### Apollo BBS Archive - August 3, 1991

    Mail from Melissa Dee
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:17:11

    Your welcome!

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 7787
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 02:44:18

    Good post Rod!

    Message: 7788
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Believe it or not!
    Subject: FUNNY, FUNNY DARYL
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 07:37:35

    > No, the only thing that's clear is that you hold a very
    > dogmatic stand on a very unverifiable theory.

    Oh, Daryl!  Stop!  You're making my sides hurt!

    Message: 7789
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Rebuttal
    Subject: MUDSLINGING ROD
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 07:37:58

    > Rod, are you ever capable of making your point without having
    > to resort to name-calling and mudslinging first?

    Yeah, Rod!  Put the name-calling and mudslinging last!  That way you can
    pretend you're making rational arguments.

    Message: 7790
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Beau Dog / 7783
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 13:05:30

        The question is, if God exists, then would he not exist outside of, or
    at least seperate in nature, from his creation?  And if this is to be the
    case, then there would be validity in trying to compare the nature of the
    creation with the nature of it's creator.  We cannot, therefore, assert that
    God MUST have a beginning.  His word, however, states that He is eternal,
    and since we have no other source of information on which to gauge the
    nature of the Christian God of the Bible, then we must, if we indeed do
    believe in Him, to take Him at His word.  That is my position.

    Message: 7791
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Rod / 7784
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 13:09:36

         But what about the evolutionary train of thought that used to say that
    Blacks were less evolved than Anglo/Saxon Whites, and therefore did not have
    the same equality to Whites?  Racism is an evolutionary by-product.
    Scripture says we are all related to Noah, and further down the line, to
    Adam, the first man.  Therefore, race is nothing more than a variety in
    genes, and is based upon nothing more than how much melanin pigment is in
    your skin.  Therefore I feel that we are all related.  Williams, Harvey,
    Smith, Jones, Ching, Johnson, Prabhuada, