who could not get direction from the adults closest to them so they turned to media and distant ideas that had no moral compass.

Religion is not the One True Source of direction either.

Confusion leads to chaos. Chaos is not good.

But it's the basic state of the universe. If God created it or allowed it, it must serve his purpose.

[errqre]

Anyone read 'God's Debris'? Good book, even though the logic is hopelessly flawed. I've only seen it as an ebook at http://www.peanutpress.com/ , but I think it is worth the $. If nothing else, it can be used as a crutch in case one's own personal beliefs are unable to be argued cogently.

[Toby]

Originally posted by ****-richardson
Anyone read 'God's Debris'?

Not yet, although, it is on my list of future books.

Good book, even though the logic is hopelessly flawed.

Well, I won't really address that since I've not read it yet, but in case you weren't aware, it's written by Scott Adams (Dilbert creator), and although not directly intended as humor, it's not meant to be taken too seriously either.

I've only seen it as an ebook at http://www.peanutpress.com/ , but I think it is worth the $. If nothing else, it can be used as a crutch in case one's own personal beliefs are unable to be argued cogently.

No comment.

[errqre]

Originally posted by Toby
Well, I won't really address that since I've not read it yet, but in case you weren't aware, it's written by Scott Adams (Dilbert creator), and although not directly intended as humor, it's not meant to be taken too seriously either.

No, it's labelled as 'A Thought Experiment.' A logic test, if you will. I don't know if the fallacies I found were the ones he intended or not...

No comment.

I should think not, if you know what's good for you.

[Toby]

Originally posted by ****-richardson
No, it's labelled as 'A Thought Experiment.' A logic test, if you will.

Did he specifically say in the text that he equated 'thought experiment' with 'logic test'? Personally, I wouldn't consider the two phrases synonymous at all.

I don't know if the fallacies I found were the ones he intended or not...

Or maybe he was testing people to see if he could send them into a titter finding fallacies with his thought experiment? "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" - Joshua

I should think not, if you know what's good for you.

[errqre]

Originally posted by Toby
Did he specifically say in the text that he equated 'thought experiment' with 'logic test'? Personally, I wouldn't consider the two phrases synonymous at all.

No. I took it as such.

Or maybe he was testing people to see if he could send them into a titter finding fallacies with his thought experiment?

Could be. Sometimes, the best games are those that cannot be won. OTOH, sometimes, I think it's a sin when I feel like I'm winning when I'm losing again.

[BobbyMike]

"I'm not talking about the 'school of unschooling'. I'm talking about giving one's child a well-rounded view of religion/spirituality/etc. The child doesn't get to direct things. The parent still directs them. The parent just doesn't decide what conclusion the kid will reach. IMO, people treat religion like people used to treat family businesses. "Well, daddy was always a plumber. His daddy was a plumber. I'm supposed to be one too.""

I think we can probably agree that no-one can 'decide' what conclusion other people will reach. I was raised 'Presbyterian', but went way over to Eastern thought before settling on being Born Again through Christ. My parents aren't 'saved', neither are my in-laws. As to the latter part of your comment about religion/plumbing, I agree- but religion hides a multitude of sins- and doesn't necessarily mean a personal relationship with God.

"Doesn't that seem more like an argument _for_ my approach. I'm speaking directly _about_ giving them an overview. This isn't going to happen overnight." and "Different people believe different things for a multitude of different reasons. Explaining why a certain religion defines a certain experience a certain way is interesting, IMO. Furthermore, there are a plethora of Bibles out there. Why are they different? The learning process behind that will no doubt be invaluable regardless of whether or not the child ever 'gets religion'."

Overviews are great but they still come from a particular view. Telling your child that all views are right (whether in science or religion or politics or anything) will not give them a "great overview", it will just confuse them. A well rounded Christian education does explore the different Bibles available and explain their differences/similarities.

"Sure, but there is no 'basic religion' really (outside of a particular culture)."

I agree, I was using science not to compare to religion, but because I think science is a necessary part of a childs education, regardless of whether they want to study it.

"If those are the only two options given, that's how the average kid will see it, IMO."

Maybe you need to meet more kids.

"Then what exactly is the problem with the approach I suggested. It sounds like the exact same thing. I'm just suggesting that 'the basics' where religion is concerned are a bit more broad than what mommy and daddy do or don't believe."

ok, I think I agree with you.

