Divine Definition
 

Things people hate to admit....

1) That they don't have the answer.
2) That they will die someday.
3) That there is no real justice.
4) That they are alone.
5) That they are ultimately responsible for their acts.
6) That life has no "plan" for them.

Interesting how "god" neatly solves all of these. For several years The Easter
Bunny and Santa Clause myth can also solve things. In fact, Santa is a lot like
"god" since he won't be good if you aren't.
The Pope rides in a bulletproof case because he's afraid to die. He's afraid of
the unknown. Like many high power officials associated with religion, he knows
the game well, just as John Edwards knows his game.

RB

Divine Definition
 

God is an imaginary friend for adults.


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Things people hate to admit....

1) That they don't have the answer.
2) That they will die someday.
3) That there is no real justice.
4) That they are alone.
5) That they are ultimately responsible for their acts.
6) That life has no "plan" for them.

Interesting how "god" neatly solves all of these. For several years The Easter
Bunny and Santa Clause myth can also solve things. In fact, Santa is a lot
like
"god" since he won't be good if you aren't.
The Pope rides in a bulletproof case because he's afraid to die. He's afraid
of
the unknown. Like many high power officials associated with religion, he knows
the game well, just as John Edwards knows his game.

RB

Divine Definition
 

God is an imaginary friend for adults.

Most likely. But we can't say that 100% for certain. Santa Clause is less
likely to exist, since he's not at his address. But he could be hiding or
retired.

RB

Divine Definition
 

He probably went sailing.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
God is an imaginary friend for adults.

Most likely. But we can't say that 100% for certain. Santa Clause is less
likely to exist, since he's not at his address. But he could be hiding or
retired.

RB

Divine Definition
 

He sure is at his address.... and I should know... we put in a new landing
strip, apron, taxiway and a blasted a reservoir for him 6 years ago!

The Easter Bunny visits me at least once a year!!

So there... mr. Bigshot skeptic!

CM

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
| God is an imaginary friend for adults.
|
| Most likely. But we can't say that 100% for certain. Santa Clause is less
| likely to exist, since he's not at his address. But he could be hiding or
| retired.
|
| RB

Divine Definition
 

Things people hate to admit....

1) That they don't have the answer.
2) That they will die someday.
3) That there is no real justice.
4) That they are alone.
5) That they are ultimately responsible for their acts.
6) That life has no "plan" for them.


People are created for only one purpose: they are supposed to be the final
entry for God to be in His creation. We are the dream body of God, just like
you have a dream body when you are in a dream. We, each and everyone of us, is
supposed to be able to tack "Christ" on then end of our first name.

Divine Definition
 

Ed...... NICE!!!! Now smoke another blunt and think it over... Ok?

CM

"EdGordonRN" wrote in message
...
| Things people hate to admit....
|
| 1) That they don't have the answer.
| 2) That they will die someday.
| 3) That there is no real justice.
| 4) That they are alone.
| 5) That they are ultimately responsible for their acts.
| 6) That life has no "plan" for them.
|
|
| People are created for only one purpose: they are supposed to be the final
| entry for God to be in His creation. We are the dream body of God, just
like
| you have a dream body when you are in a dream. We, each and everyone of
us, is
| supposed to be able to tack "Christ" on then end of our first name.

Divine Definition
 

Oh f*ck off.

"EdGordonRN" wrote in message
...
Things people hate to admit....

1) That they don't have the answer.
2) That they will die someday.
3) That there is no real justice.
4) That they are alone.
5) That they are ultimately responsible for their acts.
6) That life has no "plan" for them.


People are created for only one purpose: they are supposed to be the final
entry for God to be in His creation. We are the dream body of God, just
like
you have a dream body when you are in a dream. We, each and everyone of
us, is
supposed to be able to tack "Christ" on then end of our first name.

Divine Definition
 

"EdGordonRN" wrote

People are created for only one purpose: they are supposed to be the final
entry for God to be in His creation.

Wrong! The original Genesis says that the Elohim (PLURAL) created Adam and
Lillith "in their own images" so that the race could evolve into new Elohim.
YHWH may have derailed that plan.

We, each and everyone of us, is supposed to be able to tack "Christ" on
then end of our first name.

