sky4it

Nice analysis Tbone, kind of reminds me of my slogan on the bottom. Words and works I would be especially interested in your commentary on this: and anyone Since God has foreknowledge this we know, but wants a rest from his works, (this we know from the bible) Is in not possible that he established things like righteousness and justice so that he didnt have to stand around and busy himself with foreknowledge and in so doing; enable people the capacity to have works that are judged in a righteousness setting? This certainly makes sense to me. I mean who would want to stand around with a bottle and a diaper and do this forever? Looks to me like there is a reasonable method to the endpoint.

Horses: Actually, Calvin did see the type of argument that I have made here and prepared in rather short fashion his material to defend against it. Of course, Calvin did not address all the points I have made be he did in fact anticipate someone saying some of the things I have. What was his response? It is in fact, one of the most bizarre Calvin comments of all time. His end run response was,” LET HIM WHO RECEIVES, TAKE AND DRINK, DRINK AND LIVE.” DRINK AND LIVE? Drink what? Well the concept is drink the doctrine of Predestination of course and live. It is in fact what he is talking about in the text. The quote above is from the following in Calvin’s Writings and posted here for you: Book 3, Chapter 23, Section 13: "Wherefore, if the apostles and teachers of the Church who came after them did both; if they discoursed piously of the eternal election of God, and at the same time kept believers under the discipline of a pious life, how can those men of our day, when shut up by the invincible force of truth, think they are right in saying, that what is said of predestination, though it is true, must not be preached to the people? Nay, it ought indeed to be preached, that whoso has ears to hear may hear. And who has ears if he has not received them from him who has promised to give them? Certainly, let him who receives not, reject. Let him who receives, take and drink, drink and live.” You might also find interesting the argument he laid out against a few of the things I said. Basically, Calvin says that the doctrine of predestination ought to cause people “TO ASPIRE TO IT” The it being holiness or without blame before him in love. The bible clearly says to crucify your affections and lusts, not to aspire them away. Calvin then clearly says later, that it is BLASPHEME TO INVERT THE WHOLE ORDER (Wicked blaspheme at that) OF ELECTION. What Calvin is saying is that ELECTION IS THE PRINCIPAL OF SALVATION. And that it is blaspheme to think otherwise. This of course perhaps speaks of how Garth pointed out that someone was killed if they disagreed with this stuff. Also it speaks volumes to the personality of John Calvin and why it is in fact a cult. If in fact you look up the first part of the paragraph you will find that Calvin really condemns people who act like swine and go on in lust. Still, in the next sentence he completely undoes what he just said, by God determined to save us and “he will bring us to it in his own time.” After that it gets really weird where he says ,”if he has doomed us to death it is vain for us to fight against it.” Which is why I told you that Calvinists have no out pitch with God. CALVIN TEACHES THAT IF GOD DOOMS YOU , YOU LOSE AND THERE ISN’T ONE STINKING THING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Sort of like if you are a bad machine get used to it, you’re a bad machine baby. It in fact is the same argument I made about evolution and the moral component. Under Calvin, if your bad don’t even try. This is clearly wrong from scriptural teaching. Here is the quote from Calvin: Book 3 Chapter 23, Section 12 12. Another argument which they employ to overthrow predestination is that if it stand, all care and study of well doing must cease. For what man can hear (say they) that life and death are fixed by an eternal and immutable decree of God, without immediately concluding that it is of no consequence how he acts, since no work of his can either hinder or further the predestination of God? Thus all will rush on, and like desperate men plunge headlong wherever lust inclines. And it is true that this is not altogether a fiction; for there are multitudes of a swinish nature who defile the doctrine of predestination by their profane blasphemies, and employ them as a cloak to evade all admonition and censure. "God knows what he has determined to do with regard to us: if he has decreed our salvation, he will bring us to it in his own time; if he has doomed us to death, it is vain for us to fight against it." But Scripture, while it enjoins us to think of this high mystery with much greater reverence and religion, gives very different instruction to the pious, and justly condemns the accursed license of the ungodly. For it does not remind us of predestination to increase our audacity, and tempt us to pry with impious presumption into the inscrutable counsels of God, but rather to humble and abase us, that we may tremble at his judgment, and learn to look up to his mercy. This is the mark at which believers will aim. The grunt of these filthy swine is duly silenced by Paul. They say that they feel secure in vices because, if they are of the number of the elect, their vices will be no obstacle to the ultimate attainment of life. But Paul reminds us that the end for which we are elected is, "that we should be holy, and without blame before him," (Eph. 1:4). If the end of election is holiness of life, it ought to arouse and stimulate us strenuously to aspire to it, instead of serving as a pretext for sloth. How wide the difference between the two things, between ceasing from well-doing because election is sufficient for salvation, and its being the very end of election, that we should devote ourselves to the study of good works. Have done, then, with blasphemies which wickedly invert the whole order of election. When they extend their blasphemies farther, and say that he who is reprobated by God will lose his pains if he studies to approve himself to him by innocence and probity of life, they are convicted of the most impudent falsehood. HERE’S A COUPLE OF MORE CALVIN’S QUOTES DESCRIBING HIS MIND: 4 Book 3 Chapter 23 Section 4 Last sentence of that paragraph. “Of this no other cause can be adduced than reprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God.” Reprobation is “NOT A SECRET COUNSEL” in the mind of God. This is 100 percent false. In fact we already described from the bible what a reprobate acts like. Furthermore, the bible clearly teaches that God would have all men to be saved. Book3 Chapter 23 Section 8 8 The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not. This is absolutely false teaching. The Lord “did not deem it meet” that man should fall. The Lord told man not to do something or they would die. Calvin loves to do this to make God responsible for his own actions. Why man fell we know exactly. It is called sin. Calvin evades this not without a purpose either. It is to justify the lifestyle. BTW, here is an interesting concept. We know that God is all knowing and has foreknowledge. But what if he wanted to take a break and not involve his knowledge with some. God is “ALL KNOWING”, I agree, but if he decides not to be he doesn’t have to. This fits perfectly within reason why God has asked people to discard and crucify the lusts of the flesh. It certainly appears God does not want to sit around and look into the future of those who won’t. And if he makes that choice who am I , Calvin or anyone else to tell him he has too? Has he made a choice to do so? The bible clearly indicates that God is building a temple of people for a REST. A rest is a break. With respect to anything in life that one chooses: You have probably heard the saying: Fools rush in. In anything in life there is some truth to that. A wise man always counts the cost. We are accountable for our choices in life otherwise we would not have a free will.

Invisible Dan: thanks for the info, i will keep it in mind. Garth: you said I need to prepare better, uh ok, I will have some stuff for you later this week, Thurs or so, my own goods Geo hope to see you too. Bramble: usaid: For the life of me I can't see a connection between evolution beliefs and social ills. Many people are not believers in Bible Creationism, not even within the Christian religion. I can't fathom how not believeing the Bible creation story or some form of Bible creation/God creation makes someone prone to evil. That just seems too simplistic an explanation. Most of the people I know well are 'evolutionists,' especially my wild life biologist brother. How that makes them scary people I can't figure. I think anything that is at the core of how soceity behaves is rooted in the belief structure. Thats true off all different things we charish, wether democracy, capitalism or whatever. As a Christian, I never even used to think about evolution. I thought growing up that evolution since it was mentioned in text books only lightly, was by and large just a passing phase like the hippie movement. Evolution has been making a rather profound comeback. Richard Wiekert's book is the one that actually made me study the stuff. In fact, the concepts behind evolution may be making unusual comebacks in genetic cloning experiments and other scientific things that might if we knew be startling. As far as how it impacts people, it doesnt do anything good for me to discuss that at length, so I will ratchet that down. The concept of evolution as a science is a little more interesting.

bramble: usaid: I wonder though--does a soft answer work with a bully or an abusive person? Aggressive people arent always bullies. I think I am a tad aggresive, but a bully is persistent without reason. How does a soft answer affect aggressive people? In my case it makes little difference, unless that answer has some reason to it. People that are nice can be the most deceptive of all don't you think? I mean VPW he sured sounded like a nice person. Now if your talking about wrath or heated anger, yeah I think that would slow that down. Or do they interpret it as getting what they want from their aggression? Some do some don't. I would think that someone who is at all caring would slow up some to see what the soft answer is for. Anyway your questions were so good I had to get my 2 cents worth in.

Garth see above GeoAR: One thing I am not is an apologist for the Discovery Institute. Actually, I know little about them, good or bad. If Wiekart was a part of that, well there is one heck of a fine work. Thats all I know about them. Philosphy and science has had some good effects and some bad effects. Its the old exploration vs pollution argument and it wont be settled anytime soon. usaid: Most people are theists and there is no evidence that a disproportionate number of atheists are committing the world’s sins and crimes. The bible calls sexual immorality a crime. In fact ,Job called it a heinous crime. Job 31:11. So society and the bible differ in what a crime is and isnt. What you said above may well be beyond the scope of our ability to know. Certainly even if someone tried to study it, it may be difficult to come to a good conclusion. I suspect that crimes are committed in equal proportion in men that are morally intemperate wether atheist or not. Perhaps, my light hearted twist of putting Dahlmer in the athiest camp, ie (he was) has got this thing off on the wrong foot. usaid: In fact, one of Christianity’s own, George Barna, fell from grace with many fundamentalists when he published the results of a poll that found that in terms of standards many Christians think distinguish them from evildoers, there is no difference between themselves and non-religious people. There is no difference in the divorce rate, in the belief in absolute moral truth, in how they rank economic self-interest in relation to spiritual or moral values, or “living a comfortable lifestyle” in relation to having a close, personal relationship with God. Barna is a longtime Christian pollster who has authored over 30 books on the state of Christianity." yes Geo, there certianly seems to be a lot of that going on everywhere, but I am not an Apologist for other peoples lives either. In fact, the Corinthian people seemed to have the same problem during the Apostle Paul's time, this did not however change the working of the dynamics. Thankfully, I am only accountable for my own actions. later....................................... its burger time

Garth: usaid: No, it just adds to the info that you BELIEVE in. Please note the distinction between BELIEF and PROOF. I already did state the proof in the Spencer capalistic evolutionary view. This was the purpose of explaining the life of Spencer. cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeessse The resources for the Spencer view were all independent, deal with it usaid: mixture of 'leftism' and atheists in your arguments as tho' they are the same. ... I got news for you. There are plenty of Libertarian atheists (a few here on this board even), and one thing you do NOT call them is 'leftist', especially in the economic context. I made three valid points on the other stuff, you like one, so I disagree. With respect to the stuff in your above quote, I only called them "left' on this occasions, and you are correct they may prefer to think of themselves as something else, IT WILL NOT BE DONE AGAIN. usaid: And do you know why this is? Hint: the biggest part of this dictatorial practice is illustrated by the word beginning with the letter 'd' in this sentence. ... Give up? It's the word 'dictatorial'. Ie., as in dictatorship! Hey Garth, I know that there have been dictators in countries that weren't communist and were ruthless, I thought the topic was communism. BTW, I am a capitalist, and I am not versed on Karl Marx or the Darwin/Marx possible combo, which I said before. Thus, I would prefer to leave that debate for another time, as I am rusty on that. usaid: Red China. Soviet Russia. Nazi Germany. Mussolini's Germany. Idi Amin's (sp?) dictatorship. And the rest. ALL of them a mixture of Communist and non-Communist governments both totalitarian and authoritarian. I am however smart enough to know that Red China and Soviet Russia were not a "a mixture of Communist and non-Communist governments" as you preferred to indicate. I also know they are totalitarian, but wether Marx has any democratic principles it certainly did not seem so in countries where they assumed control. (Cuba , eastern europe etc) For the sake of argument, until I brush up on my history (or not) lets let that one go. BTW just because the USSR had the word Socialist in it did not make it a Socialist country. A better Socialist country might be one like Sweden to describe. usaid: dictators. ... The same kind of power mad dictators that made laws throwing into jail/executing atheists because they didn't obey the doctrines and dictates of the church, and who have had the temerity to openly publish their atheist writings. Were the dictators that did this Communist? No Garth: Like John Calvin to some extent, but I do not know if he persecuted atheists. :) Were there dictators who threw the infidel in the toilet? yes of course there were Garth and I cede you that point, but not without reason. I also understand that athiests are a little hysterical in thinking that this could happen here if you let what you call the right run things. I do think these fears are somewhat exaggerated. I think you and I discussed this somewhat on the Calvin thread. Remember when I told you that the Bible never gets a break for the Christian Crusades. Of course, dumping and killing people many times has nothing to do with religious/athiest battles either. Sometimes its just being the fo of the wrong person and they provide convenient excuses. I do think you know one thing tho, that murder is NOT a biblical principle, neither did I say it is an athiestic one. I just say, there is no hurtle there if one wants to be one. It is very similar to the agrument I have made about Calvin doctine being an immoral or impure one. usaid: You still are blindly stuck to this empty diatribe of equating atheism with lack of morals/ethics/values. Sqquuaawwkk! Sky4it wants a cracker!" ... That's basically what your posts boil down to. Yes I am stuck but no its not blind, I provide you with the proof in Darwin's Holy Grail itself later. Thanks for the offer on the cracker, I would rather go get a cheese burger tonight. usaid: "Do you see why the Hitler thing is a statlemate so the other issues are important?" So you are giving up on that evolution-Hitler link as ridiculous on its face at last? Garth, What I said is you can't look to Hitler's statements regarding evolution and Christianity because he has statements on both sides causing it to be a stalemate. I said you have to look at other sources because of this. So, NO, I am not giving up on the Nazi Germany , Haeckel -Krupp-Darwin dynamics because this STUFF HAPPENED AND IS THE TRUTH. In fact, the fact that Hitler mentioned it in his statements proves that politically he had to appease those who believed that way, as well as his comments were appeasing to church people. usaid: See, Yet Again you judge the whole of evolution according to the misdeeds of certain individuals. And you still cannot see that? Well obviously all atheists are NOT Jeffery Dalmer or our cities would look like Night of the Living Dead. My point is simply that bible beilieving spirit filled people are harmless and that Darwinism provided a delicious meal for some rather carnivous types. Cant you at least see that? People become what they eat, (well not in Dahlmers case) joke intended. If you eat a doctine that is morally codeless there isnt a lot of help there for moral growth. Thats is my point, cant you see that? usaid: that Jesus himself was of the socialist/Marxist mindset, as they made the claim that because Jesus believed in giving to the poor, railing against the rich, etc. Yes Garth, I know Jesus was not a capitalist, but he wasn't a Marxist either. Actually, his idea of governance was not of this world, and was based upon moral principals, the same ones I have said are missing in Calvin and Darwin ideals. This all brings up another fine point. I mean even Darwinists know who God is ie(the one of the old testament) and Jesus (the guy who died on the cross) Darwinists want to turn them into a Evolutionary machine if you will. So do Calvinists. You actually share something in common with Calvin? A sick thought eh? With respect to Evolution, the Long agrument is the short argument and the short arguement is the long argument. ( I said that about Calvin too) But the long argument is just way to humorous to not make about Darwin and Darwin's science. What is the short argument? Well for someone like Dawkins it is pretty simple, Dawkins got hit by a lighting bolt in his ASSumption at age 17.

Garth & Geo socks (nice joke, but i try to make em myself) G & G: The main reason I wrote that is too show you there is lots of stuff out there, people like Spencer that add to the PROOF. I do not need to hide behind Ann Coulter's skirt, wear Behe's shoes, or put on Wiekerts overcoat to fight Darwin. The best way for me to fight Darwin is with Darwin, or to fight Dawkins is with Dawkins. They have some shoddy card tricks they are playing. After this, lets move on to that. Garth: u said: ... which further spouts the discredited conservative party line that atheists lack moral values. Discredited I say? Yup, as there have been a good number of atheists throughout history who have embraced and championed for the same labor laws, anti-trust legislation and social programs that have been combined with capitalism, much of which a good number of conservative Christian politicians have been *against* over the many years. Ie., it just shows that there were and are a mixture of religious/atheist activists in those areas, and where no one group can make exclusive moral claim to any of them. Point 1)That's because we have a democracy. Democracy in itself cannot succeed if 51 or more percent of the people want a self destructive behavior. ie(A misbehaving minority would not get many new laws in effect.)Point 2) Some of which you refer to in how politicians vote is also skewed because many politicians vote the party line and to get re-elected, so it does not always reflect there core beliefs. Point 3) It certainly seems, from my vantage point, that political or celebrity athiests do NOT say much about there faith in the psuedoscience. They are in fact cowards to admit it. This is why the left of the left does not have a core of political movers on the face of things. Thus your argument really falls apart. usaid: Oh by the way, interesting that you make claim of Smith, a 'deist', for the religious side. Many conservative Christians, both back then and now, would say that deists are "atheists who go to church". Well, a diest has howbeit some small core values. Still, I said Adam Smith and Company. Smith's only contribution to American Capitilism was the ideology any way, and its noteworthy to mention his deist belief's made him feel morally compelled, where Darwin and Spencer had nothing to add to the mixture of ethical and moral values. More over the application of Smith's ideology, was greatly influenced by Christian values which in a historical context is more important. BTW, going to church, of itself is an oversold concept, practicing ones beleifs is a little more important. I mean Clinton "goes to church sometimes too." So pleaaaasssseseeee Besides that, capitalism without any government supervision could in fact get quite nasty. Leave it to a "diest" to trumpet the dynamics is about right. In addition, economics is loosely considered a science but still is found in business administration side of campuses where they do teach '"ethics" . If not for the good people of "faith" there term economics could had a rather besmerged name. This was the point. Most sceintists study there field and try to keep there religious values off the field. One can hardly do this however, when the science effects people. ie( As Darwin does) Some sciences do some don't. Studying the law of gravity hardly impacts wether people will eat or not, At least not today. I mean, why can't the people of biology stick to where they belong, like helping increase agricultural crop yields. Instead of turning biology into a circus for how the body innately has ethics in its genes and it gets "taught" usaid: This one is so ridiculous, it isn't even funny Communism is an economic philosophy (albeit a bad one) dealing mainly with common ownership of property, period. o Atheism is a non-belief in god(s) or spirit beings, period. I speak mainly by what is in practice over the last 100 years. Perhaps you should tell Richard Wurmbrand, Romanian Lutheran who spent the better part of his life in prision how it is that Communism supports people of religious belief. Perhaps also some Chinese people living in this courntry or why it is that Bibles still to this day are not acceptable printed material in China. Is there a Marxist island where churches abound so that you can prove the point in PRACTICE? usaid: Economic philosophies do not deal with the existance or non-existance of gods, and vica-versa. Whatever and however atheism was used by Communist leaders for their own purposes was incidental at _best_. Ie., you didn't need to be an atheist to be a Communist. Perhaps you can recite to me in specific ;all the bible carrying faith believing Communists that were members of the Communist party? Since i know of none , sort of sounds like a by definition characteristic to me of what a good ole card carrying communist member is. usaid: False. ethics and morals are things that are taught Jeffery Dahlmer was taught values too. It's just his carnivourous side seemed to take over when he thought of evolution. (See msnbc Dahlmer interview) Could it be that if the Darwin Holy Grail is around it might be a good excuse for other's to leave those morals and ethics on the sideline when convenient? YESSSSSSSSSSS False False False False ok I know your time is limited. And er, eh, Do you see why the Hitler thing is a statlemate so the other issues are important? And lets not forget the athiestic credo of trying to make the Master/ Servant relationship ridiculous but assuming over 2000 years ago they had empolyer-employee relationships that punched timecards/and had labor strikes for that's the only way thay can make a arguement that the OT is irrational. (I mean, where are those employees running around over 2,000 years ago with picket signs so that Darwinists can recesitate there arguments against the Bible, and blow life into Darwin's holy grail? er uh hack cough, upon closer observation all the Darwinists have is a hat with a missing rabbit) After this lets talk a little Darwin and Richarrrrrdd Dah Dah Dah Dah Dawkinnnns, ( I just studder when i say that name)

Abby: K Like I said to the Garth one, later on the intellectual stuff maybe Sunday. Well ABBY, it was my own jokes , but we shall talk later ABBY....................................... Music dance oh yeah, its Friday nite Miss Abby

Sushi: why is it I laugh more at my own jokes than anyone else? A: because I have a good sense of humor. Now that was lame. cheers