"We don't seem to have many Texans, here, though, so I'm not sure why you thought someone might bring it up."

We have more than one, and I wasn't sure.

"I thought that you _were_ suggesting they influence what's going on."

No. I was saying that kids need consistency.

"Why would it be hard? If the stories are true, those were _exactly_ the people that Jesus hung around."

He 'hung' around the unsaved because he wanted to save them, not because he agreed with what they believed in. Either you're being disingenuous, or you actually didn't read for comprehension.

"Who _is_ right or wrong? ; )-< "

When you find out. please tell me

"Can we? You ever observe anyone trying to follow an 'alternative' religion in a predominantly 'Christian' area? _That's_ hard." and "Try calling yourself something other than Christian in rural Mississippi and see what it gets you."

Probably not a burning tire around your neck. We got it easy in this country.

"I don't consider the real link an eye-opener. Such is the history of man. The dominant religion of a place almost always oppresses the lesser(s), whether it be by overt violence or more subtle means. "

That is not only cavalier, but also a bit silly. This is not 13th Century France. We are supposed to be more civilized and in most ways we are. "Such is the history of man..." makes it sound like we should just accept that situation- exactly what Jesus said we shouldn't do. Relating death and torture to name-calling and someone being rude is just plain weak. I also refuse to believe that it's OK to be mean to anyone because of their beliefs. I don't need to say that they are right though. Regardless of what the ACLU, FBI, NAACP, NRA, or anyone else in 'a position of authority' tells me.

"That's another reason why I never understood your categorizing science as just another religion. Science _has_ no universal truths (even evolution - no matter _whose_ theory - is still only a theory)."

I'm sorry that you thought I was categorizing science as just another religion. Not what I meant to be doing. I was using science as a necessary element of education. The separate comparison between Creationism and Evolution was supposed to illustrate two incompatible beliefs. They are both theories that tons of people will fight over, regardless of the fact that neither one can/has been proven to be right.

"Right and wrong do not exist solely because of religion"

Although it could be said that religion exists because of right and wrong!

"I'm not saying that parents shouldn't be involved."

Just an illustration, not an implication that you believed any which way.

"Religion is not the One True Source of direction either."

I've said it before, I'll say it again- religion often gets in the way with a persons personal relationship with God. Religion often sucks.

"But it's the basic state of the universe. If God created it or allowed it, it must serve his purpose. "

Prove it!

Thanks again for being so willing (and able) to talk in a semi-rational way about things. Sometimes I feel like a pencil stuck in a sharpener when I'm responding to something that you wrote.

Then again, sometimes I feel like a pound of beef stuck in a meat grinder!

[NeilMcD]

wow. The breadth of conversation in this particular topic has been mesmerizing.

I see valid points from Toby, Joshua, and Bobbymike. I think, as with many things in life, the ultimate answer is "it depends."

Everyone knows that every child is different. The boy is now 8 months old so it's not like he can readily communicate (although he does sign a few words but that's mostly copying mom and dad).

There are some children that have a NEED to be told what to do/believe. It isn't a reflection on how Mom and Dad have raised them. It's simply a reflection on how they perceive their own world.

There are also some children who take in information like a sponge, process it, and arrive to a conclusion. This is what I was like growing up and this is what I hope my son is like when he gets older.

[Toby]

Originally posted by BobbyMike
[...] My parents aren't 'saved', neither are my in-laws.

As a committed Christian, can you still associate with them?

Overviews are great but they still come from a particular view.

Give me an agnostic view of them any day.

Telling your child that all views are right

No, I'm not saying that you should tell them that all views are right. I'm more saying that there's no way to know if _any_ of them are.

(whether in science or religion or politics or anything) will not give them a "great overview", it will just confuse them.

If they're smart enough to figure out that picking Mommy or Daddy's religious views isn't choosing one over the other, then they're smart enough to not get confused. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

A well rounded Christian education does explore the different Bibles available and explain their differences/similarities.

Does it include the 'Bibles' of other cultures?

I agree, I was using science not to compare to religion, but because I think science is a necessary part of a childs education, regardless of whether they want to study it.

I agree. I just think that the study of religions and spirituality should be much wider than you do.

Maybe you need to meet more kids.

Nah...I probably wouldn't like the savant kids that could figure out that picking Mommy or Daddy wasn't picking Mommy or Daddy, but couldn't figure out learning about multiple religions and cultures.

