On 05/11/2016 10:41 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:32 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:08, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:32 AM, Bod wrote:

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided
the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And that was the beginning of science. The universe was
a creation of God and what we observed around us was nature,
not the work of petty human like gods and magic.

Glory be to God!
-T

String theory is really w-e-i-r-d.

Indeed, very similar to many religions, like Scientology/ Jehovah
Witlesses/ Moony loonies and Morons (sorry....Mormons, etc.

One thing that is true about people who have a religious belief system
is that people of all levels of intelligence BELIEVE. How do you
explain
that many very smart people still believe in a God?

Many *smart people* have turned out to be conning thieving villains.
So you can't measure by smartness.

Then we can agree that ones intelligence has no bearing on belief in a
higher power?

Not necessarily, no. Maybe it depends whether they hear *voices in their
heads*.


Ok. But you said "you can't measure by smartness". Maybe, I didn't
understand what you meant?

I thought you meant that intelligent (smart) people couldn't really be
intelligent if they believed in a God or higher power, and then you said
"you can't measure by smartness"? To me, it sounds like you're
contradicting yourself.



You are missing his point. "Smart" means you agree with him. Sigh.

On 12/05/2016 17:37, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 7:01 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:


I've asked many questions, myself. As far as creation goes, including
human beings, the rules were defined in the beginning. Babies being
born blind or limbless and other such things happened after sin entered
the world. There is now more chemicals and pollution that we're exposed


I get right off that boat when it comes to things like "original sin."
Why would a newborn baby be punished for something that someone else did
far in the past?

What kind of petty, vengeful god would cause a newborn baby to be born
blind of limbless?

According to the bible, God "created" everything "in the beginning". At
that time all rules of nature and creation were also set into motion.

WE create the newborn baby based on the laws set into motion "in the
beginning". Since, sin entered the world, nothing has been perfect,
which allowed disease and imperfection to occur. Everything humanity
has done from the time of the fall leads up to a certain result - our
actions have consequences in our lives and our bodies, and that includes
our children.

This world was given to us to have dominion over, and what we have today
is a result of OUR dominion over this world, not God's. God gave it to
us, and he hasn't taken it back. Mankind in it's limited understanding
has thoroughly screwed things up over and over again, and yet, the bible
still tells us that God is waiting for us to acknowledge him and come to
him, and he will stand by our sides as we deal with this world and help
us, lead us, give us wisdom, and live in this world that he gave us.

THAT is what the bible says, not me.


There's something really wrong with your god - it's all too human. I see
nothing of a superior being there.

According to the bible, God "created" us in his image. An image is only
a 2 dimensional reflection of the original. We are missing multiple
personality traits of the original, and because we're missing those
traits we make mistakes repeatedly, we aren't perfect, we're slaves to
our humanity and our own imperfections, and we simply have difficulty
understanding the very nature of a creator God, let alone understand how
perfection thinks or functions. When we don't understand something or
someone we have a tendency to reject it/them, attack, get angry, muster
support so others will also do likewise against the object of our
misunderstanding.

Accepting that we're only human means to accept that we're limited in
our abilities, and it also means we may have to acknowledge there's
something greater than ourselves that our human minds will never fully
understand. Humanity wants to admire itself.

You also really have to wonder about what kind of god would want to be
worshipped. That seems really immature to me.


We, the creation, want to be worshiped by our peers, don't we? Or should
I just say that we want the admiration and respect of our peers? Right?
Some people like to earn that admiration and respect of their peers,
but other people don't care how they get it if it means hurting other
people or forcing other people to do it.

Since we're only a reflection of a creator God, how much more do you
think a God would desire his creation to voluntarily admire and respect
him? The difference is such a God would do so perfectly, not in a
humanistic way, and since we're not perfect, again, understanding a
God's desire for admiration and respect is something we have difficulty
understanding OR accepting.

This is also what the bible says, not me.

to than there ever was, and that doesn't include what people voluntarily
do to each other or themselves exposing themselves to all sorts of
contaminates. I lost much of my hearing as a teen because I lived in a
household with parents who smoked and secondhand smoke floated in the
house constantly. It's a fact that me being exposed to those
contaminates caused my hearing loss.

I've never heard of anyone losing their hearing due to secondhand
smoke. Can you tell us more about this?

I posted that to Gunner where he was talking about smoking.

We blame god for everything bad that happens to us, and don't take into
consideration that perfection ended with creation after sin entered the
world.

I don't blame your god for anything.

Really? Then why did you pose this question: "What kind of petty,
vengeful god would cause a newborn baby to be born blind of limbless?"

To me it sounds like you blame God.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have written extensively
on this topic. What they have written is far more eloquent than anything
I can write here. I would suggest that you seek out some of their works
and read them.

Why? They aren't on this newsgroup.

Because you might learn something.

--
Bod

On 5/12/2016 12:32 PM, Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 17:37, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 7:01 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

I don't blame your god for anything.

Really? Then why did you pose this question: "What kind of petty,
vengeful god would cause a newborn baby to be born blind of limbless?"

To me it sounds like you blame God.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have written extensively
on this topic. What they have written is far more eloquent than anything
I can write here. I would suggest that you seek out some of their works
and read them.

Why? They aren't on this newsgroup.

Because you might learn something.


I learn something every day. At the same time I'd rather talk to people
on the newsgroup about their ideas and viewpoints. If Dawkins or
Hitchens were posting here, I'd be happy to discuss their viewpoints, too.

--
Maggie

On 5/12/2016 12:22 PM, T wrote:
On 05/11/2016 10:41 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:32 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:08, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:32 AM, Bod wrote:

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided
the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And that was the beginning of science. The universe was
a creation of God and what we observed around us was nature,
not the work of petty human like gods and magic.