Case of God (Creator) V.S. Evolutionary Atheism I did not get this stuff from Wiekart, Miss Ann Coulter or any “Christian” source, I wrote this myself. This paper is about evolutionary atheism and how it “could” have impacted American Capital markets. (I have 20 credits of Econ. So it is a little more natural topic for me.) There is an interesting fellow by the name of Herbert Spencer. Spencer was a philosopher and political theorist. Spencer’s writings addressed a wide variety of topics including: biology, ethics, economics and sociology. Spencer and Charles Darwin were contemporaries. Herbert Spencer was an evolutionary atheist, but could hardly be called a Darwinist. Spencer’s evolutionary views were different than Darwin’s in some regards; his brand of evolutionary atheism was more ‘cosmos’ in belief. Spencer, as is thought, was the originator of the term “survival of the fittest.” Apparently Spencer coined the term, from Darwin’s work, then later on in Darwin’s life Darwin himself used the term. Spencer is sometimes incorrectly called a “Social Darwinist” In fact, Spencer was not at all a Darwinist in thought. Spencer believed that evolution had a “social” component in how societies evolve. When it came to economic thought Spencer was anything but a Socialist. Spencer was a capitalist above all. As such, Spencer for a brief time in American history had a marginal effect on emerging capital markets in the United States. Adam Smith, is widely regarded as the father of modern economics. Smith died in 1790 so he would not have been a contemporary of either Darwin or Spencer. The economic principal of laissez-faire capitalism, loosely means free market economics or capitalism with no or little government interference. The term laissez-faire capitalism, is a neutral term, in context for how it is actually implemented. This means, of course , that political, social and ethical considerations impacted how exactly America implemented this brand of capitalism. Adam Smith was a “deist” in his belief of God. Both Adam Smith and Herbert Spencer could be considered laissez-faire market capitalists. Yet, it is extremely profound how two men who believed in the same capitalistic economics, could be so totally different in how they wanted this brand of capitalism put to practice in the economic theater . The divergence of the two is so profound, that if you didn’t know they were both capitalists you in fact wouldn’t think they were. The place where Smith and Spencer depart in there economic views is precisely what one might expect from a “deist” and evolutionary atheist. The divergence between the two is in the area of moral values or ethical values. In fact, Adam Smith, was so concerned over his brand of capitalism without any safeguard to how it would be viewed; that he wrote an entire book on the subject called “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” The Wikipedia describes this book as follows: “a theory of psychology in which individuals in society find it in their self-interest to develop sympathy as they seek approval of what he calls the "impartial spectator." In addition, Smith, “argues that sympathy is required to achieve socially beneficial results” end quote Wikipedia. Thus, Smith as a “deist” had a well defined sense of morals which he placed upon his view of capitalism. Herbert Spencer, evolutionary atheist, provided no such moral code in his view of capitalism. In fact, in the early days of labor hour relations quotes from Spencer; where used for ”striking down a New York law limiting the number of hours a baker could work during a week” according to Wikipedia.Enclylopedia . Spencer with regards to capitalism actually applied his “survival of the fittest” belief to the letter. Spencer held that government had only two purposes: One was national defense and the other to protect property and people from criminals. The fact that Spencer had almost no ethics or morals with regard to people is implicit from this statement describing his views: “According to Spencer, when the state takes from some to give to others, society is made weaker. He says that the state thereby supports the survival of the unfittest.” (The resource for this statement is provided on a weblink below)(The source is from a person from Quebec, a Doctor Edward Younkins , who is a Professor of Business Administration and Accounting, what this means is he is independent in thought to the average joe person.) Most of Spencer’s views today are widely discredited. If in fact it had not been for Adam Smith, and those who held moral values, the current economic capitalistic society of today, might not have been anything like we have now. Labor laws, anti-trust legislation and social programs combined with capitalism by the government ensured that Herbert Spencer’s brand of evolutionary atheism did not take root. Oddly, one could consider Herbert Spencer a evolutionary Capitalist. When evolutionary atheistic people assert that “evolution” is a value neutral term in regard to economics, political thought and social structures, it is in fact NOT. Evolution always has WHEELS, a reason for where it is headed. Evolution is not a neutral scientific term, but a term that is in motion trying to effect social and political thought structures. This is very clear in the life of Herbert Spencer. Also from the life of Herbert Spencer, it is easy to trace the evilutionary structure, and how it has spread through various different social and political structures: EVOLUTIONARY ATHEISM HAS THE FOLLOWING BRANCHES: 1) Herbert Spencer Evolutionary Capitalism (hit a brick wall with Adam Smith and Co. crashed and burned.) 2) The works of Charles Darwin (alive and kicking today; driving 150mph towards a brick wall) a) cloning????, stem cell research?, genetic research in weird areas????? political effects? 3) Social Darwinism (The works of Ernst Haeckel, Fritz Krupp and Co) crashed & burned 1945 a) Charles Darwin who once said:” the support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail.” Since Darwin, knew and wanted his theories tested in Germany, he has to be included personally for wanting it to be such. b) The Works (Writings of Charles Darwin) 4) Communism is atheism by definition. Since Charles Darwin’s theories are the only ones still touted today, it remains communism only underlying ideology. a)The works (writings) of Charles Darwin. There is no quote available from Darwin that advocated communistic thinking that I possess, so it is difficult to place the person of Charles Darwin here. There may be books on this topic also, but I have not read them meaning, I don’t have a resource on it, or have a working knowledge of it so I will not comment on the Darwin/ Marx possible combo punch. In conclusion, wether Darwin’s or Spencer’s version of evolutionary atheism, both versions over history have shown a propensity to remove ethical and moral codes in relation to society. This has been true in economics, politics, scientific research, social program awareness and more. (This is also true of Communistic brand of evolutionary atheism, wether Darwinian or not. (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) In fact, modern day Darwinian evolutionists have been so concerned about it, that people like Richard Dawkins have felt compelled to make lame arguments explaining how ethical considerations are available through evolutionary fairy tales. No one can make a rational argument that a body of flesh which Darwinians at times explain as a machine, can have automatically ethical and moral components built into their “machine”. The "missing component" of evolutionary thinking can not be made in the Darwinian view,(or any other evolutionary atheistic view) because it does not recognize that man has a spirit and soul which are no just machine like functions of a piece of flesh. (The Bible talks about man's soul and spirit.) THE UPSHOT OF THE MATTER IS THAT ALL FORMS OF EVOLUTIONARY ATHEISM WORK LIKE A VACUUM; WITH NO SAFETY NET OR FAIL SAFE FEATURES THAT HAVE MORAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS. This is why modern day Darwinism is so dangerous. There is a rather BIZARRE twist that comes from the concept of Herbert Spencer evolutionary capitalism approach. Imagine if Spencer’s views had succeeded in shaping American capitalism. If this would have occurred there could have been an Evolutionary Capitalist, Communist & Socialist governments all having been dominated by evolutionary thinking. The bizarre twist is that these competing forms of economic governments all would have been so different in approach to society (because the ideologies of Capitalism, Socialism & Communism are vastly different) that major disagreements (and possibly war) between the factions would have been all but inevitable. Thus, evolutionary atheistic approaches toward society have proved that THEY ARE NOT UNIFORM, which also proves that the ideology of evolution is DESTRUCTIVE TO ITSELF. The fact that different governments can come up with conflicting ideas, proves that evolutionary atheism is implicitly A CONTRADICTION. For evolutionary atheism provides its followers basically a black box, in which one can do whatever one wants. This is true mainly because there are NO moral or ethical considerations that have to be met at any time in the evolutionary atheistic model. Darwinists love to cite the Master-Slave relationship to try in vain to cast a dubious shadow on the Bible. Strong’s Concordance use the word slave twice. The bible commonly uses the word servant. Wether 2000 years ago or 4000 years ago, Darwinists seem to feel that there was such a thing as an employee employer relationship; for how else could they forget that relationships in those era’s were referred to as Master/Servant. It is almost as if when talking about those relationships Darwinists envision employees punching time clocks with labor laws in effect. Yet, even if one can find numerous abuses in this relationship, there is no cause to cast it on the Bible. For, to this day, there are abuses of the employer/employee relationship in child forced labor, and illegal alien workers working for substandard wages. In fact, the Old Testament provides numerous provisions for servant worker rights according to the law. Yet, Darwinist’s cannot mention that under Old Testament Law, servants were granted privileges that one could find almost in any other society. In fact, old Testament law provided some of the first basis for establishing concepts like: statutes, ordinances, trespassing and the most serious offenses of all, major crimes called sin from which they had punishment attached to them not unlike crimes today Darwinist’s love to cite quotes by Adolph Hitler to vainly try and put him in the Christian camp. The argument never flies because Hitler has many references that cite evolution as well. Thus, the argument about Hitler always ends up as a toss up in what he really believed. Is there a way to resolve this conflict? In fact there is a simple solution. Hitler, in quoting both evolution and courting Christians was merely acting the role of a politician, to please and pay respect to both camps. What did Hitler believe? It’s is pretty obvious by what happened. Extermination of races is not a feature of the Bible. The bible calls this murder. The subject matter is however; way more disingenuous than that. Hitler saw himself as a general, a military leader and a military genius. This was always the thing he thought he was good at. Wether by lip service or he was an actual evolutionary atheist, the topic is irrelevant when understanding Nazi Germany. By giving evolutionary Darwinists who put Eugenics into political policy wheels to move it, this is what caused the Holocaust. This is why the book by Richard Wiekart is so vitally important in understanding the Holocaust. There are numerous other resources, in fact, resources that Wiekart doesn’t even quote. Resources about guys like Fritz Krupp, a millionaire industrialist who financed biological evolutionary debate and “research.” What Wiekart, simply does is compile a almost exhaustive list of those involved who should have been implicated in the matter. This is what you would expect from a Professor. Wiekart provides topical resources so if you want to study the matter yourself you can. Thus, if one wanted to study the resources spelled out in Wiekart’s book, one reasonably can.(BTW, Weikart is a Associate Professor of European history. Sort of like getting a mechanic to fix your car, this is how occupations work. Understand?) Now if one wants to simply throw Wiekart off the bus because he is some kind of “right wing conservative”, one cannot do this unless you make a reasonable argument to the converse. Get it? This is called being intelligent. Instead of the Keith Olbermann thing where when it doubt, just put a patch over someone’s eye. The Constitution of the United States, says, “ that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR. This is the terminology used by the framers of the Constitution, thus they had to be believe in a Creator. Both Darwin and Spencer baked two loaves of bread that were identical in terms of the conclusion that they produced evolution and atheism. Metaphorically speaking, it might not hurt to think of these loaves like a buttocks. You know a persons butt. Spencer was an unmarried man and he may in fact liked his buttocks, and so did he like other peoples buttocks too? The jury is out on Spencer’s buttocks and Darwin’s too. Perhaps in all likelihood, they were just trying to find a bra for themselves. They have a new term for that now, perhaps Spencer and Darwin were just looking for there "man boobs." Joke of the Day: Q: What do you call 10 atheists dropped off in Iran; 9 who are stuck there 1 who got out? A: Nine(9) new Muslim converts and the one free atheist.. (That’s my joke I made that one up) Another Joke: Q: How do you win an argument with an atheist? A: Only one way, you have to become one. (I made that one up too.) Resources used weblinks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060625-3.htm http://darwiniana.com/2006/12/13/yes-darwi...cial-darwinist/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria19_2b.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer http://www.biblebelievers.net/CreationScience/kjcevol1.htm BTW, I put that last resource in there which is from a Christian source, BUT I DIDN’T EVEN USE IT. But that’s the one the atheists will always point to, if it has Christian on it, atheists presume it’s invalid right away. ONE more time, I did not even use that resource. Enjoy Sky4it

Garth: usaid: So spare me the 'cat's milk' argument. It's condescending, and it isn't very becoming of you. Once again Garth, you made me laugh, thanks. I take that as a compliment Garth, I really do. Does this mean you generally don't consider me condescending? LMAO well that's a argument that flies both ways no? Anway, lets ajorn this thread because I just started one where it belongs. (In the Cyber Hippies space as you so eloquently indicate) If you post on that other thread, I am going to whoop it up tonight a little and may not get back to you for a couple of days. It should be interesting intriqing and all that; oh braving the waters of uncharted athiestic veiws, what marvelous entertainment lies ahead!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's God Creator VS Eviloutionary (oops typo, not) atheism, what ever shall come next?

Garth: Actually, your comeback on my joke, made me laugh, thanks. I’ll start a thread on topic a little better this weekend where we can have a more civil conversation about the dynamics. As far as the Media matters citation, you COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT. If you had said ,well she is a Republican and this Republican over here did this and this one over here did that; that would have been a little more impressive. As far as the things you said about her being a celebrity and stuff; that doesn’t fly either and here is the reason: (Notice I have a reason) Miss Coulter says things that get people upset, not just a few people but a lot of people. People that are celebrities and want fame, say the least number of upsetting things possible so that they can keep there fame. Get it? That’s how I know she means business. Furthermore, you can see in her books a person of integrity ,honesty and conviction. Her topics are about that those things are missing in society. In addition, she must be a tireless worker, for the books are so referenced and deep; she had to take literally months and months to write them. I have never read material, that has more references, even while I was in college. Look Garth, Listen up: I am not going to stand around and play peek-a-boo with you anymore. I am not going to go into the particulars of your petty argument. In the future, I am going to do, just like you do and avoid, dodge, back away from what you say for one reason: WHAT YOU SAY SOMETIMES DOESN’T REGISTER ON MY COMMON SENSE METER. But give me credit for one thing. At least, when I do it I am telling you that is what I am doing. What you call that is honesty and integrity. As opposed to people like Dawkins and Darwin, who prance around with big words acting like they actually have something that needs to be heard. Now Listen up Garth, this will help you understand. You want to know what I am? I am a piece of chit. That’s what I am. Now listen closely. A person doesn’t just wake up one morning, and discover they are a piece of chit. A piece of chit like me, you become it over many years. I am a work in progress so to speak. Pieces of chit like me are not born, you have to earn your stipes to become one. One becomes a piece of chit, by people using , abusing, disrespecting, and such things for many years. There is however one great piece of news about a piece of chit like me. I can smell somebodies chit, like Darwin and Dawkins all the time. These evilutionary (oops typo) (Darwin and Dawkins I mean not you) atheists? They are driving around on a ten speed bicycle that doesn’t have a seat. Hint Hint: I think they get the point too. Now, back to the amazing Miss Ann Colther. Don’t you think it’s possible that when a guy like Olbermann smashes a doll on his desk of Miss Ann, that this would make her feel like a piece of chit? Problem is she ain’t one. And here is the skinny; throwing the chit back where it belongs: I like to do that and call it simple fun. You see, oh earless one, I gotta get the chit off me too.(Don’t feel bad about being “the earless one”, I mean be positive you still have a nose, mouth and eyes) Because the truth is; it ain’t my chit. Get it? What is the point with Miss Colther? TrashMaster, Kieth Olberman when he did this is trying to turn Miss Colther into what I am, a piece of chit, that my friend is WRONG WRONG WRONG. He should have been fired. I mean if O’Rielly had done this to Nancy Pelosi or Diane Feldstein(spell???) , he would have been FIRED, FIRED and fried, get it? ( I mean, did you see, how Olberman and crew put a patch over her eye in photographs? That’s sick that’s whack and disgusting.) That’s the double standard from the media. And if you can’t get that, its getting late late late and hopeless.(There are things about Nancy Pelosi I like too, so no I am NOT some right wing nut get it? Why? Pelosi bowls people over, does what she wants(at times) like going to Syria.) Now, wether it was Olberman smashing a Miss Ann doll or Dawkins diatribe against God; did you notice that no one (at least that I heard) defended them at all? You know what you call that? That is called a disgrace, by those who had an opportunity in the media to say something about it and didn’t. Get it? Now back to me being a piece of chit. I happen to think that I am priceless as in nobody can even afford me. That is my opinion of myself. So I don’t get worked up about being a piece of chit. Do you understand now, is this CLEAR? Look, Garth, don’t get yourself in a twist overly much or not just yet about this stuff. You hung around with me and we chatted. With me that’s always the cats milk. I presume you are aware of exactly the diatribe Dawkins said was which I referred to earlier. I mean would you sign your name to that and say, yep, Dawkins saying that is you too? Because if you would, that would be the end of the cats milk between you and me.

Abby k, i read yah :) ; I think that if i am over my anger after a diatribe, well then it was a healthy one, I dont let the anger fester. later

Abigail: here they are: Joke of the Day: Q: What do you call 10 atheists dropped off in Iran; 9 who are stuck there 1 who got out? A: Nine(9) new Muslim converts and the one free atheist.. (That’s my joke I made that one up) Another Joke: Q: How do you win an argument with an atheist? A: Only one way, you have to become one. (I made that one up too.)

Abigail: I read your post. About the soft answer part I have a question for you. I mean my tone gets harsh or difficult at times, I do not feel bad when I am done. Are you wanting to do the soft answer becuase you feel bad? Or otherwise? Because when I blow up if I have a reason, I feel good about it. BTW, I made up a few jokes and posted them on the Oakspear thread. They are my jokes as in I came up with them. Please read them I want to know if you think they are funny. ie(I am putting them to the test on you) PLEASE BE HONEST, IT WILL NOT DO ME ANY GOOD FOR YOU TO TELL ME THEY ARE FUNNY IF YOU DON'T THINK SO.

I told you that I would prove to you the media LIES about Miss Ann Coulter. Here is the proof: An organization called media matters wrote and used the following under No.8 below to tell a LIE which was in the following article captioned: Endnotes in Coulters latest book rife with distortions and falsehoods. The link is listed below. The Dawkins comment she is referring too which Dawkins said was, “ Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”. The organization Media Matters, tries to make it look like Dawkins never said this. That quote from Dawkins is in his book the Blind Watchmaker. So Media Matters distorted a given fact, because Dawkins made the statement. Here is the weblink for proof: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Darwin_mad...lfilled_atheist Thus, media matters are a lying piece of crap organization. For, IT’S NOT THAT HARD TO GOOGLE SEARCH THE ITEM AND FIND IT or AT LEAST CHECK IF IT EXISTS. That’s how lame this organization is, it is only a political agenda with them. Below is at this link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200608070002 8. On Pages 199-200, Coulter attacked "atheists" who "need evolution to be true." Citing what she presented as two Washington Post articles from May 15, 2005, Coulter wrote: Although God believers don't need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true. William Provine, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell University, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, famously said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."1 This is why there is a mass panic on the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence against evolution. The Washington Post articles Coulter cited are actually one article by Michael Powell, with the headline, "Doubting Rationalist," accompanied by the subhead, " 'Intelligent Design' Proponent Phillip Johnson, and How He Came to Be." But nowhere in the article will one find the Dawkins quote Coulter cited. Ooops did she put the 1 in the wrong place? It doesn't matter you can find that Dawkins quote at numerous places on the web. This is the cheesy goods that a "independent" news agency brings to the table.

Mr. Horses:(And this is only for Mr. Horses). Look, I thought you were messing with my head ok? But after that last question, I will be as sincere as I can because I think you were too. Let’s just drop the whole number thing because I was just messing with your head too. I even called you Mr., because your questions was so “nice.” ( I don’t like using that word tho) u said . Do you know where I could go to talk to some people about Bible stuff? I would like to know if I could talk to you directly or someone else about things. I like very much to talk to people when they are around me. Look, Horses, I am not a Pastor or a trained Physiologist; so I do not have experience in doing that so I can not. Plus, I am really busy but if you want to talk here from time to time that is fine with me. I can however give you a few recommendations on what to do if you need someone to talk to. Here they are: 1) This is the best option. Keep reading your bible and if you feel comfortable get involved in a bible believing spirit filled church. Do this with one in your own community. I stress that this is better than the next options 2 and 3, because it really is not my business to recommend to someone where to go. So do this one. 2) I only know of one ministry today that goes into peoples homes to help them. I cannot say that I recommend them or not. I do know that they work with different churches so they may be involved in some of the churches in your community. There name is Theophostics. Some people swear by them and others say they don’t work or are bad. They have some psychology involved in what they do. I do not care for that part, I am neutral on that aspect of what they do. What they do well is they are very caring loving helpful people. They do not recruit you to there organization. (That I know of) I stress again if you get involved with them only do it and I emphasize ONLY if they are working under the auspices of a church in your community. That for you is good protection as well as them. I have only met some of there people once who came to see someone I know. The results did NOT turn out well. The person they did this with ended up cutting there wrists. After this the team of these people, decided they could not proceed. (No, this was not me.) It was someone I know who has lots of problems and I heard about it. I can tell you that it failed with that person, but I was very impressed with the love and caring and concern that these people showed. It’s my belief that there love, caring and concern are perhaps more healing than what the psychology of this Theosphostics is. THUS, results may vary greatly because as in any other organization I am sure there is some good and some bad. Let me stress again, that DO NOT GET INVOLVED WITH THIS GROUP UNLESS IT IS DONE UNDER A REPUTABLE CHURCH IN YOUR COMMUNITY. 3) I am not from Oklahoma. I do know of three women in Tulsa Oklahoma who have worked all there lives in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have only talked to two of them in the last 10-15 years maybe twice.(Tondi and Penny) I do know that they are strong Christians and one of them would probably be willing to visit with you on the telephone if you so desired. There names are: Tondi Curtis, Penny Pedersen and Kathy Nygaard. Tondi is married to a pastor of a church and I believe may be a pastor too. Tondi’s husband’s name is James. Tondi has a very brilliant mind and is very solid. Penny and Kathy, I believe attend this church also. If you would like look them up in the phone and call them. Once again, they are hundreds of miles for me and I have not talked to them in ages but they are helpful people and might be willing to talk to you. I stress that you should do number 1 above first and look for someone in your own community. Why? Because this is not personal like I think you need. So you should do that up in number 1 before doing any of this. This should not be necessary.