He 'hung' around the unsaved because he wanted to save them, not because he agreed with what they believed in. Either you're being disingenuous, or you actually didn't read for comprehension.

I wasn't being disingenuous, but I was being a little tongue in cheek. Look at my comments about your family above for a bit more insight.

Probably not a burning tire around your neck.

You might be surprised.

We got it easy in this country.

Depends on the region of the country you're in, no doubt.

That is not only cavalier, but also a bit silly.

No, it's reality. Man has historically been intolerant of the 'different'. We try and convince ourselves that we're more civilized all the time, but as recently as this century, we interred some American citizens in concentration camps because of the country their ancestors came from. I'd also be willing to bet that if there's another terrorist attack, some people will be jumping to make The Seige into reality TV.

This is not 13th Century France.

No, it's barely 3rd century America.

We are supposed to be more civilized and in most ways we are.

'Supposed to be' are the key words there.

"Such is the history of man..." makes it sound like we should just accept that situation

No, not at all. "Such is the history of man..." says that we're not too swift on the uptake. We keep repeating the same dumb mistakes over and over.

- exactly what Jesus said we shouldn't do. Relating death and torture to name-calling and someone being rude is just plain weak.

I'm not talking about name-calling. You've never heard of people being beaten in this country for being Jewish, or being Muslim, or being gay? There are barbarians among _all_ of us.

I also refuse to believe that it's OK to be mean to anyone because of their beliefs.

Not a problem. I agree wholeheartedly.

I don't need to say that they are right though.

Nope. Never said you did.

Regardless of what the ACLU, FBI, NAACP, NRA, or anyone else in 'a position of authority' tells me.

The only one of those in 'a position of authority' is the FBI. The others, I might classify as varying degrees of religion (the ILA wing of the NRA much more so than the rest of the NRA), which should be given about the same deference.

I'm sorry that you thought I was categorizing science as just another religion. Not what I meant to be doing.

Not in this thread (although it may very well have been earlier in The Ramble).

I was using science as a necessary element of education. The separate comparison between Creationism and Evolution was supposed to illustrate two incompatible beliefs.

Actually they're not to some people. Ever heard of Theistic Evolution?

They are both theories that tons of people will fight over, regardless of the fact that neither one can/has been proven to be right.

No argument there.

Although it could be said that religion exists because of right and wrong!

Nah...religion exists because people like to think that they can understand mysterious stuff, and they don't want to accept that when they die, that might be it. In olden times, people thought that weather was the result of the gods being happy or sad or whatever. Later, diseases and dementia were attributed to being on God's bad side or being possessed. In all of our 'enlightenment', we consider all of those quaint at best, or downright ridiculous. And yet, many don't see the pattern there.

Prove it!

Didn't we trod upon that ground already in the The Ramble?

Thanks again for being so willing (and able) to talk in a semi-rational way about things. Sometimes I feel like a pencil stuck in a sharpener when I'm responding to something that you wrote.

I tend to like the sharpening as well.

Then again, sometimes I feel like a pound of beef stuck in a meat grinder!

I felt like that yesterday (and to a lesser extent today): bad allergies from being at my brother-in-law's house (they've got lots of carpet) and my wife had to put her cat to sleep because of health problems (his).

[errqre]

Originally posted by Toby
...I just think that the study of religions and spirituality should be much wider than you do.

Why?

Ever heard of Theistic Evolution?

Ground already tread upon, is it not?

Nah...religion exists because people like to think that they can understand mysterious stuff, and they don't want to accept that when they die, that might be it.

Motivation is a b!tch to try and argue. My perception is that religion exists because the need for morality in society was great, but taken from one individual amounted to a steaming pile of dung. Since 'The Beginning' is only explainable with God as a given, it also behooved individuals to use Him to lend credence to their moral code. The rest has been a bloody bantering of the Great Semantic.

[Toby]

Originally posted by ****-richardson
Why?

Because it's a much better insight into the human condition.

Ground already tread upon, is it not?

Probably, but it was to point out that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive to some people.

Motivation is a b!tch to try and argue. My perception is that religion exists because the need for morality in society was great, but taken from one individual amounted to a steaming pile of dung.

Based on what? I'm basing my opinion on history and sociology. As far back as we're aware, man tried to attribute mystical significance to things that he couldn't explain. Even today, in our supposedly advanced computer age, people still talk about their computers being 'possessed' when they act up, when bad software, bad hardware, bad current, etc. are the real cause (bad meaning defective, not evil).

