Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

[Paulhoff]

No scientist ever said that Lucy was human, only a possible ancestor, that is a big different.

And the non-god said……………….

And nothing was heard because nothing was said.

Paul



So let it be not writing, so let it be not done.

That non-god can do anything you want, it needs no verification, how nice.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
One theory I have for why many within the science industry oppose any and all research into the sasquatch phenomenon is that the discovery of a bipedal ape throws a huge ideological monkey wrench into the realm of human evolution.

How so?

Not all bipedal primate fossils in the past can be positively attributed to homo sapien and our lineage if other bipedal apes are shown to exist today.

 

[Paulhoff]

One theory I have for why many within the science industry oppose any and all research into the sasquatch phenomenon is that the discovery of a bipedal ape throws a huge ideological monkey wrench into the realm of human evolution

This only shows you how little you know about science, there would be no reason why this wouldn't and or hasn't been look into by science. It also seems that you have never heard of the word, scam, wait, yes you have, god.

Paul

 

[Foster Zygote]

Very true. Not to mention the fact that humans have not always had burial rituals.

Plus, as humans began to gather together in permanent settlements those cultures that do bury their dead had to find a nice, centralized, archaeologist friendly place to stick them.

 

[Paulhoff]

Not all bipedal primate fossils in the past can be positively attributed to homo sapien and our lineage if other bipedal apes are shown to exist today.

What scientist said that, Pat Robertson?
Paul

 

[Foster Zygote]

Not all bipedal primate fossils in the past can be positively attributed to homo sapien and our lineage if other bipedal apes are shown to exist today.

Not all bipedal primate fossils in the past are attributed to homo sapien and our lineage. Gigantopithicus was most likely bipedal but it is not thought to be a direct ancestor of humans.

 

[Tricky]

Trying to catch up. I guess the nights are pretty long in Alaska right now. I don’t seem to be able to fit everything I want to do into my days.

Yup. It makes sense.

I can't say whether or not it makes sense to God.

As I say, I have nothing to fear from a loving God. He won’t blame me for using my brain. He might even be proud.

Yes and no. It's interesting, but I don't have time to seek it out, unless it's something I specifically need. And seeking such out is easy these days.

It’s the same with all of us. But I don’t see why you would make statements that indicate that you have all the knowledge you need. Why would you want to portray yourself falsely in such a bad light? Orneryness?

Always keep 'em guessing, some old boy told me once…

Change your act every now and then, or you won’t keep them guessing too much, some young gal once told me.

Not much. I have a lot of respect for scientist-discoverers. They have skills and intelligence that I lack in abundance.

But what if the scientist-discoverers found out that “faith” was just the result of some glandular secretion? Could you accept it?

Believe it or not, I did get the quickness here. Not long after arriving here (during the wild pipeline construction days, and just after the war), it was a literal "Wild West" atmosphere, and I was getting tired of getting sucker punched. I finally figured that if it was coming, I may as well get into the game right off the bat like everybody else seemed to like to do.

I can’t really comment because I don’t know the situation, but I have worked some pretty rough jobs, and I found that you can stay out of a fight if really want to.

Oh, no. I literally got the Hell whupped out of me by God, Mrs. Huntster, and John Law. I was dragged, kicking and screaming, to "see the light."

Forced conversion? I dunno, Hunny. Doesn’t sound like deep introspection to me. Sounds like “accept God or die”.

His words:

Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe."

He didn't say he didn't believe in God. He didn't believe that "we have seen the Lord."

Not a dime’s worth of difference. If he doubted their words about the nail marks, then he is essentially doubting Jesus’s divinity, and hence God too.

Agreed. Again, science and the spirit may one day meet.

Perhaps, but the way things are going, it looks iffy that there will be anything that qualifies as “spirit” remaining.

I agree about the "Cult of Mary." While I understand where from and why it has come, like everything else, some take it to extremes.

But, like anything international, different flavors are inevitable. But, I must say, it's wonderful being able to understand a Catholic Mass, regardless of the language used to say it (that's coming from a pre-Vatican II altar boy, who used to sing in Latin).

Back when I was an Episcopalian (Catholic Lite) I used to love the ritual too (and I was an alter boy too). But that is still no substitute for reason. I never found reason in any of the many churches I tried. Some took it to extremes, some were very middle-of-the-road, but none of them ever had answers that you could discuss. Eventually, reason had to butt heads with the dogma, and the dogma always lost.

Yes, and sometimes the identity of the lawmakers change. For Coperincus, the lawmaker's "terra firma" was in the Vatican. For Scopes, the lawmaker's "terra firma" was Rhea County.

But in each case, it has been the church which has had to back down, and the law has changed to favor science. It is no longer illegal to teach evolution, or to claim a heliocentric solar system. In the end, the law is the slave of knowledge, not the master.

Freedom is great. Too much freedom isn't.
That's why we have social limits.

Agreed. There is no such thing as total freedom in a structured society, and there shouldn’t be. But deciding how much is “too much”, aye, there’s the rub.

Correct. I want all to know that my personality is correctly portrayed.

And those in my community know me like this.

Then you do care what we think! I know this is not your “community”, but lately, it has been your internet community. But fear not. Anybody paying much attention has a pretty good idea of your personality. Of course, everyone’s internet persona is different from their “real-world” persona. Sometimes much different.

What you don't understand is that I'm not unusual here. Alaskans are gruff, no BS kind of people.

Don't believe it? Come on up and check it out for yourself. Get some "evidence."

Not that you can't do that now. There are plenty of Alaskan internet sources for you to check us out.

Actually, I know lots of Alaskans. My company is very active in Alaska. I’ve spent quite a few months there, though admittedly not in “community” settings. Alaskans tend to be direct and straightforward. They tend to be conservative about many things. (The environment is somewhat of a divisive issue for them though.) They value their independence and favor secession, even more so than Texans. They can also be insufferably arrogant.

Am I getting the picture right?

You wanted a yes or no answer. A yes or no answer wasn't appropriate. I gave you the appropriate answer. Sorry. That game doesn't work anymore. Yes and no. You had no reason to assume that I beat my wife. Now you should know that I don't.

But your question to me was framed the same way. That was the point. I don’t suspect for an instant that you beat your wife. (From what you tell me, she might be capable of beating you!) It was to show you how a question can contain an implied or even direct insult. Do you see that now, or are you still hopelessly ignorant?

I have every reason to believe that you are trying to "defeat" my faith.

No more so than you are trying to defeat my reason. We both defend our points of view, right?

Good luck. You may see these "contradictions" clearly. Others might, too.
But it isn't yours or their faith, is it?