Glory be to God!
-T

String theory is really w-e-i-r-d.

Indeed, very similar to many religions, like Scientology/ Jehovah
Witlesses/ Moony loonies and Morons (sorry....Mormons, etc.

One thing that is true about people who have a religious belief
system
is that people of all levels of intelligence BELIEVE. How do you
explain
that many very smart people still believe in a God?


Many *smart people* have turned out to be conning thieving villains.
So you can't measure by smartness.


Then we can agree that ones intelligence has no bearing on belief in a
higher power?


Not necessarily, no. Maybe it depends whether they hear *voices in their
heads*.


Ok. But you said "you can't measure by smartness". Maybe, I didn't
understand what you meant?


I thought you meant that intelligent (smart) people couldn't really be
intelligent if they believed in a God or higher power, and then you said
"you can't measure by smartness"? To me, it sounds like you're
contradicting yourself.


You are missing his point. "Smart" means you agree with him. Sigh.

I'm hoping, at least, he and I can just have a decent discussion. It
doesn't matter to me if we agree or not.

--
Maggie

On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:44:59 +0100, Winston_Smith wrote:

On Fri, 06 May 2016 22:02:17 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote:
On Fri, 06 May 2016 01:00:48 +0100, Winston_Smith wrote:

In the GE's I cut open, tipped off by the identical Ahr ratings, the
AA cell even had the label on it just like the ones they sold as AA.

When NiCad first came out, the ones in the main shops were 0.5Ah AA,
1.2Ah C, and 1.2Ah D. So the D was obviously a C in a box.

Sorry. I physically cut the D open. It was a AA.
Don't generalize from your one experience.
I'm sure different brands had different ratings between sizes.

None of the ones I bought. You must have even more rippy off batteries over there.

--
My memory foam pillow has got Alzheimer's! -- Steve Pounder circa 2014

On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:28:51 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/05/2016 16:25, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 12:43 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 20:24, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 2:16 PM, Bod wrote:

From what I've read and heard, yes.
As far as I'm concerned, the Universe was always around.
The rest simply evolved, IMO.

Did you mean to say the "Earth" was always round?

No. and to be pedantic, the Earth is not round, it's an oblate spheroid.

Ok. How do you know the Universe is round? Who told you that?

Read what I said again "the Earth is not round, it's an oblate spheroid"

I think she mistook your "around" for round. Like they mistake terrorist and tourist because they sound the same in their funny shaped botoxed tooth-braced mouths.

--
Kangaroos cannot fart.

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 12:46:23 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 12:32 PM, Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 17:37, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 7:01 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

I don't blame your god for anything.

Really? Then why did you pose this question: "What kind of petty,
vengeful god would cause a newborn baby to be born blind of limbless?"

To me it sounds like you blame God.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have written extensively
on this topic. What they have written is far more eloquent than anything
I can write here. I would suggest that you seek out some of their works
and read them.

Why? They aren't on this newsgroup.

Because you might learn something.

I learn something every day. At the same time I'd rather talk to people
on the newsgroup about their ideas and viewpoints. If Dawkins or
Hitchens were posting here, I'd be happy to discuss their viewpoints, too.
--
Maggie

If you have time, take a look at this 6 part series of YouTube videos about ancient civilization and see if your understanding of the world isn't shaken. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8IOhoF_jBM

[8~{} Uncle Alien Monster

On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:28:51 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 12/05/2016 16:25, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 12:43 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 20:24, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 2:16 PM, Bod wrote:

From what I've read and heard, yes.
As far as I'm concerned, the Universe was always around.
The rest simply evolved, IMO.

Did you mean to say the "Earth" was always round?

No. and to be pedantic, the Earth is not round, it's an oblate
spheroid.

Ok. How do you know the Universe is round? Who told you that?

Read what I said again "the Earth is not round, it's an oblate
spheroid"

You didn't answer his question. Chalk and cheese.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:35:59 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 5/11/2016 11:03 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 22:03:50 -0400, Stormin Mormon
Justice is getting what you deserve. Grace is not getting what you
deserve on the one side, and getting what you don't desreve on the
other.. In the "new dispensation" or the "new testiment times" Goe
becomes a "loving god" - with-holding the punishments dictated by the
old law, while bestowing undeserved blessings.

A Christian


Interesting. As a Mormon Christian, that (above text) is
seriously close, maybe identical, to what Mormon
Christians teach.
From what I have come to understand, Mormons believe just enough of
what Christians believe to somewhat muddy the waters - same as the
JWs. Those who do not fully understand what Christianity is get fooled
into thinking it is Christianity.

Not saying most Mormons are not "good people" - a lot would make "good
christians" if they got their theology sorted out.


And, we believe much the same, but back at you. After
the death of Christ, there wasn't a proper succession
plan. The church fell into apostacy. It was only with
the restoration that the true church of Christ was
back on Earth. The Bible only churches may be sincere,
but without authority. Those who don't have continuing
revelation and don't have the Spirit wander in darkness.
How are vyou different, in that respect, from the nEW aPOSTOLIC
cHURCH?

Which of you has the "real" continuing revelation/proper succession?

On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:01:32 -0400, Bud Frede
wrote:

Muggles writes:


I've asked many questions, myself. As far as creation goes, including
human beings, the rules were defined in the beginning. Babies being
born blind or limbless and other such things happened after sin entered
the world. There is now more chemicals and pollution that we're exposed

I get right off that boat when it comes to things like "original sin."
Why would a newborn baby be punished for something that someone else did
far in the past?

What kind of petty, vengeful god would cause a newborn baby to be born
blind of limbless?

There's something really wrong with your god - it's all too human. I see
nothing of a superior being there.