Since 'The Beginning' is only explainable with God as a given,

huh? ITYM, "Since I'll only accept an explanation of 'The Beginning' which accepts God as a given". There may be a god(s) that were involved. There may be some other more advanced society responsible. It may have even been a total fluke. We may be a cosmic accident. In general, though, human arrogance refuses to accept the possibility that we're just a random occurence of chance.

it also behooved individuals to use Him to lend credence to their moral code.

It only behooved those individuals who wished to believe in him and could convince others to but yet couldn't make a case for morality using non-superstititious means.

The rest has been a bloody bantering of the Great Semantic.

Is that the one about the sound of one hand clapping?

[errqre]

Originally posted by Toby
Because it's a much better insight into the human condition.

So it's addressed in the same manner as mental disease, or at the very least, a hold-over from our less educated times?

Based on what? I'm basing my opinion on history and sociology.

Which applies to a certain segmant of population, undoubtedly. I'm pointing out that people believe in religion for many more reasons than you stated.

As far back as we're aware, man tried to attribute mystical significance to things that he couldn't explain.

And, as far back as we're aware, men in authority used God to lend credence to that authority - re-affirming my assertion that there has been more to religious belief than airs of intelligence and desires for immortality.

Even today, in our supposedly advanced computer age, people still talk about their computers being 'possessed' when they act up, when bad software, bad hardware, bad current, etc. are the real cause (bad meaning defective, not evil).

The parenthetical was unnecessary. I would like you to do me a favor that will, more than likely, take very little effort for you: start a computer exorcism shop. Give it some time and see how much business (and, more importantly, repeat business) you get.

Maybe the phrase is used to convey an emotional state, rather than as a diagnosis? We've managed to build our business on that assumption.

huh? ITYM, "Since I'll only accept an explanation of 'The Beginning' which accepts God as a given".

Not at all. I meant to point out that science is only equipped to observe cause and effect. Therefore, science is unable to proove 'The Beginning' because it has no cause. We can proove there was a beginning (if there wasn't, each segment of time would exist within infinity - IOW, it wouldn't exist at all). Yep, it's that old infinite series argument again.

It only behooved those individuals who wished to believe in him and could convince others to but yet couldn't make a case for morality using non-superstititious means.

How well do you respond to people who 'know what's best for you'?

Is that the one about the sound of one hand clapping?

I don't follow.

[Toby]

Originally posted by ****-richardson
So it's addressed in the same manner as mental disease, or at the very least, a hold-over from our less educated times?

No, so that one can see that nobody really knows the answer, or at least no one's figured out a way to prove any of them yet.

Which applies to a certain segmant of population, undoubtedly.

Well, history only applies to the segment of the population which has a recorded history, and sociology only refers to cultures which have been studied, but both of those are fairly extensive.

I'm pointing out that people believe in religion for many more reasons than you stated.

Strange that you didn't point out the same with BobbyMike. Did I touch a nerve?

And, as far back as we're aware, men in authority used God to lend credence to that authority - re-affirming my assertion that there has been more to religious belief than airs of intelligence and desires for immortality.

Sure, there's more to it, but I'm speaking more to the basic human desire to believe in a 'higher power', not the structure of any particular religion. Incidentally, men in power using the masses' belief in a higher power doesn't explain why they believe in that higher power in the first place.

The parenthetical was unnecessary.

Just wanted to head off any potential semantical arguments (albeit not necessarily from you).

I would like you to do me a favor that will, more than likely, take very little effort for you: start a computer exorcism shop. Give it some time and see how much business (and, more importantly, repeat business) you get.

I think that's probably a bit more effort than you think. If I was in a position to start an independent business, I'd take you up on the idea, though. I'd be willing to bet that it'd be a real interesting gimmick for a computer repair shop.

Maybe the phrase is used to convey an emotional state, rather than as a diagnosis?

It is, more or less, but the point is that many average people really don't understand computers (or most technical things) at any real level, so they resort to things like that (or saying that their car has gremlins or whatever).

We've managed to build our business on that assumption.

Sure, and I manage to make a pretty good living at it myself.

Not at all. I meant to point out that science is only equipped to observe cause and effect. Therefore, science is unable to proove 'The Beginning' because it has no cause. We can proove there was a beginning (if there wasn't, each segment of time would exist within infinity - IOW, it wouldn't exist at all). Yep, it's that old infinite series argument again.