It used to be. My faith couldn’t survive the test of critical thinking. I could not accept the answer to my many questions as, “Just believe it. Everything will be all right.”

Oh, oh. I didn't intend to insult you.
I'm glad you have thick skin. Maybe that's why we can exchange posts like this. I'm damned near invincible. There isn't a thing you can do to hurt me.

LOL. Don’t try to fool me, Hunny. You love insulting people here, otherwise you wouldn’t do it so often. For that matter, so do I, but I prefer if it is somebody with thick skin, like you. As you can see of my exchanges with Canadian Malcontent, I’m very gentle with people whose egos I might accidentally wound. I’m quite sure your ego is safe, as is mine.

The ones who "would vote for Jesse Jackson" aren't likely to be doing so on the basis of their Christianity.

I don’t think you can be a fair judge of that.

But you want other examples? How about Christians who are morally opposed to the death penalty for murderers and rapists? How about those who think that God made homosexuals for a reason and that they should be allowed to marry each other? Oh Huntster, you can find devout and thoughtful Christians that have an incredibly wide range of moral beliefs.

Opponent?

What's the game? Where are the goalposts?

The game is debate. The goalposts are “who defends their points better”. If it were a formal debate, there would be judges. And I’d be kicking your ass.

You won't "play clean"?

When "cleanliness" protects the weak, what does that mean?

Just that I will use your words against you. I will use sarcasm, litotes, irony, and any other advantage I can gain without regard to your feelings, now that I know how “invincible” you are. Give me your best shot, Hunny. I’m not weak.

No doubt. I thought I'd heard all the good jokes years ago. When the internet came into full fruit, I learned otherwise.

A cute couple (older than me) from my church send me so many incredible jokes, it boggles my mind. And the inter-Alaskan email network is absolutely incredible. It's like the mass media; if they told you just an eighth of the story up here, you'd be absolutely amazed. I get bear attack stuff regularly during bear season.

I have had so many I now have to screen them. But back before the internet, I used to read jokebooks (and all of the Playboys I could steal from my Daddy’s top drawer.) You’d be surprised how many of these new jokes are just old jokes reworded.

Didn't you read your Bible?

Yes, and it didn’t clarify what is Caesar’s and what is God’s. Take the issue of tithes for example…

Both. And much, much more.

But how do you balance how much faith and how much evidence? And if they conflict, how do you choose which is correct? Yeah, I know, you say that your faith has never conflicted with evidence. Forgive me if I find that unlikely. I think you rationalize your faith to allow for conflicting evidence.

Sorry. I don't have different moral stances with other Christians, I have a broader understanding of God than them.

LOL. Nope. No worries about your ego.

But I will admit you have a broader range of acceptance than many Christians. Narrower than a few I have met. Heck, I know one Christian who doesn’t believe Christ existed, but believes that’s okay because it is the teachings attributed to Christ that are important. Are you broad enough to accept that as a possibility?

And that isn't a problem with me at all. And, since I'm a Catholic in good standing, it isn't a problem with my parish or the Vatican.

In fact, my faith fits perfectly with the Vatican.

Really? You oppose the death penalty? Frankly, I’m surprised.

Actually, I consider you wiser than I (but not by much).

LOL. You are a little bit too kind. But sincerely, thanks.

"Vastly" different?

Religiously, yes. Politically, we are very close. But Ms. Tricky and I have had some right old screaming arguments about religion. Angry, but never violent. We deal with it.

I don't think that would be the case. When we met, she was Lutheran and I was Catholic. Neither were active at the time (young, wild, in a land of sin, and no churches of any kind in the area).

I had been more devout as a youth, and my family was vastly more committed to church. Mrs. Huntster, after we started having Baby Huntsters, decided to convert to Catholicism. Just like that. For the sake of our children.

What kind of beliefs are they if they can be surrendered for convenience sake? I’m guessing that the choice of religion is more important to you than to her, else she would have asked that you convert.

All are happy. All are Catholic.

Happy? As far as you know. Catholic? For now.

Look up the word: catholic. It means "universal."

Uncapitalized, it usually means “from many sources” or “eclectic”. I used to make music tapes of my favorite things from a wide variety of styles, and I called them “Catholic Music”. My little pun.

Nor would I. I need evidence, too.

I accept the Bible as a foundation, and other evidence that I've experienced or learned about supports it.

I simply don’t believe you’ve never found a situation that you didn’t have to decide “faith or evidence?” Even on these boards, you seem to go back and forth on some issues.

I'm sure of it.

As I point out, I’m not 100% sure of anything. And I don’t think I’d want to be. I enjoy keeping myself open to other possibilities.

Nope. The faith is what makes me adhere to it.

Would you adhere to it even if you didn’t believe it? Even if it made no sense at all? Frankly, that’s what I see faith as doing for you and too many other Christians.

I think you have a very poor grasp of Christianity.

It's foundation is faith. Believing even with a lack of physical evidence.

Faith. It's what Christ came to find, instill, and nourish.

I think I have a pretty good grasp of Christianity. I know what it is like to surrender your doubt and drink the heady nectar of immortality. But I don’t believe it is a nourishing drought. I believe it is an intoxicating sip of something so good you feel it cannot be put down. To hell with evidence! Drink up!

Oh, I remember the taste well.

Evidence is critical in reaching all conclusions.

This directly contradicts what you just said about believing even with a lack of physical evidence. Come on, Huntster. Don’t make this too easy for me.

Not only have I been spot-cleaned, I've been cleaned fully. I've been through a full wash in the blood of The Lamb.

Many times. Daily. Every time I reflect on, appreciate, acknowledge, and thank God for the salvation of Christ, I'm cleaned.

So you’re no longer a sinner? Or are you just a sinner whose sins don’t count? This sounds incredibly smug to me.

Even me. Steeped in sin. Dripping with evil.

The sacrifice of the Lamb redeems. It's the perfect sacrifice if (and only if) you accept it.

Otherwise, you lose it. It wasn't wasted. It worked for some of us.

You just lose it.

LOL. Don’t preach, Hunny. You aren’t any good at it. Leave the metaphysical claptrap to Kathy and others. I expect you to give a good defense of your beliefs. Don’t disappoint me with this kind of glurge.

I'm referring to those who have no qualifications whatsoever, yet will attempt to use "science" to attack religion on the basis of "evolution" (their "religion" of choice, if only to attack the religion they hate).

Anybody who has ever taken a science class has some qualifications. I have more than high school students. Biology professors have more than me. It isn’t an off/on kind of thing. But the good thing about science is that evidence doesn’t care who you are. If you can support your statements with evidence, you don’t have to have ever been to school. ‘Course, school helps when it comes to recognizing evidence.

Still, I don’t see you as the most scientifically erudite person here, so I’m not sure I would trust your judgment as to who does or doesn’t have qualifications. No offense, it just doesn’t seem to be your forte.

Oh, I don't. In fact, even though I rail against Darwinism, I admit Darwin was a biological genius, and that his premise was correct.

It's the "Darwinists" who I have trouble with.

I’m not convinced you understand Darwin or evolution very well. His premise was mostly correct, but wrong in some ways. He can be forgiven. He lived even before the popular understanding of genetics. But if you catch a “Darwinist” making an incorrect statement about evolution, well heck, just smack ‘em down with some good evidence. Be sure that your evidence is good though, because it can get pretty embarrassing if it isn’t.

There was a resistance from all monotheism against Darwinism from the very start.

Should there be any surprise about that?

No, but that isn’t any reason to continue it either, especially since we know better.

That was true in the past, but today, the public school system (thanks to Scopes) has brought evolution into full fruit.................as another religion.............a secular one.

No, Huntster. Evolution is not a religion. Look up the definition of “secular”.

Satan was Lucifer, one of the Archangels. He resented God's power and glory, and rebelled. He is now the Adversary.

Evil is part of the plan because it's inevitable. Free choice, by definition, makes that so.

In order for there to be good, there must be evil.

Ridiculous. According to Christianity, God made Lucifer/Satan. God made everything. What you are saying is that Evil is so powerful that God HAD to make it, thus Evil is stronger than God.

By Christian belief, nothing that God doesn’t want is inevitable. Theodicy, Huntster. You cannot escape the paradox.

Sorry, Tricky, but there is.

The "logical" answer is movement. Resistance. Pressure. Stress. Opposition. Competition. The one constant in both physical and spiritual worlds.

Balance. Balance requires "pressure" or "resistance" from at least two sides.

No. That is only true of purely physical systems. For metaphysical systems, all bets are off. Metaphysical systems don’t have to abide by physical rules. There is no reason that a system without rules needs …rules.

If God HAD to create evil, then evil has power over God. There is no way to get out of this without violating the premise of an all-powerful God.

Your beliefs violate their own assumptions. That makes them illogical, though not 100% wrong. There is a tiny possibility that all the things we have learned about the universe are wrong and evidence has no validity. I consider that possibility so small as to be negligible. You apparently don’t.

I cannot do so. I'm not qualified. Only One was.

I'm just one who recognizes that, and seeks to understand more.

Yes you can. Anybody can. You only have to decide to. Use your free will. By evidence, you will understand much more than faith can ever teach you… at least, in my experience.

Yup. If I look at it as you describe; from your perspective.

That perspective is one of the physical. You demand evidence. Physical evidence.

If you look at it from my perspective, can you see how I don't need that?

Since I've recognized that God and spirituality are not (and never have been) of the physical realm, I also recognize that physical evidence isn't (and may never) be available?

But truth isn’t a matter of “need”. A starving child needs food. That doesn’t mean they get it. The real world is tough, Huntster. You need God. The real world is tough.

Nope. Liberals are of the liberal political/ideologial mindframe (misguided folks..........)

I don't refuse to listen to evidence against my religion. I've heard it all.

I'm here, aren't I?

After consideration, I just reject it.

You haven’t heard it all. There is more every day. It is called “knowledge”. Reject it if you must. It won’t stop because of your rejection.

No "need" for Heaven. It's just there.

LOL. Yeah. It’s just there. No evidence. No verifiable contact. No nothing. But it’s not a need to hang on to spiritual life because you fear total death, is it? Nooooooo.

It isn't being proposed to be taught "as a science."

Then you aren’t paying attention.

I could get ugly here. I can describe how it can be taught in public schools. Legally. It has been done in such a way for much of American history, and is still being done in that manner today. It would withstand legal review, because it has already withstood legal review.

Wanna go there?

Yeah, I’ll go there. It was wrong to do so for so much of American history. America actually profited from their non-religious heritage. Many of our founding fathers were not at all religious in any sense you would recognize it today. Their foresight freed us. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. Now we seem to be losing that edge and drifting away from our national ideals. We are more and more in the grip of fundamentalists. Looking at countries, especially in the Middle East, where religion and government go hand-in-hand, I cannot say that I consider this a good direction for us to move.

God surrounds you. You're holed up like a rat. His legions are everywhere.

He doesn't play a role in your life; He controls it.

Sorry. I don’t see God. All I see are the rats.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
One theory I have for why many within the science industry oppose any and all research into the sasquatch phenomenon is that the discovery of a bipedal ape throws a huge ideological monkey wrench into the realm of human evolution

This only shows you how little you know about science, there would be no reason why this wouldn't and or hasn't been look into by science....

Really?

Well, educate me, Mr. Science:

What has "science" done with regard to the sasquatch phenomenon?

 

[Huntster]

What scientist said that, Pat Robertson?
Paul

Well, Einstein, finally, Lorenzo Rook, Luca Bondioli, Meike Köhler, Salvador Moyà-Solà, and Roberto Macchiarelli say so:

The recent claim for a significant bipedal component in the locomotor repertoire of Oreopithecus bambolii, an endemic hominoid known from the Late Miocene [9- to 7-million-year-old (Ma)] Tyrrhenian island, revives the still open debate on the origin(s) and evolution of hominid bipedality. Evidence derived from the structural analysis of the Oreopithecus iliac cancellous network supports this claim....

More:

Comparative morphological and functional analyses of the skeletal remains of Oreopithecus bambolii, a hominoid from the Miocene Mediterranean island of Tuscany–Sardinia (Italy), provides evidence that bipedal activities made up a significant part of the positional behavior of this primate. The mosaic pattern of its postcranial morphology is to some degree convergent with that of Australopithecus and functionally intermediate between apes and early hominids. Some unique traits could have been selected only under insular conditions where the absence of predators and the limitation of trophic resources play a crucial role in mammalian evolution.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not all bipedal primate fossils in the past can be positively attributed to homo sapien and our lineage if other bipedal apes are shown to exist today.

Not all bipedal primate fossils in the past are attributed to homo sapien and our lineage.

Please continue to point that out to "scientists" like Paulhoff. Many others need to read that, too.

Gigantopithicus was most likely bipedal but it is not thought to be a direct ancestor of humans.

Ooooh! Please, please, please; may I quote you in this thread

 

[Huntster]

Trying to catch up. I guess the nights are pretty long in Alaska right now. I don’t seem to be able to fit everything I want to do into my days.

Damn! Your post took up half a page!

The nights up here are the same, it's just that the days are dark, too. But I'm still as busy as a bee, even if the bees are hibernating now............

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup. It makes sense.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I can't say whether or not it makes sense to God.

As I say, I have nothing to fear from a loving God. He won’t blame me for using my brain. He might even be proud.

I believe He wants to be loved, like everybody else. Are you letting Him down there?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yes and no. It's interesting, but I don't have time to seek it out, unless it's something I specifically need. And seeking such out is easy these days.

It’s the same with all of us. But I don’t see why you would make statements that indicate that you have all the knowledge you need. Why would you want to portray yourself falsely in such a bad light? Orneryness?

It's true. I have all the knowledge I need. Hell, I have all the everything I need. If I need something else, I just go out and get it. It's easy.

It isn't Soviet Cold War years here, where you've gotta stand in the cheese line for moldy cheese, then get in the toilet paper line for the chance of getting toilet paper. You can get whatever you want and as much as you can afford these days, and that includes information. Quick and easy.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Always keep 'em guessing, some old boy told me once…

Change your act every now and then, or you won’t keep them guessing too much, some young gal once told me.

Let them move on. There are plenty of others willing to guess, and more on the way.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not much. I have a lot of respect for scientist-discoverers. They have skills and intelligence that I lack in abundance.

But what if the scientist-discoverers found out that “faith” was just the result of some glandular secretion? Could you accept it?

Oh, I'm sure that "claim" is on the horizon (if it hasn't already been made).

Bring me evidence. I'll look it over.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Believe it or not, I did get the quickness here. Not long after arriving here (during the wild pipeline construction days, and just after the war), it was a literal "Wild West" atmosphere, and I was getting tired of getting sucker punched. I finally figured that if it was coming, I may as well get into the game right off the bat like everybody else seemed to like to do.

I can’t really comment because I don’t know the situation, but I have worked some pretty rough jobs, and I found that you can stay out of a fight if really want to.

It's more so today. Then? Out in the Bush?

I saw some amazing stuff. I'll never forget the guy who got the dinner fork stuck into the back of his hand...................

Originally Posted by Huntster
Oh, no. I literally got the Hell whupped out of me by God, Mrs. Huntster, and John Law. I was dragged, kicking and screaming, to "see the light."

Forced conversion? I dunno, Hunny. Doesn’t sound like deep introspection to me. Sounds like “accept God or die”.

It wasn't "accept God or die." I had already accepted God. It was "conform or else..............."

Originally Posted by Huntster
His words:
Originally Posted by Thomas
Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe."

He didn't say he didn't believe in God. He didn't believe that "we have seen the Lord."

Not a dime’s worth of difference. If he doubted their words about the nail marks, then he is essentially doubting Jesus’s divinity, and hence God too.

Same with Peter when his faith failed him while walking on water? And what's the beef, anyway? Thomas was in the room later, despite the danger. If he didn't believe in Christ, why did he continue to go back?

Face it; despite seeing the miracles Christ had performed during his ministry, he was infected with doubt. He was a "skeptic."

Originally Posted by Huntster
Agreed. Again, science and the spirit may one day meet.

Perhaps, but the way things are going, it looks iffy that there will be anything that qualifies as “spirit” remaining.

I think the spirit will long outlive science.

In fact, with human spirituality still in the balance, science has delivered to us the means by which we might be able to destroy much of the biological life on this planet.

Hooray, science.....................

Originally Posted by Huntster
I agree about the "Cult of Mary." While I understand where from and why it has come, like everything else, some take it to extremes.

But, like anything international, different flavors are inevitable. But, I must say, it's wonderful being able to understand a Catholic Mass, regardless of the language used to say it (that's coming from a pre-Vatican II altar boy, who used to sing in Latin).

Back when I was an Episcopalian (Catholic Lite) I used to love the ritual too (and I was an alter boy too). But that is still no substitute for reason. I never found reason in any of the many churches I tried. Some took it to extremes, some were very middle-of-the-road, but none of them ever had answers that you could discuss. Eventually, reason had to butt heads with the dogma, and the dogma always lost.

Too bad for you. I can reason and remain faithful. You apparently can't.

I win. You lose. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yes, and sometimes the identity of the lawmakers change. For Coperincus, the lawmaker's "terra firma" was in the Vatican. For Scopes, the lawmaker's "terra firma" was Rhea County.

But in each case, it has been the church which has had to back down, and the law has changed to favor science. It is no longer illegal to teach evolution, or to claim a heliocentric solar system. In the end, the law is the slave of knowledge, not the master.

You fail to grasp the meaning of the quote (or are trying to twist it to your ideological advantage). In the end, the law is the master, and everything is enslaved to it, whether the law is just or not.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Freedom is great. Too much freedom isn't.
That's why we have social limits.

Agreed. There is no such thing as total freedom in a structured society, and there shouldn’t be. But deciding how much is “too much”, aye, there’s the rub.

I believe balance can't be thwarted for long. If people abuse freedom, something will force balance later. That's why I'm not too worried about things:

Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

What has been, that will be; what has been done, that will be done. Nothing is new under the sun. Even the thing of which we say, "See, this is new!" has already existed in the ages that preceded us.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Correct. I want all to know that my personality is correctly portrayed.

Originally Posted by Huntster
And those in my community know me like this.

Then you do care what we think!

Nope. This forum is filled with people who don't like me, and that's fine.

My community is filled with people who love me. That's great.

I know this is not your “community”, but lately, it has been your internet community. But fear not. Anybody paying much attention has a pretty good idea of your personality. Of course, everyone’s internet persona is different from their “real-world” persona. Sometimes much different.

I've gotten some really kind and supportive PMs from some folks on this forum. It was great!

But mostly I attract resentment. That's okay, too.

You just can't expect everybody to like you. It's best to have those folks who are diametrically opposed to you disliking you, and those who are more harmonious with your outlook liking and supporting you.

Originally Posted by Huntster
What you don't understand is that I'm not unusual here. Alaskans are gruff, no BS kind of people.

Don't believe it? Come on up and check it out for yourself. Get some "evidence."

Not that you can't do that now. There are plenty of Alaskan internet sources for you to check us out.

Actually, I know lots of Alaskans. My company is very active in Alaska. I’ve spent quite a few months there, though admittedly not in “community” settings. Alaskans tend to be direct and straightforward. They tend to be conservative about many things. (The environment is somewhat of a divisive issue for them though.) They value their independence and favor secession, even more so than Texans. They can also be insufferably arrogant.

Am I getting the picture right?

Yup.

In the oil and gas industry, huh?

I'm on your side, business-wise, anyway..........

You heard the old saying from the pipeline construction days?:

Happiness is a Texan headed back south with an Okie under each arm.

Originally Posted by Huntster
You wanted a yes or no answer. A yes or no answer wasn't appropriate. I gave you the appropriate answer. Sorry. That game doesn't work anymore. Yes and no. You had no reason to assume that I beat my wife. Now you should know that I don't.

But your question to me was framed the same way.

But not intended as such. You doubt I beat my wife. I don't doubt you're trying to trip me up.

I don’t suspect for an instant that you beat your wife. (From what you tell me, she might be capable of beating you!)

She learned how to skin a moose before I did, and wsa raised between two brothers. Let there be no doubt; Mrs. Huntster is one tough gal.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I have every reason to believe that you are trying to "defeat" my faith.

No more so than you are trying to defeat my reason. We both defend our points of view, right?

It's not your reason, and I'm not trying to "defeat" it.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Good luck. You may see these "contradictions" clearly. Others might, too.
But it isn't yours or their faith, is it?

It used to be. My faith couldn’t survive the test of critical thinking. I could not accept the answer to my many questions as, “Just believe it. Everything will be all right.”

Faith and reason are two different approaches, and they work at different times and for different reasons. Using one to test the other isn't an appropriate test.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Oh, oh. I didn't intend to insult you.
I'm glad you have thick skin. Maybe that's why we can exchange posts like this. I'm damned near invincible. There isn't a thing you can do to hurt me.

LOL. Don’t try to fool me, Hunny. You love insulting people here, otherwise you wouldn’t do it so often.

Yeah, but I'm getting to like you. I don't want to insult someone who's communicating with me like this.

Originally Posted by Huntster
The ones who "would vote for Jesse Jackson" aren't likely to be doing so on the basis of their Christianity.

I don’t think you can be a fair judge of that.

It certainly isn't a scientific or supported research, but it's a damned good guess.

But you want other examples? How about Christians who are morally opposed to the death penalty for murderers and rapists?

Like me?

How about those who think that God made homosexuals for a reason and that they should be allowed to marry each other?

Many of them are violating their church's doctrine.

Oh Huntster, you can find devout and thoughtful Christians that have an incredibly wide range of moral beliefs.

No doubt about it. I oppose their views if those views violate RCC doctrine, and any political action they may initiate or support.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Opponent?

Originally Posted by Huntster

What's the game? Where are the goalposts?

The game is debate. The goalposts are “who defends their points better”. If it were a formal debate, there would be judges. And I’d be kicking your ass.

Well, get some judges (impartial, of course) and let them decide.

Besides, it wouldn't be the first time I'd had my ass handed to me, and you'll have to continue until doomsday, because I never stay down.

Originally Posted by Huntster
You won't "play clean"?

Originally Posted by Huntster
When "cleanliness" protects the weak, what does that mean?

Just that I will use your words against you. I will use sarcasm, litotes, irony, and any other advantage I can gain without regard to your feelings, now that I know how “invincible” you are. Give me your best shot, Hunny. I’m not weak.

I'm not shooting. I'm just answering posts.

Originally Posted by Huntster
No doubt. I thought I'd heard all the good jokes years ago. When the internet came into full fruit, I learned otherwise.

Originally Posted by Huntster

A cute couple (older than me) from my church send me so many incredible jokes, it boggles my mind. And the inter-Alaskan email network is absolutely incredible. It's like the mass media; if they told you just an eighth of the story up here, you'd be absolutely amazed. I get bear attack stuff regularly during bear season.

I have had so many I now have to screen them. But back before the internet, I used to read jokebooks (and all of the Playboys I could steal from my Daddy’s top drawer.) You’d be surprised how many of these new jokes are just old jokes reworded.

Yeah, the jokes get resent many times, and many are old jokes rehashed.

But the bear stories? I get fresh ones every year. Some are pretty good. I reposted one here from this fall. It's pretty good. Pictures, too.

Seen that yet?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Didn't you read your Bible?

Yes, and it didn’t clarify what is Caesar’s and what is God’s. Take the issue of tithes for example…

Tithes aren't taxes. You don't go to jail if you don't pay.

Are you posing questions like the Pharisees (tests), in reverse?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Both. And much, much more.

But how do you balance how much faith and how much evidence?

You get all the evidence you can. The rest is faith or doubt.

And if they conflict, how do you choose which is correct?

Usually I'll go with the evidence, and see if I had faith in the wrong thing, or confused.

Yeah, I know, you say that your faith has never conflicted with evidence. Forgive me if I find that unlikely. I think you rationalize your faith to allow for conflicting evidence.

Of course I do. If evidence appears which shows your faith was mistaken, you adjust your faith. Besides, now that you have evidence, you don't need the faith anymore in that area/field/aspect. You now have evidence.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Sorry. I don't have different moral stances with other Christians, I have a broader understanding of God than them.

LOL. Nope. No worries about your ego.

But I will admit you have a broader range of acceptance than many Christians. Narrower than a few I have met. Heck, I know one Christian who doesn’t believe Christ existed, but believes that’s okay because it is the teachings attributed to Christ that are important. Are you broad enough to accept that as a possibility?

I certainly considered that, but quickly rejected it.

Originally Posted by Huntster
And that isn't a problem with me at all. And, since I'm a Catholic in good standing, it isn't a problem with my parish or the Vatican.

In fact, my faith fits perfectly with the Vatican.

Really? You oppose the death penalty? Frankly, I’m surprised.

Like Gomer used to say:

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Originally Posted by Huntster
"Vastly" different?

Religiously, yes. Politically, we are very close. But Ms. Tricky and I have had some right old screaming arguments about religion. Angry, but never violent. We deal with it.

Do you two have kids?

Originally Posted by Huntster
I don't think that would be the case. When we met, she was Lutheran and I was Catholic. Neither were active at the time (young, wild, in a land of sin, and no churches of any kind in the area).

I had been more devout as a youth, and my family was vastly more committed to church. Mrs. Huntster, after we started having Baby Huntsters, decided to convert to Catholicism. Just like that. For the sake of our children.

What kind of beliefs are they if they can be surrendered for convenience sake?

First of all, their family wasn't very active. Secondly, Catholicism and Lutheranism are very, very similar. Thirdly, the Christian churches here in our small town are all on the same road, right next to each other, and very very cooperative with each other. For example, our Catholic church was a small building, smaller than the house I'm living in. As you probably know, the Christmans and Easter Catholics inundated the place every year (and they're smart enough to arrive very early, and the regulars are regularly there 5 minutes before Mass, and were standing outside in the cold). The Mormons built a big, beautiful temple next to the high school (like always; ever notice that? Mormon churches are always adjacent to schools). They offered to let us Catholics use their temple for Christmas and Easter Masses for several years, until we finally got our act together and built a big, new church building.

Ever hear of that before?

I’m guessing that the choice of religion is more important to you than to her, else she would have asked that you convert.

We attended Lutheran services quite regularly, the pastor knows us on a first name basis, but we just aren't registered there.

No problems. We just wanted a stable religious foundation for our children, and she was quite willing to convert.

Originally Posted by Huntster
All are happy. All are Catholic.

Happy? As far as you know. Catholic? For now.

Both daughters are engaged. The oldest is engaged to a Catholic, the youngest is engaged to a Christian of another faith.

Both daughters and their fiances are now attending Catholic marriage preparation classes, and are scheduled to be married at the cathedral in Anchorage.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Look up the word: catholic. It means "universal."

Uncapitalized, it usually means “from many sources” or “eclectic”. I used to make music tapes of my favorite things from a wide variety of styles, and I called them “Catholic Music”. My little pun.

It's truly catholic music.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Nor would I. I need evidence, too.

I accept the Bible as a foundation, and other evidence that I've experienced or learned about supports it.

I simply don’t believe you’ve never found a situation that you didn’t have to decide “faith or evidence?” Even on these boards, you seem to go back and forth on some issues.

Depends on the evidence.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Nope. The faith is what makes me adhere to it.

Would you adhere to it even if you didn’t believe it?

If I didn't believe, I wouldn't have faith. Then, no, I wouldn't adhere to it.

But I do believe. I have faith.

Even if it made no sense at all?

But it does.

Frankly, that’s what I see faith as doing for you and too many other Christians.

Sorry. You're missing the best part.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I think you have a very poor grasp of Christianity.

It's foundation is faith. Believing even with a lack of physical evidence.

Faith. It's what Christ came to find, instill, and nourish.

I think I have a pretty good grasp of Christianity. I know what it is like to surrender your doubt and drink the heady nectar of immortality. But I don’t believe it is a nourishing drought. I believe it is an intoxicating sip of something so good you feel it cannot be put down. To hell with evidence! Drink up!

Oh, I remember the taste well.

I like both. I can have both. I'm free.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Evidence is critical in reaching all conclusions.

This directly contradicts what you just said about believing even with a lack of physical evidence. Come on, Huntster. Don’t make this too easy for me.

Would you consider a "conclusion" a matter of faith? I don't. Faith is based on a lack of evidence. You cannot know, because there isn't enough evidence. You must either then doubt or believe.

I don't see how concluding fits there.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not only have I been spot-cleaned, I've been cleaned fully. I've been through a full wash in the blood of The Lamb.

Many times. Daily. Every time I reflect on, appreciate, acknowledge, and thank God for the salvation of Christ, I'm cleaned.

So you’re no longer a sinner? Or are you just a sinner whose sins don’t count? This sounds incredibly smug to me.

I'm a sinner who is forgiven on a regular basis because I accept the sacrifice made on our behalf. I accept and appreciate that sacrifice many times per day in prayer.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Even me. Steeped in sin. Dripping with evil.

The sacrifice of the Lamb redeems. It's the perfect sacrifice if (and only if) you accept it.

Otherwise, you lose it. It wasn't wasted. It worked for some of us.

You just lose it.

LOL. Don’t preach, Hunny. You aren’t any good at it. Leave the metaphysical claptrap to Kathy and others. I expect you to give a good defense of your beliefs. Don’t disappoint me with this kind of glurge.

It's my belief, and it's the doctrine of the RCC.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm referring to those who have no qualifications whatsoever, yet will attempt to use "science" to attack religion on the basis of "evolution" (their "religion" of choice, if only to attack the religion they hate).

Anybody who has ever taken a science class has some qualifications.

Well, there sure are a lot of them around.

Still, I don’t see you as the most scientifically erudite person here, so I’m not sure I would trust your judgment as to who does or doesn’t have qualifications. No offense, it just doesn’t seem to be your forte.

You don't need to. If it doesn't glare at you when they state their positions, than maybe you don't have as much qualification that you think you do.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Oh, I don't. In fact, even though I rail against Darwinism, I admit Darwin was a biological genius, and that his premise was correct.

It's the "Darwinists" who I have trouble with.

I’m not convinced you understand Darwin or evolution very well.

I've read "Origin of Species" as well as "The Descent of Man", and am very familiar with Huxley as well as other pertinent events of that era.

His premise was mostly correct, but wrong in some ways. He can be forgiven. He lived even before the popular understanding of genetics. But if you catch a “Darwinist” making an incorrect statement about evolution, well heck, just smack ‘em down with some good evidence. Be sure that your evidence is good though, because it can get pretty embarrassing if it isn’t.

Yeah. Cause the conversation always ends up derailed into something else.

Face it; Darwin has become the High Priest of Anti-Religion for pseudo-scientists. It's nothing to be embarrassed about, unless you're among them. Why not admit it?

Originally Posted by Huntster;
There was a resistance from all monotheism against Darwinism from the very start.

Should there be any surprise about that?

No, but that isn’t any reason to continue it either, especially since we know better.

What is it that "we know better?"

Originally Posted by Huntster
That was true in the past, but today, the public school system (thanks to Scopes) has brought evolution into full fruit.................as another religion.............a secular one.

No, Huntster. Evolution is not a religion. Look up the definition of “secular”.

Better, how about the definition of religion:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Sorry. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's clearly true for some people.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Satan was Lucifer, one of the Archangels. He resented God's power and glory, and rebelled. He is now the Adversary.

Evil is part of the plan because it's inevitable. Free choice, by definition, makes that so.

In order for there to be good, there must be evil.

Ridiculous. According to Christianity, God made Lucifer/Satan. God made everything. What you are saying is that Evil is so powerful that God HAD to make it, thus Evil is stronger than God.

I'm saying that there isn't any power without it's opposite. It's a universal truth. God created, and though He didn't create Evil directly, something became evil because that vacuum existed.

By Christian belief, nothing that God doesn’t want is inevitable. Theodicy, Huntster. You cannot escape the paradox.

You cannot escape the truth: God created this "system". Balance. Balance requires opposing forces. It's universal. It's perfect. It's science.

And as such, not all can be saved:

Originally Posted by Huntster
Sorry, Tricky, but there is.

The "logical" answer is movement. Resistance. Pressure. Stress. Opposition. Competition. The one constant in both physical and spiritual worlds.

Balance. Balance requires "pressure" or "resistance" from at least two sides.

No. That is only true of purely physical systems. For metaphysical systems, all bets are off. Metaphysical systems don’t have to abide by physical rules. There is no reason that a system without rules needs …rules.

Oh, now you have "knowledge" or "beliefs" of the non-physical?

Do you have any "evidence" of your claim, or are we just of differing beliefs?

If God HAD to create evil, then evil has power over God. There is no way to get out of this without violating the premise of an all-powerful God.

Hahahahahaha! You're just desperate on this belief, aren't you?!

Balance. Opposing force. It makes the world go around; literally.

It also balances good and evil. It's the system that enables continuity.

Your beliefs violate their own assumptions. That makes them illogical, though not 100% wrong. There is a tiny possibility that all the things we have learned about the universe are wrong and evidence has no validity. I consider that possibility so small as to be negligible. You apparently don’t.

I don't need to. When evidence comes to support that theory, I'll consider it. Until then, I'm busy considering things that have more merit.

Originally Posted by Huntster
I cannot do so. I'm not qualified. Only One was.

I'm just one who recognizes that, and seeks to understand more.

Yes you can. Anybody can. You only have to decide to. Use your free will. By evidence, you will understand much more than faith can ever teach you… at least, in my experience.

Give me evidence of something. If it interests me, I'll consider it.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Yup. If I look at it as you describe; from your perspective.

That perspective is one of the physical. You demand evidence. Physical evidence.

If you look at it from my perspective, can you see how I don't need that?

Since I've recognized that God and spirituality are not (and never have been) of the physical realm, I also recognize that physical evidence isn't (and may never) be available?

But truth isn’t a matter of “need”. A starving child needs food. That doesn’t mean they get it. The real world is tough, Huntster. You need God. The real world is tough.

Again, the starving child is a biological situation. My need for God is not.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Nope. Liberals are of the liberal political/ideologial mindframe (misguided folks..........)

Originally Posted by Huntster

I don't refuse to listen to evidence against my religion. I've heard it all.

I'm here, aren't I?

After consideration, I just reject it.

You haven’t heard it all. There is more every day. It is called “knowledge”. Reject it if you must. It won’t stop because of your rejection.

If you have more to offer, bring it on. And sure, it won't stop.

I'll still reject it if it isn't worthy of consideration.

Originally Posted by Huntster
No "need" for Heaven. It's just there.

LOL. Yeah. It’s just there. No evidence. No verifiable contact. No nothing. But it’s not a need to hang on to spiritual life because you fear total death, is it? Nooooooo.

Nope.

If, as RCC doctrine defines, Heaven is union with God and the blessed, it's there, because I believe in the existence of God.

Originally Posted by Huntster;
I could get ugly here. I can describe how it can be taught in public schools. Legally. It has been done in such a way for much of American history, and is still being done in that manner today. It would withstand legal review, because it has already withstood legal review.

Wanna go there?

Yeah, I’ll go there.

Utah public schools. Utah state history. It's mandatory.

Guess what Utah state history is all about? The Church of Latter Day Saints.

Get the picture?

I know lots of tricks like that. Like how to close down an abortion clinic. Been there, done that. All legal. Sometimes it's easy, sometimes it's not, but it happens all the time.

There are lots of ways to skin a cat.

It was wrong to do so for so much of American history.

Bullspit. Many schools, especially before the turn of the 20th Century, were religious organizations. Hell, I went to a parochial school. If you think my Utah example was something, my parents went to school in Louisiana. Hell, even the counties there are called "parishes."

America actually profited from their non-religious heritage.

Not any more. Balance has been lost. Do what you will, but balance will be achieved. You can't stop it.

Many of our founding fathers were not at all religious in any sense you would recognize it today.

Bullspit. They were more religious than you are portraying.

Their foresight freed us. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. Now we seem to be losing that edge and drifting away from our national ideals. We are more and more in the grip of fundamentalists.

I agree; fundamentalists of both sides. And damned dangerous, they are.

Looking at countries, especially in the Middle East, where religion and government go hand-in-hand, I cannot say that I consider this a good direction for us to move.

Nor I. And nobody is proposing that.

Originally Posted by Huntster;
God surrounds you. You're holed up like a rat. His legions are everywhere.

He doesn't play a role in your life; He controls it.

Sorry. I don’t see God. All I see are the rats.

Oh, well. Too bad for you.

 

[RandFan]

Utah public schools. Utah state history. It's mandatory.

Guess what Utah state history is all about? The Church of Latter Day Saints.

Get the picture?

No, I didn't read the entire post. But this caught my eye.

I grew up in Utah. There are church schools next to most public High Schools. Classes are available throughout the day. A student is given release time to attend.

There was a time when there was an intercom that connected the schools so wouldn't miss any important announcements if you were in church school. A court ordered that this practice be stopped and by the time I got to High School you could not longer hear announcements from school. That was a big deal and I will never forget it.

The schools had to be separated. In the past the teachers from the church schools would attend school teacher meetings. That was stopped.

It's true that Church history is taught but it's a short course and there is little or no doctrine.

Utah was threatened that if they taught religion in public schools they would lose federal funding. Guess what? Most put a stop to it pretty quickly and when a teacher tries to sneak it in there is usually complaints and the teacher is disciplined. I'm not saying that it never happens and I'm not saying that it doesn't happen because Utah cares about separation of church and state. It's just they like that money too much and they are at a real danger of losing lots of it if they don't comply.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

Anac i looked again at links in your most recent post.
I tried to view the entirety of the published work but was unable, also that troubling term 'hominid' came up again.
I fera that the 'evolutionists' use the term human more loosely than suits our purpose here.
I must insist on real, complete scholarly work re. examples of modern man.

Quelle surprise.

Translated, the above means that you have no real interest in the substance of the arguments of and for evolution other than to dismiss them with misplaced pedantism. The links provided must be seen in the context of overall evolutionary theory, which you have already decided is bunk. If you're wanting a single pre-packaged, cellophane-wrapped piece of evidence with a greeting card and a pink ribbon, you're praying up the wrong cross.

'Luthon64

 

[Paulhoff]

Sasquatch phenomenon = SCAM = god, sometimes you don't need a thousand words to say the truth. I have often found that the wordier someone is the less they really have to say. Besides why don’t you also ask what science has done with the perpetual motion machine, or do you buy into that to.