Hogwash! "Christ" is Greek and refers to the Messiah - the annointed
warrior-king that Jewish prophets predicted would restore Israel. None of us
have any plans to do that. Neither did the man some call Jesus. Where do
you get these ideas? Certainly not from history.

Divine Definition
 

Hogwash! "Christ" is Greek and refers to the Messiah - the annointed
warrior-king that Jewish prophets predicted would restore Israel. None of us
have any plans to do that. Neither did the man some call Jesus.

Then obviously that's not what I meant with the term Christ, and neither did
Jesus. The Jews were simply wrong about Christ, weren't they.

Where do you get these ideas? Certainly not from history.

God tells me. Compete with that!

Divine Definition
 

"EdGordonRN" wrote
Then obviously that's not what I meant with the term Christ, and neither
did
Jesus. The Jews were simply wrong about Christ, weren't they.

Yeshuah (phonetic spelling) never used the word "christ". It's Greek. He
spoke Aramaic, as did all his neighbors.

Prophets had been predicting a "messiah" who, like Saul and David, would
whip up on their enemies. Most said this messiah would be born of a union of
the house of David and of his high priest. Joseph decended from David and
Mary (modern names) from the priest making Yeshuah a prime candidate.
Moreover astrologers (the 3 wise guys) predicted a new king's birth at the
time Yeshuah was born, so many Jews hoped or feared the messiah had come.
There is no record of Yeshuah claiming to be this messiah, and history
clearly shows he was not (He didn't whup up on Rome). Nor did he ever claim
to be the son of god. He was a very conservative Jew and that would have
been a heresy. In fact, his desciples tried to kill Saul when he proposed
that notion. That's why he had to hide out and change his name to Paul.

Where do you get these ideas? Certainly not from history.

God tells me. Compete with that!

If you are not pulling our legs, I recommend you seek psychological help
ASAP. Having "the voices" tell you things is a sign of serious and possibly
dangerous mental illness that can be controlled.

Divine Definition
 

"Vito" wrote in message
...
If you are not pulling our legs, I recommend you seek psychological help
ASAP. Having "the voices" tell you things is a sign of serious and
possibly
dangerous mental illness that can be controlled.

This may well be true in the case of GWB, however most believers will
understand that "Thou shalt not kill."

Anybody who claims to be killing on behalf of God, is by definition, a liar.



Regards


Donal
--

Divine Definition
 

Donal,

Your statement;"Anyone killing in the name of God if by definition a
liar."

Oh Boy! Did you really think that statement through? It certainly isn't
true.

All butchers are liars? The Lion at the waterhole is a liar and a
sinner? The Rabbi at the slaughterhouses is a Liar? The killing of the
Spring Lamb for Easter.'The Stoning for adultery wasn't God's doing?

When we were Created, it was with the need to kill to survive. The book
where you took your; "Thou shall not kill" had Abraham ready to kill his
Son to please his God.

What happened to all the Living Creature that didn't get abroad "The
ARK?" How about the Egyptian drowned in the Red Sea?

Please think more carefully when you DOUBLE SPEAK with something from
your reference.

Ole Thom

Divine Definition
 

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Donal,

Your statement;"Anyone killing in the name of God if by definition a
liar."


My apologies. You are correct!


I intended to say that "Anyone killing *another human* in the name of God is
by definition, a liar".




Regards


Donal
--

Divine Definition
 

wrote in message
...


Oh... A religion of convenience! Now I see! If it furthers your goals,
it's
okay. If it furthers someone else's goals, it's not okay. Have you ever
considered the phrase "all God's creatures"? Do you have a notarized
affidavit
from God saying that he really thinks in terms of "some of God's creatures
count
more than others"? What about plants? Are they God's creatures or not? Who
is
the controlling authority?

Have you any idea how stupid you look when you post rubbish like that?

Do you check the ground for ants, or other small insects, before you take a
step?

You must walk *very* slowly!



Regards


Donal
--

Divine Definition
 

wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2004 23:46:03 +0100, "Donal" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .


Oh... A religion of convenience! Now I see! If it furthers your goals,
it's
okay. If it furthers someone else's goals, it's not okay. Have you ever
considered the phrase "all God's creatures"? Do you have a notarized
affidavit
from God saying that he really thinks in terms of "some of God's
creatures
count
more than others"? What about plants? Are they God's creatures or not?
Who
is
the controlling authority?

Have you any idea how stupid you look when you post rubbish like that?

Do you check the ground for ants, or other small insects, before you take
a
step?

You must walk *very* slowly!


No, it is you who must walk slowly, to keep in sync with your thought
process.

I was asking about you and your silly superstitions. I take it god was out
of
the office when you requested the notarized affidavit? I think you better
get
written permission from him before stepping on any more bugs. You might
already
be eternally damned on that point alone.

BB

Nah, it just won't happen...I have Donal's back. ;-)

LP

Divine Definition
 

Nah, it just won't happen...I have Donal's back. ;-)



Ewwwwwww!


RB

Divine Definition
 

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
| Nah, it just won't happen...I have Donal's back. ;-)
|
|
|
| Ewwwwwww!

Heh man..... I thought you had the "hots" for Doughnut?

Jealous?

Bwahahahahahahhaaaa


CM

Divine Definition
 

wrote in message
...

No, it is you who must walk slowly, to keep in sync with your thought
process.

I was asking about you and your silly superstitions

What superstitions?

I've considered the options regarding the birth of the Universe.

As far as I can see there are three options.

God created it!
It appeared spontaneously(sp?).
It is forever expanding and contracting.



Is any of these options free of "superstition"?

Perhaps you can put forward a view that does not depend on superstition????

Perhaps you will admit that you are incapable of considering the subject!!


Regards


Donal
--

Divine Definition
 

wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2004 00:49:47 -0500, "Lady Pilot"
wrote:


Nah, it just won't happen...I have Donal's back. ;-)

LP


I'm guessing that you pretty much have his face and figure as well.

BB

You aren't a very good guesser. Stay away from gambling.

You can always tell when someone starts losing it on usenet. LOL

LP

Divine Definition
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

I've considered the options regarding the birth of the Universe.

As far as I can see there are three options.

God created it!
It appeared spontaneously(sp?).
It is forever expanding and contracting.


Consider:
If you had asked the same question not too long ago science would have provided
different possibilities. The odds are pretty good that our children will be
considering possibilities that haven't been dreamed up yet. Cosmology is a very
young science, and we have very limited perspective. This is not a science that
one approaches by saying "There are only two possibilities."

Divine Definition
 

For that matter, I'm not convinced
that you ever really had it.

If she had, she sold it. Cheap.

RB

Divine Definition
 

Most of the time she seems to be desperately trying to give it away.


Maybe she should pay someone to take it. Sorta like recycling.
BTW, did you sail today? It was just about perfect out there with a single reef
tied in.

RB

Divine Definition
 

I was out Saturday for some excitement. The winds were pretty erratic. One
minute 10 knots and the next 35 or more. The seas couldn't decide what to do,
so
the waves were almost a cross hatch of 2 footers. We got plenty wet! Sunday, I
had a family function to attend. I'll be headed out for the boat in a little
bit. Today is supposed to be great until early evening.

Same weather near the bridges. Not fun with a loaded boat. I'm doing a test
sail with a Husband and Wife I may sell a boat to, so that's all the sailing I
get today.

RB

Divine Definition
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...

I've considered the options regarding the birth of the Universe.

As far as I can see there are three options.

God created it!
It appeared spontaneously(sp?).
It is forever expanding and contracting.


Consider:
If you had asked the same question not too long ago science would have
provided
different possibilities. The odds are pretty good that our children will
be
considering possibilities that haven't been dreamed up yet. Cosmology is
a very
young science, and we have very limited perspective. This is not a
science that
one approaches by saying "There are only two possibilities."

You're absolutely correct, Jeff. There are only *three* possibilities!!




Regards

Donal
--

Divine Definition
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...

I've considered the options regarding the birth of the Universe.

As far as I can see there are three options.

God created it!
It appeared spontaneously(sp?).
It is forever expanding and contracting.


Consider:
If you had asked the same question not too long ago science would have
provided
different possibilities. The odds are pretty good that our children will
be
considering possibilities that haven't been dreamed up yet. Cosmology is
a very
young science, and we have very limited perspective. This is not a
science that
one approaches by saying "There are only two possibilities."

You're absolutely correct, Jeff. There are only *three* possibilities!!


I was counting the two possibilities you claim are offered by the science of
Cosmology, not the "fallback" I presume you intend to offer because of some flaw
in the others. I find it rather impressive that you can not only summarize all
of the possibilities offered right now in a few words, but that you're confident
this includes all possibilities that will be offered for all time.

Divine Definition
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

I was counting the two possibilities you claim are offered by the science
of
Cosmology, not the "fallback" I presume you intend to offer because of
some flaw
in the others. I find it rather impressive that you can not only
summarize all
of the possibilities offered right now in a few words, but that you're
confident
this includes all possibilities that will be offered for all time.

I don't think that I said that I was confident that I could foresee all
possibilities that might be offered in the future.

My (unpalatable) views are based on current scientific thinking. The
mistake that you, and Wally, are making is that you assume that I am a
religious fanatic. You really need to read my posts again. I'm not very
religious.


Regards


Donal
--

Divine Definition
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

I was counting the two possibilities you claim are offered by the science
of
Cosmology, not the "fallback" I presume you intend to offer because of
some flaw
in the others. I find it rather impressive that you can not only
summarize all
of the possibilities offered right now in a few words, but that you're
confident
this includes all possibilities that will be offered for all time.

I don't think that I said that I was confident that I could foresee all
possibilities that might be offered in the future.

My (unpalatable) views are based on current scientific thinking. The
mistake that you, and Wally, are making is that you assume that I am a
religious fanatic. You really need to read my posts again. I'm not very
religious.


Regards


Donal
--

Divine Definition
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...

My (unpalatable) views are based on current scientific thinking. The
mistake that you, and Wally, are making is that you assume that I am a
religious fanatic. You really need to read my posts again. I'm not very
religious.

I've read your posts but I have no idea what you "view" is. Perhaps you can
state it clearly.

Divine Definition
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

My (unpalatable) views are based on current scientific thinking. The
mistake that you, and Wally, are making is that you assume that I am a
religious fanatic. You really need to read my posts again. I'm not
very
religious.

I've read your posts but I have no idea what you "view" is. Perhaps you
can
state it clearly.


OK! I'll state it again.

I can only see three possibilities for the creation of the Universe

1) It has always existed - and therefore must be continually expanding and
contracting.
2) It came into being in a spontanaeous event.
3) God created it.


1) seems unlikely because current observations suggest that the rate of
expansion is accelerating. That means that the Universe is never going to
contract again. Therefore a cycle is ruled out.


2) is based on the idea that the Universe is composed of equal amounts of
matter, and anti-matter. The theory states that *nothing* was actually
created in the Big Bang, and therefore no explanation is really necessary.
Steve Hawkins described this in his famous book.



3) Is more likely than the other two.


If you have an alternative theory, then I would like to hear it. Despite
my apparent arrogance, .. I *do* listen to evidence.

Regards


Donal
--

Divine Definition
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

My (unpalatable) views are based on current scientific thinking. The
mistake that you, and Wally, are making is that you assume that I am a
religious fanatic. You really need to read my posts again. I'm not
very
religious.

I've read your posts but I have no idea what you "view" is. Perhaps you
can
state it clearly.


OK! I'll state it again.

I can only see three possibilities for the creation of the Universe

1) It has always existed - and therefore must be continually expanding and
contracting.
2) It came into being in a spontanaeous event.
3) God created it.


1) seems unlikely because current observations suggest that the rate of
expansion is accelerating. That means that the Universe is never going to
contract again. Therefore a cycle is ruled out.


2) is based on the idea that the Universe is composed of equal amounts of
matter, and anti-matter. The theory states that *nothing* was actually
created in the Big Bang, and therefore no explanation is really necessary.
Steve Hawkins described this in his famous book.



3) Is more likely than the other two.


If you have an alternative theory, then I would like to hear it. Despite
my apparent arrogance, .. I *do* listen to evidence.

Regards


Donal
--

Divine Definition
 

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

My (unpalatable) views are based on current scientific thinking. The
mistake that you, and Wally, are making is that you assume that I am a
religious fanatic. You really need to read my posts again. I'm not
very
religious.

I've read your posts but I have no idea what you "view" is. Perhaps you
can
state it clearly.


OK! I'll state it again.

