Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.nude > #45126 > unrolled thread

Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin?

Back to article view | Back to rec.nude

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 08:31 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 08:31 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 08:45 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 09:34 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 20:04 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 09:01 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Bert Clanton <abertclanton@comcast.net> - 2026-06-14 11:03 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 13:04 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> - 2026-06-14 20:03 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 17:03 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 18:02 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-15 05:02 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 17:35 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 18:16 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 09:02 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 09:32 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> - 2026-06-14 10:19 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 11:49 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> - 2026-06-24 14:44 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:01 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM - 2026-06-14 11:02 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 11:45 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 11:45 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 11:55 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM - 2026-06-14 13:01 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Clifford <CliffordAlls@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 13:04 +0000
            Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> - 2026-06-14 13:33 +0000
              Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Neosapienis" <dariowestern@nospambigpond.com> - 2026-06-14 14:34 +0000
                Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 18:16 +0000
              Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> - 2026-06-25 03:59 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 14:06 +0000
            Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 18:02 +0000
            Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-24 12:11 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 14:02 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 17:42 +0000
            Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-25 00:58 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-15 02:32 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 13:01 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-25 00:58 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM - 2026-06-14 09:02 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Someone <someone@somewhere.com> - 2026-06-14 09:16 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM - 2026-06-14 20:31 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? BeoWolf <Naturistvideos@gmail.com> - 2026-06-14 09:16 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:02 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 12:00 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 17:15 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 17:35 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 09:34 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 09:34 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 09:35 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 09:35 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 09:46 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 12:00 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-24 09:43 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 10:00 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 10:23 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 12:01 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 13:16 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:45 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 17:16 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 20:31 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-15 05:32 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 10:19 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Richard C. Rivers" <rcmang@comcast.net> - 2026-06-14 11:02 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Jenny6833A <Jenny6833A@aol.com> - 2026-06-14 11:03 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:46 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:02 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 11:16 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 11:46 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Dan Abel <dabel@sonic.net> - 2026-06-14 17:45 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 19:31 +0000
            Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-15 06:47 +0000
            Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-24 22:11 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 11:46 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 14:34 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-24 18:11 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Paul <something@somewhere.co.uk> - 2026-06-14 12:00 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 12:01 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-25 00:26 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 12:01 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 13:16 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 14:03 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 14:07 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Bert Clanton <abertclanton@comcast.net> - 2026-06-14 19:30 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 12:30 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Stuffed Tiger <NotMe@NotAnAddress.com> - 2026-06-14 12:30 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-14 12:31 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 18:00 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Someone <someone@somewhere.com> - 2026-06-14 14:01 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 18:01 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Fridthjof Andersen" <df@os.dk> - 2026-06-14 14:03 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Anna <annaliddell@lycos.com> - 2026-06-14 14:34 +0000
        Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 19:15 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 19:30 +0000
          Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 20:00 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 12:15 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> - 2026-06-14 14:01 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> - 2026-06-14 20:30 +0000
    Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? Zee <jonZeee@webtv.net> - 2026-06-14 17:04 +0000
      Re: Public Nudity: Innocent or Sin? "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> - 2026-06-15 03:15 +0000

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#45411

In article <4414r4tonng22vioraun7aunenbd4t4tg9@4ax.com>,
 stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:

> Hey, "Anna"?. Why not stick with "Anna"? Creating sock puppets is
> really overkill.
> 
> -T.

Sheesh! Are some of you paranoid or what?!

Someone

-- 
************************
someone@somewherever.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46044

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:36:53 -0800, Someone <someone@somewhere.com>
wrote:

>In article <4414r4tonng22vioraun7aunenbd4t4tg9@4ax.com>,
> stinson_home@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:
>
>> Hey, "Anna"?. Why not stick with "Anna"? Creating sock puppets is
>> really overkill.
>> 
>> -T.
>
>Sheesh! Are some of you paranoid or what?!

Quacks like a duck, I figure it's a duck.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45412

The concept of a day applies to every object in the universe, not just
the earth. The Moon rotates, Venus rotates, the Sun rotates, and the
Milky Way Galaxy rotates, each with a different day. Once the
stumbling block of the exact length of a day is removed, the story of
creation in Genesis agrees perfectly with evolution, and it becomes a
miracle that god's word was thousands of years ahead of science. Then
those seeking magic in the last days through the conjuring up of the
earth by a magician will then stop seeing God as a personal slave that
will provide themselves with magic and instead will serve God by
submitting to His will.

BeoWolf


On Mar 4, 1:06 pm, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 8:58 am, Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote innews:ebbd2b84-c8d5-48a5-afb1-35f798ffa25e@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >> It is the government, such as schools, that is restricted from
> > >> promoting one set of beliefs over another, a fact nudists need to
> > >> use. Most citizens in the USA are a member of one religion or
> > >> another. None is dominate except locally, so these all end up as
> > >> local battles.
>
> > > Is it really that important, at a High School level at least, to teach
> > > something that is so controversial?
>
> > That some people might fervently believe that 2+2=5 does not make
> > arithmetic controversial.
>
> Show me these people.
>
> > Evolution is science. Creation, and its deriviatives are religion. We
> > teach science in public schools and not religion. This is not
> > complicated.
>
> Don't teach either. Then no controversy. Let the student decide
> whether he or she wants to learn about evolution when he or she goes
> to college.
>
> Oh, free choice.  Can't have that now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45608

"David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote in news:718goaFjrh7dU1
@mid.individual.net:

> No it doesn't! It is applied to other planets, where the rotation of the 
> planet causes a cyclic pattern of day and night, but it doesn't apply to 
> stars or galaxies at all. 

Isn't it always DAY on a star? :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45703

Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> wrote in 
news:Xns9BC4D33362A54absolutelaneyahoocom@85.214.105.209:

>>> No it doesn't! It is applied to other planets, where the rotation of
>>> the planet causes a cyclic pattern of day and night, but it doesn't
>>> apply to stars or galaxies at all. 
 
>> Isn't it always DAY on a star? :-)
>> 
 
> And always summer, for that matter. 

Even at the North and South poles!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45912

"Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9BC4D2E5471ACTROLLBUSTERS@216.168.3.30: 

> "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:718goaFjrh7dU1 @mid.individual.net:
> 
>> No it doesn't! It is applied to other planets, where the rotation of
>> the planet causes a cyclic pattern of day and night, but it doesn't
>> apply to stars or galaxies at all. 
> 
> Isn't it always DAY on a star? :-)
> 

And always summer, for that matter.

Lane

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45922

"BeoWolf" <Naturistvideos@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:173c8d91-0d52-4f49-8168-e1f35f566221@f33g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

> The concept of a day applies to every object in the universe,

No it doesn't! It is applied to other planets, where the rotation of the 
planet causes a cyclic pattern of day and night, but it doesn't apply to 
stars or galaxies at all.

> not just
> the earth. The Moon rotates, Venus rotates, the Sun rotates, and the
> Milky Way Galaxy rotates, each with a different day.

They may rotate, but calling the rotation of a galaxy "a day" is bending the 
language well beyond breaking point.

> Once the
> stumbling block of the exact length of a day is removed, the story of
> creation in Genesis agrees perfectly with evolution,

Perfectly?, how so? What "7 ages" were there?. Humans co-evolved with many 
of the other species on the earth today. Indeed a good many other species, 
plant and animal, have been here a lot less time than we have, so how does 
that "agree perfectly" with the story of creation in Genesis? (Which 
creation story are you talking about BTW?, there are two in Genesis)

> and it becomes a
> miracle that god's word was thousands of years ahead of science.

Oh please! That is intellectual dishonesty of the worst possible sort. The 
only thing that Genesis gets right, is that the planet had to be here before 
the plant and animal life could inhabit it, and it hardly takes "God's word" 
to work that one out!

> Then
> those seeking magic in the last days through the conjuring up of the
> earth by a magician will then stop seeing God as a personal slave that
> will provide themselves with magic and instead will serve God by
> submitting to His will.

Whatever.

David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45428

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:48:35 -0400, "Richard C. Rivers"
<rcmang@comcast.net> wrote:

>The simple fact is that evelution is god's creationism. Dah!

Well put :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45431

On Mar 4, 10:41 am, Bert Clanton <abertclan...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 10:06 am, Anna <annalidd...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 4, 8:58 am, Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Evolution is science. Creation, and its deriviatives are religion. We
> > > teach science in public schools and not religion. This is not
> > > complicated.
>
> > Don't teach either. Then no controversy. Let the student decide
> > whether he or she wants to learn about evolution when he or she goes
> > to college.
>
> > Oh, free choice.  Can't have that now.
>
> I wouldn't want my kids to have a choice as to whether they're taught
> in a science class that the universe is 6000-odd years old, or that it
> is 13.7 billion years old. If they're taught the former in a religion
> class in a church, I'm willing to say, "Oh. Ok."; but not if it's in a
> science class in a public school. "Creation science" and "Intelligent
> design science" are not science, and I don't want them taught in
> science classes. So sue me.

If one is taught the other should be taught.

It doesn't have to be taught as being "correct".  It can be taught as
there are two theories and here is what both sides give for their
reasons they believe their theories.

Wow, let people hear both sides and come to their own decision. Can't
have that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45442

On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 21:40:36 -0000, "David Looser"
<david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote:

>"Zee" <jonZeee@webtv.net> wrote in message 
>news:98364e82-a146-4e68-9429-56200ff11400@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>> you seem to be confused about Christianity..most.all Christians
>> believe man and woman was created by intelligent design...and reject
>> human evolution from primates....
>
>Not the Christians I know. Perhaps you missed out that important adjective 
>"American".
>
>David.

In the United States, in the heart of the Bible Belt, in a small town,
a School Board tried to incorporate Intelligent Design. That School
Board was voted out. A Board that promoted true Science was voted in. 

The mandates passed by the former School Board to insure the teaching
of Intelligent Design were overturned in court. There was shown to be
no science behind Intelligent Design, but rather it was another word
for "Creationism" that was edited in the texts they wanted to teach
from in place of Creationism, that everybody knew to be religion.

The US is not hostile to religion. We just keep the government out of
it as much as possible. Religions can use public spaces like any other
group. Many religious groups get government money to support the good
works that they do in feeding the poor. 

It is the government, such as schools, that is restricted from
promoting one set of beliefs over another, a fact nudists need to use.
Most citizens in the USA are a member of one religion or another. None
is dominate except locally, so these all end up as local battles.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45444

"Anna" <annaliddell@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:ebbd2b84-c8d5-48a5-afb1-35f798ffa25e@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> By  they way, I do tend to believe in evolution, but that doesn't
> negate the possibility of a "designer". And I don't believe evolution,
> at least as currently understood provides a complete answer.

Of course it isn't a "complete answer". We don't have "complete answers" to 
anything.

> I see
> don't get how the intermediate steps in the transformation of species
> from one species to another happens just through the process of
> "survival of the fittest.  Sure a finger would be useful in survival
> but would the intermediate steps that would be needed to get finally
> to the finger be?  There is something missing in the evolution theory.
> Perhaps someday someone would figure that part of it out.

You have just provided the best reason yet why evolution should be taught in 
schools. You don't understand modern evolutionary theory, so you are 
doubting evolution based on your own ignorance of what evolutionary theory 
actually tells us.

David.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45448

"Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9BC4A4C8D4F65TROLLBUSTERS@216.168.3.30: 

> Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> wrote in 
> news:Xns9BC48659DDDF3absolutelaneyahoocom@85.214.105.209:
> 
>> It is not controversial. That a minority of people deny reality does
>> not make reality controversial.
> 
> I have an idea.  Let's PROVE what is written in the Bible is ABSOLUTE
> TRUTH by testing it.  Let's start by building an arc, put 2 of every
> type of animal aboard it (along with the food and water for them) and
> have 8 people attempt to live on Lake Michigan for 40 days and 40
> nights.  If all the animals and people survive, you can conclude that
> it might just have happened.  Even if you can fit 2 of every known
> animal aboard the arc it would go a long way to saying that it was at
> least possible. 
> 
> (Of course I have no idea where you will get 2 of every type of
> dinosaur.  Maybe 2 of every type of bird would do as a substitute.)

Well, dinosaurs never actually existed you know, since the fossil record 
says that they existed before the earth was actually created. I always 
wondered why God put those there. Probably some sort of test of our 
faith. 


Lane

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45695

Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> wrote in 
news:Xns9BC4A63A72D13absolutelaneyahoocom@85.214.105.209:

> Well, dinosaurs never actually existed you know, since the fossil record 
> says that they existed before the earth was actually created. I always 
> wondered why God put those there. Probably some sort of test of our 
> faith.  

This is known in the trade as "God's little jokes".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#46110

On Mar 4, 3:32 pm, "Terry J. Wood" <TerryJW...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:Xns9BC4A63A72D13absolutelaneyahoocom@85.214.105.209:
>
> > Well, dinosaurs never actually existed you know, since the fossil record
> > says that they existed before the earth was actually created. I always
> > wondered why God put those there. Probably some sort of test of our
> > faith.  
>
> This is known in the trade as "God's little jokes".

wood ...time is not fixed...it is according to the speed you are
going...i would say God had to go fast and then slow changing time
constantly....and a day could have been a billion years at his
speed....geesh.....jz

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45454

On Mar 4, 8:58 am, Lane <absolutel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Nobody is forcing anything. Science is being taught. That's it.
>
> Lane

You are forcing down your beliefs regarding the origin of our species
down people's throats.

Since it is so controversial let it be taught elsewhere as opposed to
public government schools.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45598

"Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9BC4D40ACD47BTROLLBUSTERS@216.168.3.30...
> "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:718hvjFjrq37U1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Are you aware of the Epic of Gilgamesh? It is the oldest known written
>> story in existance, dating from around 2300BC (whereas Genesis as a
>> written text dates only from around 700BC). Gilgamesh also contains a
>> flood story with some uncanny similarities with that in the Bible.
>> Either the version in the Bible was based on that in Gilgamesh, or
>> both have a common source.
>
> You're not saying that the Unerring Word was plagiarized, are you? :-)

'Fraid so!. It seems likely that much of Genesis was based on earlier 
traditional stories as well. It's just that these earlier versions 
apparently haven't survived, though it's always possible that archaeology 
may yet find something. The Epic of Gilgamesh was only discovered in the 
19th C, written on thousands of clay tablets.
>
> It's a shame that people are unwilling to accept that the Bible tells you
> how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.  If they could just accept
> that then they wouldn't be so threatened by reason and the fossil record.

Indeed. Christianity seems to have survived the scientific realisation that 
the earth is not the centre of the universe, but merely the 3rd planet of a 
minor solar-system, quite well. So why should the notion that humans are 
part of the animal kingdom and not the result of "special creation" be seen 
as so threatening?

I've often wondered how Bible literalists explain away the fact that humans 
are actually created twice in Genesis. In Genesis 1 God creates men and 
women together by a simple act of will. Then in Genesis 2 "The Lord God" 
laboriously fashions Adam out of mud, and only some time later creates Eve 
from one of Adam's ribs.

David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45711

"David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:719k0lFk147kU1@mid.individual.net: 

> I've often wondered how Bible literalists explain away the fact that
> humans are actually created twice in Genesis. In Genesis 1 God creates
> men and women together by a simple act of will. Then in Genesis 2 "The
> Lord God" laboriously fashions Adam out of mud, and only some time
> later creates Eve from one of Adam's ribs.
 
They explain it away in much the same manner as they insist that 
homosexuality is FORBIDDEN by the Bible while they munch away on shrimp!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45799

I went back an reread this whole thread, of which I quote only a tiny,
random part below. What a treat! This is certainly an amazing group of
intelligent people. Very enjoyable. Nice to know this is what nudists
are like on the inside. 


On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:23:31 -0000, "David Looser"
<david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote:

>"Terry J. Wood" <TerryJWood@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:Xns9BC4D40ACD47BTROLLBUSTERS@216.168.3.30...
>> "David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote in
>> news:718hvjFjrq37U1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> Are you aware of the Epic of Gilgamesh? It is the oldest known written
>>> story in existance, dating from around 2300BC (whereas Genesis as a
>>> written text dates only from around 700BC). Gilgamesh also contains a
>>> flood story with some uncanny similarities with that in the Bible.
>>> Either the version in the Bible was based on that in Gilgamesh, or
>>> both have a common source.
>>
>> You're not saying that the Unerring Word was plagiarized, are you? :-)
>
>'Fraid so!. It seems likely that much of Genesis was based on earlier 
>traditional stories as well. It's just that these earlier versions 
>apparently haven't survived, though it's always possible that archaeology 
>may yet find something. The Epic of Gilgamesh was only discovered in the 
>19th C, written on thousands of clay tablets.
>>
>> It's a shame that people are unwilling to accept that the Bible tells you
>> how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.  If they could just accept
>> that then they wouldn't be so threatened by reason and the fossil record.
>
>Indeed. Christianity seems to have survived the scientific realisation that 
>the earth is not the centre of the universe, but merely the 3rd planet of a 
>minor solar-system, quite well. So why should the notion that humans are 
>part of the animal kingdom and not the result of "special creation" be seen 
>as so threatening?
>
>I've often wondered how Bible literalists explain away the fact that humans 
>are actually created twice in Genesis. In Genesis 1 God creates men and 
>women together by a simple act of will. Then in Genesis 2 "The Lord God" 
>laboriously fashions Adam out of mud, and only some time later creates Eve 
>from one of Adam's ribs.
>
>David.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45666

Lane <absolutelane@yahoo.com> wrote in 
news:Xns9BC48659DDDF3absolutelaneyahoocom@85.214.105.209:

> It is not controversial. That a minority of people deny reality does not 
> make reality controversial.

I have an idea.  Let's PROVE what is written in the Bible is ABSOLUTE TRUTH 
by testing it.  Let's start by building an arc, put 2 of every type of 
animal aboard it (along with the food and water for them) and have 8 people 
attempt to live on Lake Michigan for 40 days and 40 nights.  If all the 
animals and people survive, you can conclude that it might just have 
happened.  Even if you can fit 2 of every known animal aboard the arc it 
would go a long way to saying that it was at least possible.

(Of course I have no idea where you will get 2 of every type of dinosaur.  
Maybe 2 of every type of bird would do as a substitute.)

If this can't be done, then just maybe the story is a fable of a king who 
rode a barge down a river during a flood.

More Fun reading:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#45914

"David Looser" <david.looser@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:718hvjFjrq37U1@mid.individual.net: 

> Are you aware of the Epic of Gilgamesh? It is the oldest known written
> story in existance, dating from around 2300BC (whereas Genesis as a
> written text dates only from around 700BC). Gilgamesh also contains a
> flood story with some uncanny similarities with that in the Bible.
> Either the version in the Bible was based on that in Gilgamesh, or
> both have a common source. 

You're not saying that the Unerring Word was plagiarized, are you? :-)

It's a shame that people are unwilling to accept that the Bible tells you 
how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.  If they could just accept 
that then they wouldn't be so threatened by reason and the fossil record.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | rec.nude

csiph-web