If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Barnyard BOb -- wrote in message . ..
On 4 Sep 2003 01:04:43 -0700, (pac plyer) wrote: snowbird101 master cross breeder of barnyard animals and hound dogs wrote: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hmmmmm. IMO... The above is totally out of character for any BWB persona. More like a Jaun puppet, if a non SWAG must be made. Like I said elsewhere, if I were voting, I'd vote against "sock puppet" and for "stooge." I have my reasons, but I admit it's possible I give Mr. Phillips too little credit and "sock" isn't impossible. But it strikes me as a moot point either way. Either way, he's shown himself to be lacking in either credibility, or sense, and he ought to be treated accordingly. Don't believe anything you can't independently verify. Cheers, Sydney |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Mark Hickey
writes: Imagine suddenly finding yourself before the very being who created life, the universe and everything. Someone who could populate a void with a few trillion stars just 'cuz he felt like it. Someone who didn't discover DNA, but assembled it. I try to imagine how ANYONE in that situation would want to tell him what he did wrong, and why they should be admitted into his presence because "they earned it". Somehow, I don't think that's likely... but that's just my take on it. Mark Hickey Mark, Its all about FAITH. You either have it or you don't. If you do, you can easily find the justification for it. If you don't, you can also easily find the justification. No amount of argument is going to change the minds of the other party so the argument remains endless. The best that either can do is to accept the position of the others and allow both to live in peace. I will agree to not try and change you, you agree to not try and change me. Bob Reed www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site) KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress.... "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!" (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman) |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Barnyard BOb --
writes: snowbird101 master cross breeder of barnyard animals and hound dogs wrote: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hmmmmm. IMO... The above is totally out of character for any BWB persona. More like a Jaun puppet, if a non SWAG must be made. *BARNYARD* BOb -- In any case, it did search for a new low and found it. Bob Reed www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site) KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress.... "Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!" (M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman) |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
pac plyer wrote: And Barnyard, Robert, Roger, Morgans (forgot: already ploinked me.) others: My bad. I will sit in the corner and never mention Sydney again. Not good enough? O.K, I'll be nice to her and not pull her hair anymore. O.K, O.K I'll say I'm sorry! Geeez! ;-) pac "grouchy old stooge puppet crow-eating Bart Simpson" plyer happy? You didn't say "pretty please"! |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
God wants us to trust him.
Remember that trust isn't a right, it has to be earned. Answered very well by another contributor. I'll simply add that God owes you nothing-zero-zip-zilch-nada, as he already 0wnZ you lock, stock, and barrel. You're mixing apples and oranges. We're not talking about a technology demonstration, we're talking about a singular historical event. The historical is irrelevant, it's the singular that's the conundrum. If it only apparently happened once 2000 years ago, we can safely call it observer/experimental error and ignore it. You're still terribly confused, attempting to apply the tools of science to a question of history. Worse, you don't even recognize the fallacy of doing so. Just because an event only happened once does not mean that it never happened! The K-T impact only happened once. The flooding of the Mediterranean basin only happened once. Krakatoa only blew up once. Same for Mt. St. Helens. I already know that you're going to say, "but those are within the realm of reason, and a resurrection is not." That is true only within a worldview that DENIES THE POSSIBILITY of a singular resurrection a priori. You're beginning with a premise, and using that premise to reject any evidence that would lead to a conclusion that conflicts with it. IT'S BAD LOGIC! The resurrection of Jesus is singular for a reason. It's only *needed* once. You may smirk and say, "how convenient," but that doesn't change the facts. In the Christian worldview, only one resurrection is required. One does not expect to see further examples. The model does not predict them. The question is, did the one really happen or not? You're simply refusing to investigate. You're ducking the question. Bwaaaawk-buk-buk-buk-buk-buk! But continued observation and experimentation has led to greater understanding of how things work. No observation or experimentation has resulted in resurrection. Until it does, there's no need to change our understanding. Q.E.D. The point is, your modernist worldview is insufficient to the task. It disregards a large chunk of reality simply because it cannot be measured by "scientific" means. A friend recently sent me a very apropos quote from Albert Einstein on the subject: "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." Today, laboratory observations of quantum synchronicity phenomena appear to violate the laws of physics. Does that mean that the observations are erroneous, or that the "laws of physics" need to be revised? No, because they're predicted and expected by quantum mechanics. Not the first time! The laws of QM were written to *explain* observations that contradicted the accepted laws of physics. The Newtonian worldview was insufficient to the task - "real" reality could not be adequately or defined by F=MA anymore. So the definition of "real" was expanded to include color, strange, and charm. The point is that "real reality" is much larger than the shadow that you accept. Theories which don't predict and can't be tested or verified are useless and worthless. Such as the idea of one phylum morphing into a different phylum over millions of years? Can't test it or verify it. Not repeatable. Doesn't predict anything, at least not anything of use to us, or anything we can measure. So it must be worthless, right? :-P Now you can say that the Resurrection predicts an after-life... but unless someone comes back and confirms then it's untestable. If someone DOES come back, it satisfies my required for repeatability. But then it would also supply proof, which defies faith, so it can't be ALLOWED to happen. A nice little bit of circular logic. Nice little straw man. Not what I claimed at all. The resurrection is not a theory. It's an historical event. You're using the wrong hammer. Prayer works. So do sugar pills, with the same efficacy. Consult your physician for possible side effects of either. Wrong hammer again. I expect an MD to know about pills, but not necessarily about prayer. Consult your clergy for evidence about the efficacy of prayer. Of course I know "Flatland". And if the sphere should pass through flatland but once, what need is there to explain it? Maybe because it's coming back? :-D And just because they're in a 2D world, doesn't prohibit them from formulating a 3D model. That, however, doesn't make the 3D world real (see superstring theory... not to be confused with Silly String). Further, while there's a elegant 3D explanation in this case, it's not REQUIRED. You could just as easily explain it as a growing and shrinking circle, and it's just as valid. No, because the third dimension and the sphere are in fact REAL, which we can see from our three-dimensional vantage point. The "it's just a growing and shrinking circle" explanation is WRONG. It does, however, work better than any non-supernatural explanation of the evidences of the Resurrection of Jesus that you've offered to date. At least the skeptical flatlanders had an explanation that FIT THE EVIDENCE. You misread me. No modernistic high-horse here! I'm not judging the people of 2000 years ago and saying they're gullible.... I'm saying people TODAY are gullible, and the people of 2000 years ago were likely no better. Accepted. So then I assume that you'd be willing to take up the challenge and look at the evidence at face value? I dare ya! Murder and pillage are also universally punished. Not when it's government policy, or if there's no government. Just ask anyone from Cambodia, Bosnia, or Rwanda. Exceptions which prove the rule. If exceptions prove the rule, then any rule can - perhaps should - have exceptions. For example, the rule that says dead people don't come back to life? There's a fairly large school of thought within even conservative Christianity that suggests that Hell is eternal destruction, not eternal torment. Dead and gone, not dead and burning. Either way, it's a ****-poor alternative to eternal life in paradise. Imagine - no need for annuals or pre-flights! :-D Or maybe an endless string of BFRs! :P Shoot, that'd just be Purgatory. If you're *really* unrepentant, you bust a TFR and get a ramp check on every flight. ;-^ But is paradise an actual, available alternative or are you just fooling yourself? "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" clearly applies. I thought *you* were supposed to be the optimist here. :-) We're back to Pascal's wager. If you're right, I gain nothing and you lose nothing. If I'm right, I gain everything and you lose everything. To your question, though, yes - paradise is actual and available. The PTS is a bitch, though. "Excruciating" would not be too strong a word for it. No one has ever been able to meet the specs, or ever will, except for this one guy with the scarred hands and feet. (He got those scars passing the checkride.) Here's the deal, though - the DE gives you a total waiver from the PTS if you let that guy endorse your logbook - which he does in his own blood. All you have to do is ask. Corrie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots | Larry Smith | Home Built | 22 | August 14th 03 10:03 PM |