Bramble: Garth see post up above. usaid: SKY4it you seem like a nice guy, a conservative Chrsitian with no venom to spread, which is always nice to meet. I am sorry your Christian life has been met with so much rejection, and that would make me pause and wonder what that doctrine did to benefit people and build community. Why thank you Bramble, I think that's the nicest compliment I have had in a long long while. In fact, it made my day. I am a conservative on some issues, liberal on others; not what you might stereotypically call the "extreme right wing" if such a thing exists. (I think there might not be such a thing as a garden variety right winger either,( LMAO) Right wingers and left wingers? I don't pay it any mind. I am not sure Bramble, that missing doctine, I could blame for like gossip that has happened to me, but and its a big but: I have the few things in the gospel that I pay deep regard to and 1/2 thing of something else. You know how Jesus said if you have something against your brother go tell him and then tell the magistrate and then let him be as the heathen? That is an important one to me. It probably became only really important to me; when I saw how much gossip hurt me. I say its a 1/2 thing because I think you have to apply it loosely and liberally, in order not to be a legalist. A friend of mine once said, you know Christians here; they say dont do this and dont do that, but they are just fine and dandy about gossiping against people. (Hey, I think you are right, it must be missing doctrine, you just taught me that. It certainly hasn't been taught a lot any place I have ever been) I actually think that, one could perhaps murder someone with there mouth. Ie(Michael Jackson) That's not an apology for Jackson, cause I don't know him, and I am not sure of what he has done: but they sure massacred him like no one esle I ever seen. Wouldn't that be something if Jackson was innocent? If that were the case, he would be the most maligned, massacred with the mouth person ever for what he didn't do. usaid: I for one, don't find much value in a doctrine that detroys community or fails to teach others enough about introspection, self honesty and responsibility, and instead focuses on the obvious things like health. Service to God changes with every one you speak to. In some churches you have to show up at church every Sunday, others you need to witness, others, do good works like visit the sick etc. AMEN Sister preach it,,, oops thats the old pentacostal is coming out in me. No, I agree with your statements. Your first paragraph is beautiful. Your second also for telling to which I would add, maybe it shouldn't be about what we have to do, if the bible says we don't have to do those things ie(The things you mentioned) I sometimes actually think, people can get into good works, and not be pleasing to God either. Ie(I think he is unimpressed with works if it dont come from the heart.) I mean if someone enjoys those things you mentioned well then go get em tiger. I see know place in the bible where we are required to do those things you mentioned in paragraph 2. Ain't freedom from that great? That's people tho, they will make you feel obligated to do so. I never feel bad for not going to church. (Sometimes I just need my ZZZZZ's) Lately, there has been more Z's than the other. A lot more, I migth add. As far as the lake of fire things goes Bramble, I seriously don't think that someone who has been wounded in your spirit as you have, is going to benefit by worrying about things that I think must somehow only be reserved for the extreme sort. I mean somehow when we talk you just don't seem to be the type that would be planning some crime? LMAO Right off hand, I couldn't tell you exactly how that lake of fire stuff works. I think there is enough written about it tho, that one could arrive at reasonably accurate idea. usaid: So, if you pray for me, I would respectfully request that you NOT PRAY for me to change my beliefs to yours. In fact, I am currently not working to change anything in my life--I recently made changes that will take time to grow into. This I will do as you just said. Since I am a forgetful person you might have to remind me to pray. (LOL) The thing about me is I can't convert you to what I believe anyway, so you have no need to fear. Neither am I apart of any org, who is recuiting anyone. I mean, think about it Bramble, could there be a worse spot to look for converts than here at GS? Nobody is going to get fooled twice right? I just wanted to bring that up to have your heart at rest with me. BTW, your last statement about growing, I guess that is about all I can hope for, for myself too. That's a great target, and one thats good for me too. I like your heart Bramble, your very sweet. Touching someones heart once in a while is about all a guy like me can hope for. If all religion could be just like that wouldn't that be dandy?

Bramble and Garth: (Bramble see above post) Garth: Usaid: I wouldn't however, be so _unjust_ and _unrighteous_ as to cause them exeeding or fatal harm (such as throwing them into some 'lake of fire') because of such. And the argument of "we need laws in order to have an orderly society" in this context fails to address that point also. About the lake of fire: In the next life, if someone like Joseph Stalin is running around, I’ll try sending him over to your place and he can live there for as long as necessary. Because I understand, that fatal consequences for those types is too much for your justice thoughts to handle. I also can extrapolate from your statement you wouldn’t be unjust and unrighteous in your judgement like who? Like God. Garth just said he is more just than God, because Garth wouldn’t do what God does if Garth was in his shoes. Amazing statement there Garth. I did not know until today that you thought yourself more capable of running the throne, than God. About the orderly society: That was a question, not a statement therefore not an argument. Usaid: Besides, hacking on people is considered very rude, and isn't very healthy. Look Garth, pay attention: I said “not to hack on you to show you the goods.” Hacking around here means chopping on a tree. How can hacking or barking at (or what ever verb you want) someone with goods be rude and unhealthy? I mean if I am hacking with bad things then yeah. Make common sense oh man, common sense. U said: Way ahead of ya, pal. .Too bad you think so, you don’t even have a clue what I am talking about. And that is the end of that, it will not be brought up again. Usaid: Oh sure. I imagine that's what Darwin was thinking as he was putting together his theory of evolution. "This is just the excuse I need for man to do what he wants, with no regard to consequences. You know Garth, your real good at taking what somebody says and trying to make it look ridiculous. You do this, by putting my words in places you know they don’t belong, Does that about sum it up, Oh Earless One? How do you know what Darwin was doing on those trips he had anyway? You really don’t know at all. So it is unfair for you to judge my premise because you really do not know. In fact, Darwin indicates he was intimate with a person. Is this a stretch of what he was saying? It doesn’t matter because we don’t know, and my PREMISE IS NOT ABOUT DARWIN. Beside that my, PREMISE IS NOT ABOUT DARWIN(X 2, so you can hear it) , BUT ABOUT WHY IT REMAINS A PLAUSIBLE THEORY TODAY. Here is the quote: Descent of Man, On the Races Chapter page 152 my book; Darwin Quote, “...... while living with the Fuegians on board the "Beagle" , with the many little traits of character showing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.” end quote Charles Darwin. usaid: My closet is way to dusty and dark to do any praying in for my taste, so I think I'll pass Well, that’s your choice. I will pass it over you a couple of times , which I have already done. So we will not be having that conversation again, ever. Period.