I can only see three possibilities for the creation of the Universe

1) It has always existed - and therefore must be continually expanding and
contracting.
2) It came into being in a spontanaeous event.
3) God created it.


1) seems unlikely because current observations suggest that the rate of
expansion is accelerating. That means that the Universe is never going to
contract again. Therefore a cycle is ruled out.


2) is based on the idea that the Universe is composed of equal amounts of
matter, and anti-matter. The theory states that *nothing* was actually
created in the Big Bang, and therefore no explanation is really necessary.
Steve Hawkins described this in his famous book.



3) Is more likely than the other two.


If you have an alternative theory, then I would like to hear it. Despite
my apparent arrogance, .. I *do* listen to evidence.

Regards


Donal
--

Divine Definition
 

"Donal" wrote in message
...
I've read your posts but I have no idea what you "view" is. Perhaps you
can
state it clearly.


OK! I'll state it again.

I can only see three possibilities for the creation of the Universe.

1) It has always existed - and therefore must be continually expanding and
contracting.
2) It came into being in a spontanaeous event.
3) God created it.


1) seems unlikely because current observations suggest that the rate of
expansion is accelerating. That means that the Universe is never going to
contract again. Therefore a cycle is ruled out.


2) is based on the idea that the Universe is composed of equal amounts of
matter, and anti-matter. The theory states that *nothing* was actually
created in the Big Bang, and therefore no explanation is really necessary.
Steve Hawkins described this in his famous book.


I was right. You've given two overly simplified possibilities, reduce to a few
words, and declared that you don't understand them so they are "ruled out."
You've ignored the infinite possibilities that will come in the future, instead,
you've implied that you don't believe you would ever accept them.




3) Is more likely than the other two.


Sorry Donal, this is the lamest "proof of the existance of God" I've every
heard. You're saying, "I'm stupid. Therefore, God must exist."


If you have an alternative theory, then I would like to hear it. Despite
my apparent arrogance, .. I *do* listen to evidence.


How about, "The modern science of cosmology is less then 100 years old. We've
learned a lot already but much of it doesn't make sense. Maybe in another 1000
years or so we'll have a better handle on it."

Divine Definition
 

Donal wrote:

My (unpalatable) views are based on current scientific thinking.

Just which peer reviewed "Scientific" journal should I peruse to read articles
which would suggest that "current scientific thinking" is no longer in accordance
with the Theory of Evolution"?

Cheers
Marty

Divine Definition
 

"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

My (unpalatable) views are based on current scientific thinking.

Just which peer reviewed "Scientific" journal should I peruse to read
articles
which would suggest that "current scientific thinking" is no longer in
accordance
with the Theory of Evolution"?

Sorry about taking so long to reply. I have a huge amount of unread posts to
catch up on!

I didn't mean to imply that scientists agreed with me. I was trying to say
that my arguements are based on scientific thinking.

IOW, I am not relying on religious beliefs to back up my contentions.

Scientists agree that Man could not have evolved in the available time
unless there were periods of *intense* development.

They try to suggest that man underwent extreme development during periods of
intense radiation. This theory is completely discredited by practical
observations.


Regards


Donal
--

Divine Definition OT
 

"Donal" wrote

Scientists agree that Man could not have evolved in the available time
unless there were periods of *intense* development.

That's the first time I heard that and doubt its factuality considering that
a new species of moth evolved in 'Blymie' in less than one human lifetime.
The original species was white matching the bark of a type of tree. A few
'mutants' were varigated but that was a disadvantage (made them more visible
to birds) so few survived to breed.

Come industry, soot from then new factories darkened the bark making white
moths more visible and vulnerable to birds than their varigated brothers and
sisters and the whites disappeared from the region whilst the varigated
thrived and evolved into a new species that cannot breed with their
anticedents any more than we can breed with other mammals. The much-older
white species still exists - just not in industrial England.

It follows that, if a brand new species of insect can evolve in less than a
century then man could easily evolve in millions of years, and I doubt many
'scientists' agree otherwise.

OTOH an Artic expedition experimenting to find the optimum length of their
artificial day discovered that 25 hours was about right. This argued that,
unlike Earthly species, we had evolved elsewhere - probably Mars. It also
explained why it's so hard to get up in the morning (c: