Follow up Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots

Corrie wrote:



Let me repeat myself Mr. Zealot

just how prey tell was YOUR GOD refining HIS people
when those other teenage boys and girls were shot dead.

One more Time wrote:

Corrie wrote:


Let me repeat myself Mr. Zealot

just how prey tell was YOUR GOD refining HIS people
when those other teenage boys and girls were shot dead.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

May I predict....

No way will you ever receive an acceptable explanation.


Barnyard BOb --

Barnyard BOb -- wrote in message . ..
One more Time wrote:

Corrie wrote:


Let me repeat myself Mr. Zealot

just how prey tell was YOUR GOD refining HIS people
when those other teenage boys and girls were shot dead.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

May I predict....

No way will you ever receive an acceptable explanation.


Barnyard BOb --

Pac sez:

Well Bob, let me try to give them both an acceptable explanation.
O.K. Rah here it is: Loosing a few people from things like this just
isn't very important in the big scheme of things.

Corrie, your missionary supporters started it so I'll finish it. Your
ancient faith and the science worlds' methodical faith remind me of
the tale of "four blind men and an elephant." Each constantly argues
about the discoveries he's made over at "his tree" or "his snake"
without considering the possibility that the two are connected.

Just what makes a God anyway? A God, IMHO, is nothing more than a
relative comparison between greatly disparate phenomenon. You are a
God relative to the ants you smash everyday on the sidewalk. Relative
to the local tribal natives they frequently encountered, the great
Conquistadors were, by relative terms Gods. In fact, they were often
mistaken for such; ie Cortez at the Aztec shores in the 1500's.
Walking on water with their magnificent ships and then striding into
the village, unafraid of anything, mounted on their previously unseen
horses, and sitting in their marvelous suits of armor (some of those
things resembled the craftsmanship of finely fitted Mercedes Benz
autos; like the suits on display at the Tower of London.)

....Why they couldn't possibly be anything else but Gods. In the
1500's this effect was used to convert peoples all over the Spanish
empire under the sanction of the Pope (your missionary friends do the
same thing in the third world. They wow the locals with their beads
and trinkets, while taking credit for the short-field feats of the
Cessna 206.)

The Hubble telescope combined with other ground instruments and
spacecraft has made it apparent that "outer space" is anything but
empty. We keep on discovering more and more structure. It's clear to
me that relative to you dweebs this structure is part of a greater
grand design (although we'll never know in our lifetimes what it is.)
But tunneling-electron microscope images can give us a clue.

You zealots continue to try to convert the whole world into your
recent religion not realizing that evolution and science are the other
side of the God coin that you myopically stare at. Blank and White,
Who's right, who's wrong translations from more than 2000 years ago
don't cut it. As usual the truth lies in middle.

This bit of wisdom will cost you a mandatory/voluntary contribution to
the "Church in the Air." which I'm founding in about five minutes.

pacplyer
Reverand and High Captain of the holy Airwaves

(pac plyer) wrote in message . com...
Pac,

You might be interested in Don Stoner's book, "A New Look at an Old
Earth." It speaks to the elephant analogy. If he hadn't written it,
I would have had to eventually. Recommended.

You're partly right, in terms of us being pretty small in the grand
scheme of things. Also right in that science only gives us part of
the picture. (Funny how some folks put their faith in science to
deliver all the answers, when the track record of science is that for
every question it answers, it raises three more. The more we learn,
the more we realize how little we know. At the very limits of our
perception, we also run smack-dab into the limits of our capability to
wrap our minds around what we observe. Quantum mechanics and
astrophysics both serve up large does of brain-bending paradox. The
hypothesis that are some things that humans simply *cannot* comprehend
has not been disproved.)

Your examples of ants and conquistadores was summed up by Arthur C.
Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from magic." But that's where your argument goes wrong. Faith isn't
magic, and it certainly isn't high tech. The God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob isn't the "Q" of Star Trek. Jesus isn't The Borg. Prayer
isn't a flick of Harry Potter's wand and a muttered, "Lumos!"

Your concept of God as a "relative comparison between greatly
disparate phenomenon" is also known as "God-of-the-gaps." That's a
straw man often trotted out by skeptics, but it doesn't really
describe the Judeo-Christian concept of a trancendent Creator.

Yes, people often attribute not-understood phenomena to supernatural
workings. But just because a phenomenon previously attributed to the
supernatural (say, the Bermuda Triangle) turns out to have a plausible
naturalistic explanation (the decomposition of sea-floor carbonate
formations) does NOT therefore mean that NO supernatural phenomena can
exist.

I've read that the plagues and miracles described in Exodus (and also
the legends of Atlantis, if you're so inclined) can be
naturalistically attributed to a massive volcanic eruption in the
Mediterranean. Fine by me. But would't you agree that the timing of
events - especially the sea-floor receding and then rushing back - was
just a little too convenient to be accidental? Coincidence is God's
way of maintaining anonymity, you know. :-D


Corrie

Pac sez:

Well Bob, let me try to give them both an acceptable explanation.
O.K. Rah here it is: Loosing a few people from things like this just
isn't very important in the big scheme of things.

Corrie, your missionary supporters started it so I'll finish it. Your
ancient faith and the science worlds' methodical faith remind me of
the tale of "four blind men and an elephant." Each constantly argues
about the discoveries he's made over at "his tree" or "his snake"
without considering the possibility that the two are connected.

Just what makes a God anyway? A God, IMHO, is nothing more than a
relative comparison between greatly disparate phenomenon. You are a
God relative to the ants you smash everyday on the sidewalk. Relative
to the local tribal natives they frequently encountered, the great
Conquistadors were, by relative terms Gods. In fact, they were often
mistaken for such; ie Cortez at the Aztec shores in the 1500's.
Walking on water with their magnificent ships and then striding into
the village, unafraid of anything, mounted on their previously unseen
horses, and sitting in their marvelous suits of armor (some of those
things resembled the craftsmanship of finely fitted Mercedes Benz
autos; like the suits on display at the Tower of London.)

...Why they couldn't possibly be anything else but Gods. In the
1500's this effect was used to convert peoples all over the Spanish
empire under the sanction of the Pope (your missionary friends do the
same thing in the third world. They wow the locals with their beads
and trinkets, while taking credit for the short-field feats of the
Cessna 206.)

The Hubble telescope combined with other ground instruments and
spacecraft has made it apparent that "outer space" is anything but
empty. We keep on discovering more and more structure. It's clear to
me that relative to you dweebs this structure is part of a greater
grand design (although we'll never know in our lifetimes what it is.)
But tunneling-electron microscope images can give us a clue.

You zealots continue to try to convert the whole world into your
recent religion not realizing that evolution and science are the other
side of the God coin that you myopically stare at. Blank and White,
Who's right, who's wrong translations from more than 2000 years ago
don't cut it. As usual the truth lies in middle.

This bit of wisdom will cost you a mandatory/voluntary contribution to
the "Church in the Air." which I'm founding in about five minutes.

pacplyer
Reverand and High Captain of the holy Airwaves

Not surprisingly, Cap'n Rich S. came up with a jpeg of a '50's era
magazine describing the technique in detail. In brief, fly turns
around a point while the passenger winches down a bag on a looong
clothesline. Keep flying in circles until the ground crew
empties/fills it, then crank it back up.

Then go fly straight and level for a while with the windows
open.....urk.


Big John wrote in message . ..
Have heard about the rope trick also.

Seached the Internet and didn't find anything. Have passed the problem
to some friends. Will see what they can come up with.

If I had to guess, I'd say it happened many many years ago with some
of those olden birds.

Big John

Question, though. I had always thought it was missionary pilots, but
perhaps not -- who perfected the art of flying around in circles trailing a
rope in order to drop off and pick up things from the ground? I can't find
any references to the technique. What the heck would I enter in a google
search?

(Corrie) wrote:

You're quite right, Bob. If a person is determined to disbelieve,
then no evidence can possibly change their mind. Their worldview
forces them to either discount or reinterpret every piece of evidence
shown to them. Likewise, it's not possible to convince the informed,
thoughtful believer that they are wrong, because they can answer the
skeptics from within their worldview. (The skeptics may not be
satisfied with the answers, but that's not the point.)

It is quite telling that your disbeliever "discounts or reinterprets
evidence" while your believer is "informed and thoughtful". In
reality, of course, a great many "informed and thoughtful"
disbelievers believe that believers "discount or reinterpret
evidence".

My studies convinced me that Christianity is
coherent, explanative, predicitve, internally consistent, externally
verifiable, and even - like any good scientific hypothesis -
falsifiable.

The faith-based beliefs of any religion, including Christianity, are
not verifiable by definition. Belief in the existence of God, gods,
heaven, or hell is faith-based.

David O -- http:.//www.AirplaneZone.com

The faith-based beliefs of any religion, including Christianity, are
not verifiable by definition. Belief in the existence of God, gods,
heaven, or hell is faith-based.

David O -- http:.//www.AirplaneZone.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The odds of winning an argument against a
theistic zealot... or an atheist are about equal.

How about a controversial binary file instead to fill
the bandwidth wasted on such unwinnable matters?


Barnyard BOb --

Corrie wrote:

Check out Proverbs 14:1.

I think looking in a mirror and checking out Zealot 101
would be more appropriate.

From the Miriam Webster dictionary

Zealot - a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan

Barnyard BOb -- wrote in message . ..

The odds of winning an argument against a theistic zealot... or an atheist are about equal.

I've never thought of myself as a zealot. The flycorvair guy, now
HE'S a zealot. (Have to try to keep homebuilding involved in the
thread somehow, right?) Someone has said, arguing on the Internet is
like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win....you're still
retarded. That's as may be. I've never claimed to be the smartest
guy on this spinning rock. But as a Christian, it's my duty to "be
prepared to give an answer to anyone who asks the reason for the hope"
that I have. (1 Peter 3:15) And somewhere up this thread, someone DID
ask.

How about a controversial binary file instead to fill
the bandwidth wasted on such unwinnable matters?

Because then we'd be booted to a different server, silly! You can
talk all kinds of OT trash, but don't post pics!


Corrie
There are 10 kinds of people in the world - those that understand
binary, and those who don't.

Corrie wrote:

Someone has said, arguing on the Internet is
like running in the Special Olympics.
Even if you win....you're still retarded.

Your living proof of that.

But as a Christian, it's my duty to "be prepared to give an answer
to anyone who asks the reason for the hope" that I have.
(1 Peter 3:15) And somewhere up this thread, someone DID
ask.

And you have been ramming YOUR VERSION OF GODLINESS
down our collective throats ever since.