You also really have to wonder about what kind of god would want to be
worshipped. That seems really immature to me.


to than there ever was, and that doesn't include what people voluntarily
do to each other or themselves exposing themselves to all sorts of
contaminates. I lost much of my hearing as a teen because I lived in a
household with parents who smoked and secondhand smoke floated in the
house constantly. It's a fact that me being exposed to those
contaminates caused my hearing loss.

I've never heard of anyone losing their hearing due to secondhand
smoke. Can you tell us more about this?


We blame god for everything bad that happens to us, and don't take into
consideration that perfection ended with creation after sin entered the
world.

I don't blame your god for anything.


That's my take on it, anyway.

Both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have written extensively
on this topic. What they have written is far more eloquent than anything
I can write here. I would suggest that you seek out some of their works
and read them.


Niether of your "idols" have ever successfully debated a christion
theologan or creation scientist.

They have no facts to fall back on.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:49:29 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 7:35 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:03 PM, wrote:

Not saying most Mormons are not "good people" - a lot would make "good
christians" if they got their theology sorted out.


And, we believe much the same, but back at you. After
the death of Christ, there wasn't a proper succession
plan. The church fell into apostacy. It was only with
the restoration that the true church of Christ was
back on Earth. The Bible only churches may be sincere,
but without authority. Those who don't have continuing
revelation and don't have the Spirit wander in darkness.

And that's why I'm going to life test
an alkaline battery.
I'd ask you to stop being a jerk - but I will not waste my time on
the impossible

On Thu, 12 May 2016 10:24:40 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 20:24, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 2:05 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:44, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 1:29 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:18, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:42 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:16, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:00 PM, Bod wrote:

As I look around *me*, I see many different religions all
guessing
that
their particular strain is the *only* religion. I also see
that
religion
in the UK is dying out except for the primitive Muslim
religions.
It's
true that as people get more informed and intelligent that
they
are
realising how misguided they have been.
It wasn't that long ago that people were worshipping the Moon/
the Sun
and many other objects as their god. Even today there are
Scientologist
idiots believing in Aliens etc.
If you read the Bible or the Koran, you'll see that they are
both
contradictory all the way through and the *believers* cherry
pick
what
they want to hear.


I don't think any individual religion has everything
correct, but
I do
think many religions make an attempt to acknowledge that there
is a
greater power involved in our existence, which, in turn,
acknowledges
that mankind is not equivalent to being a god.

IMO, there is too much evidence that it took intelligence to
create
everything we see around us.

And it all happened only 6 thousand years ago?

No.

Hmm! this disagrees with you:

The Biblical Age of the Earth - Truth In Genesis
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/0...-of-the-earth/
3 Jan 2013 - So, according to the Bible the earth is about 6000
years
old. ... How long did Joshua march around the walls of Jericho
anyway?
... He says, “By Periods God created that which produced the Solar
Systems; then that which ...


How many hours were in a day when Creation happened?


What!!?


In order to conclude that the Earth is 6000 years old, we have to
define
if a year was the same time increment when Creation happened. In
recent
history, time has been defined in seconds, minutes, hours, and years,
etc., but how do we define time when Creation was taking place?

But the Bible states 6,000 years ago. Time was no different
6,000 years ago.

No, the Bible doesn't say that.

What does it say then?

It doesn't say what the age of the Earth is.

So the Bible doesn't know then.

The Bible is text - it doesn't "know" anything. It only contains the
information the writers put there.
The bible was not written as a definitive history of the word - it
never pretended to contain a chronolagical timeline.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 12:46:20 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 12:32 PM, Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 17:37, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 7:01 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

I don't blame your god for anything.

Really? Then why did you pose this question: "What kind of petty,
vengeful god would cause a newborn baby to be born blind of limbless?"

To me it sounds like you blame God.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have written extensively
on this topic. What they have written is far more eloquent than anything
I can write here. I would suggest that you seek out some of their works
and read them.

Why? They aren't on this newsgroup.

Because you might learn something.


I learn something every day. At the same time I'd rather talk to people
on the newsgroup about their ideas and viewpoints. If Dawkins or
Hitchens were posting here, I'd be happy to discuss their viewpoints, too.
But they would not debate with you - you know too mucxh what you
believe and why. They don't know either what and why you believe, or
what and why THEY believe.


Read som eof the posts I've sent in the last couple hours - - -

On 5/12/2016 7:58 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 12:46:23 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 12:32 PM, Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 17:37, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 7:01 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

I don't blame your god for anything.

Really? Then why did you pose this question: "What kind of petty,
vengeful god would cause a newborn baby to be born blind of limbless?"

To me it sounds like you blame God.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have written extensively
on this topic. What they have written is far more eloquent than anything
I can write here. I would suggest that you seek out some of their works
and read them.

Why? They aren't on this newsgroup.

Because you might learn something.

I learn something every day. At the same time I'd rather talk to people
on the newsgroup about their ideas and viewpoints. If Dawkins or
Hitchens were posting here, I'd be happy to discuss their viewpoints, too.
--
Maggie

If you have time, take a look at this 6 part series of YouTube videos about ancient civilization and see if your understanding of the world isn't shaken. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8IOhoF_jBM

[8~{} Uncle Alien Monster


Interesting stuff. I've seen lots of documentaries on similar things.

--
Maggie

On 5/12/2016 11:39 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 10:24:40 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 20:24, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 2:05 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:44, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 1:29 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:18, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:42 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:16, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:00 PM, Bod wrote:

As I look around *me*, I see many different religions all
guessing
that
their particular strain is the *only* religion. I also see
that
religion
in the UK is dying out except for the primitive Muslim
religions.
It's
true that as people get more informed and intelligent that
they
are
realising how misguided they have been.
It wasn't that long ago that people were worshipping the Moon/
the Sun
and many other objects as their god. Even today there are
Scientologist
idiots believing in Aliens etc.
If you read the Bible or the Koran, you'll see that they are
both
contradictory all the way through and the *believers* cherry
pick
what
they want to hear.


I don't think any individual religion has everything
correct, but
I do
think many religions make an attempt to acknowledge that there
is a
greater power involved in our existence, which, in turn,
acknowledges
that mankind is not equivalent to being a god.

IMO, there is too much evidence that it took intelligence to
create
everything we see around us.

And it all happened only 6 thousand years ago?

No.

Hmm! this disagrees with you:

The Biblical Age of the Earth - Truth In Genesis
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/0...-of-the-earth/
3 Jan 2013 - So, according to the Bible the earth is about 6000
years
old. ... How long did Joshua march around the walls of Jericho
anyway?
... He says, “By Periods God created that which produced the Solar
Systems; then that which ...


How many hours were in a day when Creation happened?


What!!?


In order to conclude that the Earth is 6000 years old, we have to
define
if a year was the same time increment when Creation happened. In
recent
history, time has been defined in seconds, minutes, hours, and years,
etc., but how do we define time when Creation was taking place?

But the Bible states 6,000 years ago. Time was no different
6,000 years ago.

No, the Bible doesn't say that.

What does it say then?

It doesn't say what the age of the Earth is.

So the Bible doesn't know then.

The Bible is text - it doesn't "know" anything. It only contains the
information the writers put there.


The bible was not written as a definitive history of the word - it
never pretended to contain a chronolagical timeline.


I've heard people describe the bible as being akin to a series of
stories and letters written to family members. The family members
understand the stories because it's about their family!

--
Maggie

On 5/12/2016 11:46 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 12:46:20 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 12:32 PM, Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 17:37, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 7:01 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

I don't blame your god for anything.

Really? Then why did you pose this question: "What kind of petty,
vengeful god would cause a newborn baby to be born blind of limbless?"

To me it sounds like you blame God.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have written extensively
on this topic. What they have written is far more eloquent than anything
I can write here. I would suggest that you seek out some of their works
and read them.

Why? They aren't on this newsgroup.

Because you might learn something.


I learn something every day. At the same time I'd rather talk to people
on the newsgroup about their ideas and viewpoints. If Dawkins or
Hitchens were posting here, I'd be happy to discuss their viewpoints, too.

But they would not debate with you - you know too mucxh what you
believe and why. They don't know either what and why you believe, or
what and why THEY believe.


Read som eof the posts I've sent in the last couple hours - - -

I have been reading! Great stuff!


--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 12:32 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:35:59 -0400, Stormin Mormon
Not saying most Mormons are not "good people" - a lot would make "good
christians" if they got their theology sorted out.


And, we believe much the same, but back at you. After
the death of Christ, there wasn't a proper succession
plan. The church fell into apostacy. It was only with
the restoration that the true church of Christ was
back on Earth. The Bible only churches may be sincere,
but without authority. Those who don't have continuing
revelation and don't have the Spirit wander in darkness.
How are vyou different, in that respect, from the nEW aPOSTOLIC
cHURCH?

Which of you has the "real" continuing
revelation/proper succession?


And, that question has been asked for centuries. The
Catholics insist thier Pope is the true successor,
the Vicar of Christ. The Protestants insist that
Rome has lost its way. The more recent Mormons gently
declare to the world that all the other churches have
lost their way. And the Jehovas Witness church also
clearly teaches that they are the ones with the truth.

============================
https://www.lds.org/topics/joseph-smith?lang=eng
As a young boy in 1820, Joseph Smith wanted to know
which church was true. As he searched the Bible for
help, he read that he should ask of God. Acting on
this counsel, Joseph went into the woods near his
home and prayed. Suddenly, a light shone above him
and Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him.
When Joseph asked which church he should join, the
Savior told him to join none of the churches then
in existence because they were teaching incorrect
doctrines. Through this experience and many others
that followed, the Lord chose Joseph to be His
prophet and to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ
and His Church to the earth.
=============================


--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 5/13/2016 12:37 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:49:29 -0400, Stormin Mormon
The Bible only churches may be sincere,
but without authority. Those who don't have continuing
revelation and don't have the Spirit wander in darkness.

And that's why I'm going to life test
an alkaline battery.
I'd ask you to stop being a jerk - but I will not waste my time on
the impossible

I'd ask you to change the subject line as
the thread drifts. But, same concept.


--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 5/13/2016 12:39 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 10:24:40 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 20:24, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 2:05 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:44, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 1:29 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 19:18, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:42 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:16, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:00 PM, Bod wrote:

As I look around *me*, I see many different religions all
guessing
||
|| [christmas presents]


--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 5/13/2016 12:39 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 10:24:40 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:
It doesn't say what the age of the Earth is.
So the Bible doesn't know then.

The Bible is text - it doesn't "know" anything. It only contains the
information the writers put there.
The bible was not written as a definitive history of the word - it
never pretended to contain a chronolagical timeline.


Lot of things the Bible doesn't say. Which is
part of the reason we need a restoration.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 5/13/2016 12:46 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 12:46:20 -0500, Muggles
I learn something every day. At the same time I'd rather talk to people
on the newsgroup about their ideas and viewpoints. If Dawkins or
Hitchens were posting here, I'd be happy to discuss their viewpoints, too.
But they would not debate with you - you know too mucxh what you
believe and why. They don't know either what and why you believe, or
what and why THEY believe.


Read som eof the posts I've sent in the last couple hours - - -


Some people can discuss.
Some people debate when they hear different views.
Some people criticize and flame and throw rocks.

A very, very few people can have a discussion
on topic, and share points of view politely.

I was in a congregation with a total left leaning
Hillary! loving liberal. I don't know if he is
typical of that demographic. But, he spent his
conversations with me, attacking. "it's your
fault." "you started it". "It's all about oil."