Paul



http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-01/010620monkey.html#i1

 

[Darth Rotor]

Then don't quote me has if I was writing to you.

Paul

I showed my wife you remark, she is still on the floor laughing, she thanks you.

Paul

Don't try to tell me, or anyone, how or when to post. You have neither the authority, nor the right. Open forum, free for all. That's the arena we are playing in.

Glad my post gave someone a smile. Silver lining, and all that.

A tip of the cap to your wife.

Cheers

DR

 

[Foster Zygote]

Ooooh! Please, please, please; may I quote you in this thread

As far as I'm concerned anyone is welcome to quote anything I write on a public forum. I would, however, recommend that you not cite me as an authoritative source. I would suggest finding something by an anthropologist regarding the relation of humans and gigantopithicus. I stand by what I wrote, but I'm not an authority.

 

[Huntster]

As far as I'm concerned anyone is welcome to quote anything I write on a public forum. I would, however, recommend that you not cite me as an authoritative source. I would suggest finding something by an anthropologist regarding the relation of humans and gigantopithicus. I stand by what I wrote, but I'm not an authority.

Gigantopithecus locomotion is like the ID/Evolution game. All we have of Giganto are a bunch of teeth and a couple of mandibles, yet factions on both sides argue that Giganto was bipedal/quadrapedal.

Clearly, that cannot be known at this time.

However, when I point that out, and also point out that Giganto was a Pacific rim ape, and his teeth/mandibles clearly place him precisely in the size range of reported sasquatches, the anti-sasquatch forces become enraged, and derail back to locomotion (which, again is unknowable at this time) and the fact that fossils were only found on the Asian side of the Pacific.

It's hilarious! I love it!

 

[Ossai]

Huntster

You can play all the games you wish, lad. I don't give much of a damn.

If that were true, you would have left this forum long ago.

He was the Creator. That's good enough for me.

You must really love those evil bits he made.

The evidence of Marian visions, the experiences of my life, and my prayer.

Anecdotal and meaningless.

I'm Roman Catholic. It is the largest Christian sect on Earth.

Appeal to popularity.

Quote:
So God should have made biological beings that don't get sick and die? Don't get injured? Live forever?

Dogs too? Mosquitoes? Trees? No biological death?

Then there couldn't be reproduction, either, because there wouldn't be enough room or resources. Hell, there wouldn't be enough anyway. Biological beings can't eat rocks. They eat other biological beings.

Gasp, you mean there is no heaven!

How do you get "no heaven" from a ridiculous question asked to Paulhoff, which is what it appears he is demanding?

And the description of heaven is?

See Huntster inserting foot into mouth.

Where?

Just below where I made the first statement.

Too bad more skeptics don't balance their skepticism with realism.

I'm not referring to 7 year olds with leukemia. I'm referring to you.

Too bad what you said in response to MatterHorn was

......[the following argument is made under the assumption that there is a god, an assumption I do not hold true.]
All people who die are people who die to make room for more people
Some people who die are people who die painfully
Some people who die to make room for more people are people who die to make room for terrible people
Therefore
Some people who die painfully are people who die to maker room for terrible people

You call that logic?

People who choose evil are people, too. They choose evil, not God. God is opposed to evil, and has tried to teach us that.

You stated people choose evil, bad things happen to people because they’re evil. Therefore every bad thing that happens to people is because they are evil including: seven year olds dying of leukemias, three and four year old suffering from pancreatic cancer, and one year olds suffering drug withdrawal and full blown AIDS.

Now with that clearly explain;

Why Hunster, you’re on up in years, did you ‘take care of’ (i.e. kill) the baby that was going to replace you so you would have a few more years?

Maybe He wants a relationship with His pride and joy of creation.........those created in His image and likeness.

Then why not show up and actually have one.

kurious_kathy

Even more evidence that you don’t follow what you preach.

How so?

You obviously don’t trust god. You placed your trust in a human (the doctor) and not god. You value this life more than the next. You aren’t willing to suffer for your beliefs.

Ossai

 

[Huntster]

Quote:
You can play all the games you wish, lad. I don't give much of a damn.

If that were true, you would have left this forum long ago.

You aren't this forum. And besides, I appreciate humor. You entertain me sometimes.

Quote:
He was the Creator. That's good enough for me.

You must really love those evil bits he made.

Not necessarily love them, but I realize why they exist, and appreciate the fact that they make me look good.

Quote:
The evidence of Marian visions, the experiences of my life, and my prayer.

Anecdotal and meaningless.

Not as meaningless as your reply.

Quote:
I'm Roman Catholic. It is the largest Christian sect on Earth.

Appeal to popularity.

Not for me. I was born and raised into it. I'm just lucky (or, better, blessed).

Quote:
See Huntster inserting foot into mouth.

Where?

Just below where I made the first statement.

Link it. Cite it. Show us all. Leave no doubt.

Quote:
I'm not referring to 7 year olds with leukemia. I'm referring to you.

Too bad what you said in response to MatterHorn was

Quote:
......[the following argument is made under the assumption that there is a god, an assumption I do not hold true.]
All people who die are people who die to make room for more people
Some people who die are people who die painfully
Some people who die to make room for more people are people who die to make room for terrible people
Therefore
Some people who die painfully are people who die to maker room for terrible people

You call that logic?

People who choose evil are people, too. They choose evil, not God. God is opposed to evil, and has tried to teach us that.

You stated people choose evil, bad things happen to people because they’re evil.

No, that is not what I stated. Nowhere did I state that bad things happen to people because they're evil. In fact, I've been trying to stress otherwise. Among my favorite biblical accounts is Chapter 9 of the Gospel of John. Behold:

As he passed by he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither he nor his parents sinned; it is so that the works of God might be made visible through him. We have to do the works of the one who sent me while it is day. Night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

Therefore every bad thing that happens to people is because they are evil including: seven year olds dying of leukemias, three and four year old suffering from pancreatic cancer, and one year olds suffering drug withdrawal and full blown AIDS.

According to the Gospel of Ossai and MatterHorn, yes; not the New Testament.

I prefer the New Testament.

Now with that clearly explain;

Quote:
Why Hunster, you’re on up in years, did you ‘take care of’ (i.e. kill) the baby that was going to replace you so you would have a few more years?

Quote:
Maybe He wants a relationship with His pride and joy of creation.........those created in His image and likeness.

Then why not show up and actually have one.

Again, I'll ask;

What the Sam Hell are you talking about?

 

[Paulhoff]

Huntster

Anti-sasquatch = anti-idiot, same same, why don't you come up with something that isn't cheery-picked and not scarecrow argument.

Paul