And who said there _was_ a beginning in the first place? Just because one can't buy into the concept of infinity (although I can't see how anyone who could believe in a Judeo-Christian God could not believe in infinity), doesn't mean that one has proven there was 'The Beginning'.

How well do you respond to people who 'know what's best for you'?

I'm not saying I know what's best for anyone. I'm part of the human condition, also, after all.

I don't follow.

"What is the sound of one hand clapping?" An old Zen Buddhist koan (well, sorta, but close enough). Never mind.

[BobbyMike]

"Does it include the 'Bibles' of other cultures?"

A good scholar reads all appropriate matter. A more complete Christian education would also include an understanding of Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, and Islamic fudamentals, at least. (Not to forget to mention Greek and Roman)

"If they're smart enough to figure out that picking Mommy or Daddy's religious views isn't choosing one over the other, then they're smart enough to not get confused. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways."

The problem with your arguement is that people do move away from where their parents are. I'm a perfect example of this. If both of the parents actually don't try and manipulate the child (which I have seen occur from both camps and is IMHO 'concentrated evil') and the child is given a chance to choose themselves, it usually doesn't come to Mommy or Daddy, but whether Sunday school is boring or not.

"I agree. I just think that the study of religions and spirituality should be much wider than you do."

No, you don't. Where we seem to disagree is when the child is expoused to other "messages".


"I'm not talking about name-calling. You've never heard of people being beaten in this country for being Jewish, or being Muslim, or being gay? There are barbarians among _all_ of us."

My point is that it's not State sanctioned here, while it is elsewhere. We are very lucky/blessed to be able to discuss this so freely. Regardless of where we live.
I grew up in the Bible Belt (Memphis, Tennesee) and I don't find it any different then where I live now. Except people around here find it acceptable to bash Christians as idiotic, foolish, and narrow minded (this from someone who thought it was not only appropriate to have a 16 year old have several kegs at his B-Day party, but also let his girlfriend stay over- because "at least I knew where they where, and what they were doing)! Lots of New Agers around here.
I do find some people who call themselves Christians very offensive because they say one thing and do other. Hypocrites were about the only people Jesus did blast.

"Actually they're not to some people. Ever heard of Theistic Evolution?"

Yes, and it's another opposing view. A staunch Creationist finds it just as offensive (and incompatible) a view as Darwin's Theory.


"No, it's reality. Man has historically been intolerant of the 'different'. We try and convince ourselves that we're more civilized all the time, but as recently as this century, we interred some American citizens in concentration camps because of the country their ancestors came from. I'd also be willing to bet that if there's another terrorist attack, some people will be jumping to make The Seige into reality TV."

No, it was reality. We are getting better. People used to just kill people in that kind of position. I disagree on the "Siege" too. Some people (Pat Robertson) already are there, and have been for years. Most people think he's a kook. Most people don't want to live in a Jerusleum.

"Nah...religion exists because people like to think that they can understand mysterious stuff, and they don't want to accept that when they die, that might be it."

That's poopycock. Speak for yourself. Of course if you've never been touched by the hand of God I can see how you might believe that.

"Later, diseases and dementia were attributed to being on God's bad side or being possessed."

Which, of course, is not supported Biblically. The opposite also occured when people said, "I'm rich and you're not, so God loves me more than He love you!" All hogwash.

Sorry to hear about the cat, my wife was devasted when she lost both of her rotties (Mother 14 years, Daughter 10 years) within a year. Also sorry to hear about your allergies - was in a bad car accident that reshaped my sinus on my right side - they close up when I see pollen - which often triggers migraines.

"I tend to like the sharpening as well."

My head is much pointy at 39 than it was when I was 21. My hair is wearing off too, from all the fruitless banging against walls I did when I was younger and peppier.

[Toby]

Originally posted by BobbyMike
[...] The problem with your arguement is that people do move away from where their parents are.

That isn't even a part of what I'm saying.

I'm a perfect example of this. If both of the parents actually don't try and manipulate the child (which I have seen occur from both camps and is IMHO 'concentrated evil') and the child is given a chance to choose themselves, it usually doesn't come to Mommy or Daddy, but whether Sunday school is boring or not.

I think we're speaking on two totally divergent timelines, here.

No, you don't. Where we seem to disagree is when the child is expoused to other "messages".

Do we? I haven't even stated a timeline (other than the more philosophical stuff coming later in the picture).

My point is that it's not State sanctioned here, while it is elsewhere.

If by state, you mean country, we agree. However, I'm not sure if I'd consider a third world country more or less advanced than some of the lower level governments which could easily come in where I'm talking about.

We are very lucky/blessed to be able to discuss this so freely. Regardless of where we live.

*shrug* Some of us are more 'blessed' than others I suppose.

I grew up in the Bible Belt (Memphis, Tennesee) and I don't find it any different then where I live now. Except people around here find it acceptable to bash Christians as idiotic, foolish, and narrow minded (this from someone who thought it was not only appropriate to have a 16 year old have several kegs at his B-Day party, but also let his girlfriend stay over- because "at least I knew where they where, and what they were doing)! Lots of New Agers around here.

Morons cross all religious and non-religious boundaries. I've heard (and might have even said) just as bad about New Agers (if not worse) from the other side.

I do find some people who call themselves Christians very offensive because they say one thing and do other. Hypocrites were about the only people Jesus did blast.

Justfully so, IMO (won't get into it more than that).

Yes, and it's another opposing view. A staunch Creationist finds it just as offensive (and incompatible) a view as Darwin's Theory.

Perhaps, but it does demonstrate that Creationism and Evolution are not diametrically opposed to everyone.

No, it was reality.

Not distant enough to think that we're beyond it again, IMO.

We are getting better. People used to just kill people in that kind of position.

And sometimes still do. They usually get prosecuted for it, but I'm not confident that's universal.

I disagree on the "Siege" too. Some people (Pat Robertson) already are there, and have been for years. Most people think he's a kook. Most people don't want to live in a Jerusleum.

That's OK if you disagree. I truly wouldn't _want_ to be right on that one. OTOH, I'm one of the few people I know who wasn't shocked about people hijacking a plane and running it into a building.

That's poopycock. Speak for yourself. Of course if you've never been touched by the hand of God I can see how you might believe that.

No comment.

Which, of course, is not supported Biblically.

Well, the Bible does definitely speak of possessions, IIRC. God also supposedly inflicted some pretty bad things on Job.

The opposite also occured when people said, "I'm rich and you're not, so God loves me more than He love you!" All hogwash.

And yet people still pass it on. Lemme ask you something. If a baby is born at 27 weeks and manages to not only survive, but thrive and develop ahead of some other children born at full-term, do you consider it a miracle in the sense that God intervened and made it happen? I can tell you for a fact that many people think just that.

Sorry to hear about the cat, my wife was devasted when she lost both of her rotties (Mother 14 years, Daughter 10 years) within a year. Also sorry to hear about your allergies - was in a bad car accident that reshaped my sinus on my right side - they close up when I see pollen - which often triggers migraines.

Yeah, I've been getting the headaches too on occassion. I'll keep on keeping on. "It can't rain all the time."

My head is much pointy at 39 than it was when I was 21. My hair is wearing off too, from all the fruitless banging against walls I did when I was younger and peppier.

Well, I've still got my hair for the most part, but I don't expect that to change much. It'll probably keep turning greyer (wouldn't be surprised if it was all there by the time I hit 39), but it would have to be a highly recessive gene to make it start turning loose.

[errqre]

Originally posted by Toby
Well, history only applies to the segment of the population which has a recorded history, and sociology only refers to cultures which have been studied, but both of those are fairly extensive.

And history verifies my claims as well - which reaffirms my assertions regarding individual decision for or against a specific religion. There is a 'cattle' aspect of relgion as well.

Strange that you didn't point out the same with BobbyMike. Did I touch a nerve?

No, I missed it from Mr. Mike. My assertions apply equally to all.

Incidentally, men in power using the masses' belief in a higher power doesn't explain why they believe in that higher power in the first place.

I knew that was coming. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? You reject the possibility that the strongest ape attributed his power to a god, and beat that belief into the other apes? And the possibility that same ape had problems ruling the other apes, so he beat 'morality' into the other apes so they would fall in line?

I'd be willing to bet that it'd be a real interesting gimmick for a computer repair shop.

It would probably do some nice business, unless it were an actual computer exorcism - which I was referring to.

And who said there _was_ a beginning in the first place?

Not I. I stated that if there was 'The Beginning,' it requires God. I also pointed out that time has to have had a beginning, or there would be no time. I did not assert that the beginning of time was 'The Beginning.'