You've found a rare and noble type, when you
find someone who is polite, on topic, and
changes subject lines with the drift. Thank
you.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 5/13/2016 12:53 AM, Muggles wrote:

I've heard people describe the bible as being akin to a series of
stories and letters written to family members. The family members
understand the stories because it's about their family!


Possibly except for the leaky battery (no big
surprise), I find that $2.50 light from Dollar
General to be a good value for the money.

I'll keep it on hand, possibly with a new
guaranteed alkaline battery, in case of
power cuts.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 5/13/2016 12:53 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 11:39 PM, wrote:
The bible was not written as a definitive history of the word - it
never pretended to contain a chronolagical timeline.


I've heard people describe the bible as being akin to a series of
stories and letters written to family members. The family members
understand the stories because it's about their family!


Many of the books of the New Testament are letters,
for example the epistle of Paul to the Corinthinas.

People who neglect to change subject lines as the
subject drifts demonstrate lack of understanding of
the gospel, and shall not inhabit the kingdom of
nor claim membership in the Kingdom Of Editor.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Fri, 13 May 2016 12:23:34 +0100, Stormin Mormon wrote:

On 5/13/2016 12:37 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:49:29 -0400, Stormin Mormon
The Bible only churches may be sincere,
but without authority. Those who don't have continuing
revelation and don't have the Spirit wander in darkness.

And that's why I'm going to life test
an alkaline battery.
I'd ask you to stop being a jerk - but I will not waste my time on
the impossible

I'd ask you to change the subject line as
the thread drifts. But, same concept.

Have you spoken to your doctor about OCD? You're the ONLY person I know who bothers changing the subject line. The rest of us really don't care.

--
The modest young lass had just purchased some lingerie and asked if she might have the sentence "If you can read this, you're too damned close" embroidered on her panties and bra.
"Yes madam," said the clerk. "I'm quite certain that could be done. Would you prefer block or script letters ?"
"Braille," she replied.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 12:44:22 +0100, Stormin Mormon wrote:

On 5/12/2016 2:30 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
And for those who get the
occasional wiff of a cigarette....
and bitch and moan...tough.


Was there any other questions?

Gunner


As with many smokers, you sure sound
inconsiderate. That may be too mild a
descriptor.

Non-smokers are the inconsiderate ones. They're taking in a millionth of what the smokers are, they need to get a grip.

--
If the Pope goes #2, does that make it "Holy ****"?

On 5/13/2016 6:22 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 5/13/2016 12:32 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:35:59 -0400, Stormin Mormon
Not saying most Mormons are not "good people" - a lot would make "good
christians" if they got their theology sorted out.


And, we believe much the same, but back at you. After
the death of Christ, there wasn't a proper succession
plan. The church fell into apostacy. It was only with
the restoration that the true church of Christ was
back on Earth. The Bible only churches may be sincere,
but without authority. Those who don't have continuing
revelation and don't have the Spirit wander in darkness.
How are vyou different, in that respect, from the nEW aPOSTOLIC
cHURCH?

Which of you has the "real" continuing
revelation/proper succession?


And, that question has been asked for centuries. The
Catholics insist thier Pope is the true successor,
the Vicar of Christ. The Protestants insist that
Rome has lost its way. The more recent Mormons gently
declare to the world that all the other churches have
lost their way. And the Jehovas Witness church also
clearly teaches that they are the ones with the truth.

============================
https://www.lds.org/topics/joseph-smith?lang=eng
As a young boy in 1820, Joseph Smith wanted to know
which church was true. As he searched the Bible for
help, he read that he should ask of God. Acting on
this counsel, Joseph went into the woods near his
home and prayed. Suddenly, a light shone above him
and Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him.
When Joseph asked which church he should join, the
Savior told him to join none of the churches then
in existence because they were teaching incorrect
doctrines. Through this experience and many others
that followed, the Lord chose Joseph to be His
prophet and to restore the gospel of Jesus Christ
and His Church to the earth.
=============================



The Church, which is the body of Christ, doesn't need a Pope or a Joseph
Smith because Jesus himself told us that he left a comforter, the Holy
Spirit, to teach us all things, and to lead us in the path we're
supposed to go.

That's what the bible says.

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 7:10 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 12:44:22 +0100, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 2:30 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
And for those who get the
occasional wiff of a cigarette....
and bitch and moan...tough.


Was there any other questions?

Gunner



As with many smokers, you sure sound
inconsiderate. That may be too mild a
descriptor.

Non-smokers are the inconsiderate ones. They're taking in a millionth
of what the smokers are, they need to get a grip.


Do you think it would be ok with you if a non-smoker sprayed bottled
sewer gas that contained various dangerous chemicals randomly where
people would have no choice but to inhale that gas?

Why do smokers believe they have a right to poison the air other people
breath?

--
Maggie

On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:45:28 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/12/2016 2:10 AM, Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 05:12, Muggles wrote:

BUT, the text doesn't address either explanation 100%. They are the 2
possibilities that I've seen discussed that explains people living in
the land of Nod where Cain found a wife.


"Nod"! is that where the character *Noddy* comes from? ;-)


Who knows? Probably!

I thought god knew?

--
Advice given to RAF pilots during WWII:
"When a prang seems inevitable, endeavour to strike the softest, cheapest object in the vicinity as slowly and gently as possible."

On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:34:11 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/11/2016 1:01 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:58, RonNNN wrote:
In article ,
says...

Are you wanting to discuss each point individually?

Ok, let's start with the incest please!

OK ... tell me where incest was in Adam and Eve's family.

2 people...1 man ...1 woman. They have children, explain how
their children created more babies without incest taking place?

You will *NOT* get an answer to your question from "Muggles". Anyone who
has ever gotten into a "debate" with her knows this already.

Thanks for the heads up. I could see her wriggling though.


You and I are having a discussion. I'm not wriggling, and don't need
anyone to back me up or kibitz in order to influence my position. IOW,
I will hold my own in this discussion. Can you?

You're not discussing, you're just giving us all a laugh with your indoctrinated ****e.

--
A minister gave a talk to the Lions Club on sex. When he got home, he couldn't tell his wife that he had spoken on sex, so he said he had discussed horseback riding with the members.
A few days later, she ran into some men at the shopping center and they complimented her on the speech her husband had made.
She said, "Yes, I heard. I was surprised about the subject matter, as he's only tried it twice. The first time he got so sore he could hardly walk, and the second time he fell off."

On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:58:37 +0100, RonNNN wrote:

In article ,
says...

Are you wanting to discuss each point individually?


Ok, let's start with the incest please!



OK ... tell me where incest was in Adam and Eve's family.

2 people...1 man ...1 woman. They have children, explain how
their children created more babies without incest taking place?

You will *NOT* get an answer to your question from "Muggles". Anyone who
has ever gotten into a "debate" with her knows this already.

Her head is muggled.

--
I go fishing; I catch nothing. I go to orgies; I catch everything.

On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:15:26 +0100, Muggles wrote:

On 5/11/2016 12:41 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:15, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:52 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 17:44, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 4:06 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 09:15, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:58:07 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2016 14:29:30 -0700, T wrote:

On 05/10/2016 02:10 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 22:05:56 +0100, T wrote:

On 05/10/2016 01:41 PM, Muggles wrote:
I love to discuss quantum physics in relation to outer space in
discussions about belief in God. How is time measured in space,
how do
we know time has always been constant there since many people
like to
put a number on the age of the universe and use that as
evidence to
estimate the age of the Earth.

I've had some VERY interesting discussions like that!

Hi Muggles,

Something I have found interesting is Einstein's take on
quantum physics. He did not believe it to be correct
because "God is not random". And indeed the theory
which is starting to replace quantum physics, called
String Theory, is not random.

I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but
religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.

More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Well put.

Gunner

"Kill every first born"....now where did I hear that said?...hmm.
Also....*Adam and Eve's incestuous family*...I heard that somewhere
also.
I also heard the story about this thing called god deliberately making
childbirth extremely painful because of the actions of Adam & Eve.
What a kind and loving god.

Are you wanting to discuss each point individually?

Ok, let's start with the incest please!

OK ... tell me where incest was in Adam and Eve's family.


2 people...1 man ...1 woman. They have children, explain how
their children created more babies without incest taking place?

You may want to read the first 5 chapters of Genesis, but from what I've
read and studied there are 2 explanations that I've read.

One explanation that I've read via various commentaries and study is
that "in the beginning" incest did not exist because marrying a relative
wasn't considered to be incest. The gene pool at that time was not
corrupted, therefore, incest did not produce children who were deformed,
and marriage was a legitimate union between male and female.

Another explanation is God made more people besides just Adam and Eve.
That both Adam and Even were God's first man kind that he made, and that
the word "man" was plural in some usages, not always singular by
definition.

The following reference says that when Cain was banished that he lived
in a place called Nod, and there were people living there already
because he found a wife there. It's established that Adam and Eve lived
in Eden and that Cain could not have taken a wife until he was banished
and went to the land of Nod. How did those people get there if they were
not also created by God "in the beginning"? The text doesn't say how
they got in Nod.
......
Reference:
Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in
the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. Gen 4:17- And Cain knew his wife;
and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the
name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
......


The following text implies that God made Adam (him/singular), and God
made male and female (them/plural), but it also defines male and female
by the name of Adam(male and female/plural). So, it's possible when God
created male and female, that male and female were plural, not singular,
with God assigning Adam and Eve to take care of the Garden of Eden.
.....
Reference:
Genesis 5:1- This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day
that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name
Adam, in the day when they were created"
.....

I haven't decided which possibility I agree with.

So you have no ****ing idea. Always the same, religion is based on maybe this maybe that jumping to conclusions with no evidence whatsoever.

--
"Last night I played a blank tape at full blast. The mime next door went nuts."

On Thu, 12 May 2016 00:15:36 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:25:46 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 11/05/2016 19:15, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 12:41 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:15, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:52 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 17:44, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 4:06 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 09:15, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:58:07 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2016 14:29:30 -0700, T wrote:

On 05/10/2016 02:10 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 22:05:56 +0100, T wrote:

On 05/10/2016 01:41 PM, Muggles wrote:
I love to discuss quantum physics in relation to outer space in
discussions about belief in God. How is time measured in space,
how do
we know time has always been constant there since many people
like to
put a number on the age of the universe and use that as
evidence to
estimate the age of the Earth.

I've had some VERY interesting discussions like that!

Hi Muggles,

Something I have found interesting is Einstein's take on
quantum physics. He did not believe it to be correct
because "God is not random". And indeed the theory
which is starting to replace quantum physics, called
String Theory, is not random.

I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but
religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.

More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Well put.

Gunner

"Kill every first born"....now where did I hear that said?...hmm.
Also....*Adam and Eve's incestuous family*...I heard that somewhere
also.
I also heard the story about this thing called god deliberately making
childbirth extremely painful because of the actions of Adam & Eve.
What a kind and loving god.

Are you wanting to discuss each point individually?

Ok, let's start with the incest please!

OK ... tell me where incest was in Adam and Eve's family.


2 people...1 man ...1 woman. They have children, explain how
their children created more babies without incest taking place?

You may want to read the first 5 chapters of Genesis, but from what I've
read and studied there are 2 explanations that I've read.

One explanation that I've read via various commentaries and study is
that "in the beginning" incest did not exist because marrying a relative
wasn't considered to be incest. The gene pool at that time was not
corrupted, therefore, incest did not produce children who were deformed,
and marriage was a legitimate union between male and female.

Another explanation is God made more people besides just Adam and Eve.
That both Adam and Even were God's first man kind that he made, and that
the word "man" was plural in some usages, not always singular by
definition.

The following reference says that when Cain was banished that he lived
in a place called Nod, and there were people living there already
because he found a wife there. It's established that Adam and Eve lived
in Eden and that Cain could not have taken a wife until he was banished
and went to the land of Nod. How did those people get there if they were
not also created by God "in the beginning"? The text doesn't say how
they got in Nod.
......
Reference:
Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in
the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. Gen 4:17- And Cain knew his wife;
and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the
name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
......


The following text implies that God made Adam (him/singular), and God
made male and female (them/plural), but it also defines male and female
by the name of Adam(male and female/plural). So, it's possible when God
created male and female, that male and female were plural, not singular,
with God assigning Adam and Eve to take care of the Garden of Eden.
.....
Reference:
Genesis 5:1- This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day
that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name
Adam, in the day when they were created"
.....

I haven't decided which possibility I agree with.

So lots of could be's and maybe's. Nothing definitive then.

You expected differently? Why should this be any different than
Global Warming/Cooling/Change?

(VBG)

It isn't. Religious folk are stupid, and so are those who believe in global warming.

--
"I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I'm in a cabinet meeting." - Ronald Reagan

On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/12/2016 5:44 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:


I don't think any individual religion has everything correct, but I do
think many religions make an attempt to acknowledge that there is a
greater power involved in our existence, which, in turn, acknowledges
that mankind is not equivalent to being a god.

I don't see any evidence of the existence of a "greater power."


Perhaps, you need to think about what it means?


No, I think I've got the concept.

Ok. Explain it from your perspective. I may not be understanding where
you're coming from.


IMO, there is too much evidence that it took intelligence to create
everything we see around us.

It depends upon what you mean by "everything we see around us." If
you're talking about the organisms that live and have lived on the
Earth, their existence doesn't require a "greater power." The universe
itself doesn't require a "greater power." Neither of these require any
sort of "creator" either.

How do you know?

Because there are plenty of mechanisms that explain "Life, the
Universe, and Everything" without having to resort to the
supernatural.

OK. Can you explain Creation?


The existence of a deity or deities is highly improbable, and is not
required to explain anything we can observe. When something is this
improbable, it's not worth expending any time and energy on.

At one time it was improbable that we'd be able to fly planes.

I don't think it was improbable at all. In fact, it was likely once we
started using tools and changing our environment to suit our needs -
rather than adapting to our environment like the rest of the organisms
on Earth.

So, in the year 1600, for example, you think people thought flying jets
was probable?

Just because ones mindset can't imagine something is probable, doesn't
make them right. It just means they have limited vision as to what is
possible beyond their finite thinking.

I can imagine all kinds of things, but that doesn't make them true. When
I look at things rationally, I see it just isn't necessary to use a
deity to explain anything.


OK. How do you rationally explain emotions?


If you want to know what I believe - I believe in human beings. We've
had a long, hard climb up, with many setbacks, but I think we will
eventually leave our cradle and spread into the rest of the solar system
and perhaps farther than that.

So, you're a humanist?


I've never called myself a humanist, but some of it fits.

ok

BTW, a lot of those setbacks have been caused by religion and religious
people. It's time we outgrew all of that.



The root cause of all setbacks people engage in is human nature.


They're beheading people in the Middle East right now because of
religion. If you're not their exact brand of believer, they kill you.

They don't do it because of religion, they do it because of their human
nature that wants to be in control.

People get pretty excited about football, but I haven't seen groups of
fans go out and kill masses of people so that their team will win the
World Cup.

Me either! But, I've seen sports fans go bonkers crazy over the win or
loss of a game.

We also had idiots that, instead of donating time or money to research
for better methods and drugs to combat AIDS, pranced around saying that
it was "God's payback" for homosexuality and people with AIDS somehow
deserved it so we didn't need to worry about helping them.

Their argument is that AIDS was a result of dangerous and unhealthy
behavior that had a consequence. I can agree with that premise of
actions have consequences, but not the part where people shouldn't help
those who get sick.


Bigotry is
bigotry and you don't get a free pass just because you try to justify it
with religion.

When we don't understand other people and develop negative attitudes as
a result, we all form some brand of bigotry in our thought processes.
For example, you called it bigotry when you described a reaction by
religious people as "God's payback", but I, OTOH, described what their
argument was really saying and then disagreed with a specific conclusion.

Your description is just as bigoted against religious people as the
religious people you described because you fail to understand the
individual and specific issues being presented.

Bigotry is bigotry, as you say, and you don't get a free pass because
you try to justify it based on your own moral interpretations.


You can just shrug your shoulders and blame everything on something as
nebulous as "human nature,"

Human nature is not nebulous.


--
Maggie

On 5/7/2016 10:48 PM, My 2 Cents wrote:
That is essentially a battery holder. Four rechargeable AA batteries
will give you close to 5V to charge your devices through the built-in
USB socket.

only two AA batteries... so it must boost the voltage up?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mraqng4303Y


That would be my guess. My LG flip phone (with
USB Micro socket) charges okay with the DT
charger, and a cable which I purchased at DT.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 5/13/2016 9:35 AM, Bud Frede wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 5/12/2016 10:27 AM, Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 16:24, Muggles wrote:

So the Bible doesn't know then.

The Bible is text - it doesn't "know" anything. It only contains the
information the writers put there.

So as I originally said, they are just unprovable stories.

Q: Do you think that someone who loves someone else would show the
person they love patience?