Bramble: Well, I kind of understand where you are coming from, what & how you think and so forth. Thanks usaid: Yeah, heard the pouting thing before, too(yawn). Heard it expressed that unbelievers didn't get their ponies, so they stamped their feet at God and ran away. Well, that is not what I was saying. Certainly, the conception of getting some daily benefits in what you are doing ought to be the reason for someone wanting to stay in what you are doing. But what if the daily benefits of whatever there service to God is; just doesn’t do it for the person? Is that God’s fault? Maybe some people just don’t like the servant of all stuff, and simply want it to be a Santa Claus for them, as though they should get whatever they want. Is this a probable premise? Yes, I think it is. Perhaps some people just do not like the Kingdom of God? (No, I am not saying this about you, just about your comment because I don’t know you)On a personal note Bramble, I have had to deal with rejection from Christians all my life. Why? Long story, a little embarassing to, because I have a wife who has some serious medical issues. The skinny for me is I just slug my way through it. I mean if it’s enough to reject me based on someone else’s behavior well that’s there immaturity not mine. I certainly am not going to get myself in a twist over that. Stuff like that, should make me strong. Usaid: That idea seems related to the general contempt TWI folk held for unbelievers, and some other Chrsitians have that same outlook on other beliefs. No respect for you, unbeliever! Also seems to paint those that made different choices than you with the immature brush. Doesn't make for good dialogue for long. Well, I suppose that where there are different lifestyles and beliefs, each party feels that the one they possess is of the finest caliber. If that were not so; the same people who live under there own values wouldn’t want the values they possess. This however says little about the issue which you addressed which is respect. Respect is however, a two way street. What exactly is faith? I think it is interest and respect and placing value in what someone says. Noticeably, no opposing party who hold different values, are going to place much weight on what the other party says. I think that is to be expected. Unless, of course, someone changes there mind. Are you saying you feel some Christians look at you with some contempt? Well read what I said about my circumstances above and then imagine this: that some of them stand and gossip and back stab you. I have had a lot of that. Usaid: You'd think that if it was the one true way, it would be obvious to the average person exploring different religions. Yes, but that way has to be large enough to encompass people all who have different talents and different tastes. Some people are missionaries, some doctors or engineers or waitresses. In such circumstances experiences can vary largely. The one true way, which is Jesus Christ, happens to teach principles which can be applied to anyone’s particulars. The value of it then; is that it has personal meaning. One single person can have experience in application which no one else does just the same. The great news is that you have to do it yourself. No single person is large enough to get it done for you. I read your last several paragraphs. When you said you were in TWI your entire lifetime, I could say to you I deeply feel for your pain. I know that just doesn’t cut it though. I have had back slappers telling me how they felt for me; only to know that it’s just simply back slapping and nothing more. Through cancer with my daughter and worse, life can be rough. Bramble if you were to say to me , hey sky where is a good place to go? I would have to say, I am not sure. You can find bad stuff in a lot of places today. But let me just say this; sometimes the best thing to do, is to take time off for yourself. Giving religion a break that is in organizations is sometimes a good thing. Heck, Bramble, I don’t go to church frequently at all. Still, I have my peace with the Lord. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

Garth and Bramble: Garth see above 2 posts Bramble: Thanks for posting. It's lonely in the doctinal section at times. :( usaid: I've met some pretty ugly Christians, cold users. They were bible literalists, too, not mainstream types of Christian. They could quote a verse for every ugly thing they did. Are all Christians like that? What made them that way? --and it just wasn't one, it was like an epidemic. Well, Bramble, I dont think I am like that. I have met quite a few who are not either. I suppose its a stoic answer but the "love of many has waxed cold." Why? Gee Bramble, if knew the answer for every person's excuse the realistic news is this: THEY WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME ANYWAY. LMAO Usaid: If God knows the hearts of men, then He would know the experiences they have had that lead them to their spiritual or non spiritual conclusions. You'd think then he would be more understanding than anyone of where some one was at spiritually and why. How he exactly views everyone, may well depend on a large amount of particulars, certainly outside the scope of what we could discuss in a couple of pages. Does this mean your going to start a new thread? I suspect with some he is more more understanding than not ;and some vice a versa; all depending on a lot of criteria. I suppose there are as many different circumstances as there are people. Does this mean in your view that if one is hurt by other Christians this would be a good criteria for not remaining a Christian? usaid: How can someone quit being angry with a God they don't believe exists? That is assuming that the atheist/agnostic/whatever, really, deep down inside, believes in your God. Well of course some of those that are here are a pretty special, from the standpoint that they once did believe in God. I prefer to think of them as pouters. SHHHHHH, dont tell them that. They might not be as receptive to me? NOT usaid: What if they really, truly, deep down inside, don't? Well Bramble would that mean I am being pushy? NOT, because if they dont want to go there its time to move on. Anyway you are quite wonderfully probing yourself, and YES I am loving it. PS If they say don't its time to move on to Darwin and his rather profound way of seeing the world. Wouldn't I seem, well rather mean, if I went there to digress, without being somewhat concerned? The Skyman likes to think at least, that he is not as you described, a cold user.

Garth: If any of this in this post is prying too much, let me know and I shall NOT do so again. Imagine for one moment that God exists. Isn’t it certainly possible that God could be hurt as in have his feelings hurt? Do you imagine it easy for God, to have those he created say it isn’t so? Isn’t then possible that no matter what he did, his actions would be rejected by some? Would it be easy for God to tell people the truth in that he created them knowing he would be rejected for it? Would it be better if he didn’t tell them the truth? Certainly, there has to be a need for laws for any kingdom or country to have;in order that they might have order? I think you are too warm and considerate, to be an evolutionary atheist believer. (Now your going to whack me for stereotyping eh?) Don’t you think it’s time to quit blaming God for people like TWI and VPW? I mean, I was in 3 -4 years, an Independent Assemblies that failed. I had to move on. How did I do it? I accepted Hebrews 6:10 and moved on. I like you too much Garth, not to hack on you some and show you the goods. I mean hacking on Darwin I can do all day long, but where does that really take us? Evolutionary atheism is very cold. It’s also just another excuse for man to do what he wants, with no regard to consequences. Jesus one time said “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that ,WHEN YOU FAIL,.......... into everlasting habitations. Luke 16:9 You see, he knew the disciples would fail. That’s not an excuse for failure so: could it be possible he knew we shouldn’t be here? Did God want to make man in his own image? From Genesis 6:5,6 it certainly doesn’t look like he did. Both the Psalmist and Jesus (Psalm 82:6,7 and John 10:34,35) said, " I have said, Ye are God’s and all of you are children of the most High, but you shall die like men.” WHEN EXACTLY DID GOD SAY THAT PRIOR TO THE PSALMIST? (HINT: You ain’t gonna find it written in scripture because it aint written in there) You are a smart guy Garth, I know you can figure it out. All you have to do is connect the dots. In conclusion, could you make your prayer closet your church and come out with one of those things Dawkins doesn’t believe in as in a miracle? I think you can. Thoughts????????????????????

Horses: Anyway, that was a very long post by myself on the last one and I think that should answer your question.

Garth: Usaid: Overall in all of your posts about Dawkins, you describe him in such a way that the 'blasphemer' label can apply. Mainly and only I believe, in one particular diatribe he engaged in. Of that one particular diatribe, you are correct I applied that label. usaid: It is often stated and believed that those who don't believe in God, and openly state their disbeliefs are known as 'blasphemers' Not by me, however. Which helps me understand a little better why you sometimes shoot from the hip. :) Unbelief brings up "other issues" such as salvation. People stating there "disbeliefs" is a freedom enjoyed by every American. usaid: In any event, I stand by what I say. So lets let it go at that, ok? Yes, I agree. The blaspheme topic in regards to what Dawkins said, will not be mentioned by me to you again.

Well ok then Garth, time to move on to better and greener pastures. Lovely, Miss Ann Doll, sweet nectar of life! Maybe I will sharpen up on my Dawkins later this week, and put "cummulative selection" under the microscope and identify the missing isotopes on this thread. BTW, Garth, it was not a disagreement of the definition of the word "blashpheme" that was the problem. The problem was that you thought that as Dawkins said the things he did, somehow that related to you that anyone who didn't have belief in God was the same thing. The problem was Garth, that you overgeneralized what I said. (Thats putting it politely) This problem occurs Garth, because you didn't listen to what I said. ie( Your mind is already fixed right? so why should you?) I think, as in its my opinion, you have talked to many Christians so you push aside what is said (out of habit) because you already think that all have the same thing to say.