Non sequitor.


It's a valid question. If you agree that a loving person shows
patience, then you've contradicted your statement that the Bible text is
just 'unprovable stories'.

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 9:55 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:45:28 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 2:10 AM, Bod wrote:
On 12/05/2016 05:12, Muggles wrote:

BUT, the text doesn't address either explanation 100%. They are the 2
possibilities that I've seen discussed that explains people living in
the land of Nod where Cain found a wife.


"Nod"! is that where the character *Noddy* comes from? ;-)


Who knows? Probably!

I thought god knew?


God knows ... but I don't!

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 9:56 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:34:11 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/11/2016 1:01 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:58, RonNNN wrote:
In article ,
says...

Are you wanting to discuss each point individually?

Ok, let's start with the incest please!

OK ... tell me where incest was in Adam and Eve's family.

2 people...1 man ...1 woman. They have children, explain how
their children created more babies without incest taking place?

You will *NOT* get an answer to your question from "Muggles". Anyone
who
has ever gotten into a "debate" with her knows this already.

Thanks for the heads up. I could see her wriggling though.


You and I are having a discussion. I'm not wriggling, and don't need
anyone to back me up or kibitz in order to influence my position. IOW,
I will hold my own in this discussion. Can you?

You're not discussing, you're just giving us all a laugh with your
indoctrinated ****e.


hmm Are you saying you speak for all the people who post or read here?

It really doesn't matter to me if you agree, disagree, or have a good
laugh. I've had a few good laughs reading stuff here, too.

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 9:58 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:15:26 +0100, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/11/2016 12:41 PM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:15, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:52 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 17:44, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 4:06 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 09:15, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:58:07 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 10 May 2016 14:29:30 -0700, T wrote:

On 05/10/2016 02:10 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016 22:05:56 +0100, T wrote:

On 05/10/2016 01:41 PM, Muggles wrote:
I love to discuss quantum physics in relation to outer
space in
discussions about belief in God. How is time measured in
space,
how do
we know time has always been constant there since many people
like to
put a number on the age of the universe and use that as
evidence to
estimate the age of the Earth.

I've had some VERY interesting discussions like that!

Hi Muggles,

Something I have found interesting is Einstein's take on
quantum physics. He did not believe it to be correct
because "God is not random". And indeed the theory
which is starting to replace quantum physics, called
String Theory, is not random.

I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered
if he
wasn't hampered by religion?


Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say,
no. He probably would have just been mediocre.

"hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life.

Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion,
get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular
humanism,
atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but
religoun).

Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can
wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada,
yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell,
Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political
correctness).

A lot of atheists are very religious people.

More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew,
Muslim, or
southern Baptist Christian, by far.

Well put.

Gunner

"Kill every first born"....now where did I hear that said?...hmm.
Also....*Adam and Eve's incestuous family*...I heard that somewhere
also.
I also heard the story about this thing called god deliberately
making
childbirth extremely painful because of the actions of Adam & Eve.
What a kind and loving god.

Are you wanting to discuss each point individually?

Ok, let's start with the incest please!

OK ... tell me where incest was in Adam and Eve's family.


2 people...1 man ...1 woman. They have children, explain how
their children created more babies without incest taking place?

You may want to read the first 5 chapters of Genesis, but from what I've
read and studied there are 2 explanations that I've read.

One explanation that I've read via various commentaries and study is
that "in the beginning" incest did not exist because marrying a relative
wasn't considered to be incest. The gene pool at that time was not
corrupted, therefore, incest did not produce children who were deformed,
and marriage was a legitimate union between male and female.

Another explanation is God made more people besides just Adam and Eve.
That both Adam and Even were God's first man kind that he made, and that
the word "man" was plural in some usages, not always singular by
definition.

The following reference says that when Cain was banished that he lived
in a place called Nod, and there were people living there already
because he found a wife there. It's established that Adam and Eve lived
in Eden and that Cain could not have taken a wife until he was banished
and went to the land of Nod. How did those people get there if they were
not also created by God "in the beginning"? The text doesn't say how
they got in Nod.
......
Reference:
Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in
the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. Gen 4:17- And Cain knew his wife;
and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the
name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
......


The following text implies that God made Adam (him/singular), and God
made male and female (them/plural), but it also defines male and female
by the name of Adam(male and female/plural). So, it's possible when God
created male and female, that male and female were plural, not singular,
with God assigning Adam and Eve to take care of the Garden of Eden.
.....
Reference:
Genesis 5:1- This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day
that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name
Adam, in the day when they were created"
.....

I haven't decided which possibility I agree with.

So you have no ****ing idea. Always the same, religion is based on
maybe this maybe that jumping to conclusions with no evidence whatsoever.

I answered your question, " OK ... tell me where incest was in Adam and
Eve's family." I gave you 2 possibilities based on the text, and didn't
tell you what to believe either way.

It doesn't matter to me if you agree, disagree, like my answer, or have
a hissy fit. I just answered your question.
--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 7:00 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 5/13/2016 12:53 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 11:39 PM, wrote:
The bible was not written as a definitive history of the word - it
never pretended to contain a chronolagical timeline.


I've heard people describe the bible as being akin to a series of
stories and letters written to family members. The family members
understand the stories because it's about their family!


Many of the books of the New Testament are letters,
for example the epistle of Paul to the Corinthinas.

People who neglect to change subject lines as the
subject drifts demonstrate lack of understanding of
the gospel, and shall not inhabit the kingdom of
nor claim membership in the Kingdom Of Editor.


LOL!!

--
Maggie

Muggles writes:
On 5/13/2016 8:38 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

Because there are plenty of mechanisms that explain "Life, the
Universe, and Everything" without having to resort to the
supernatural.

OK. Can you explain Creation?

Can you?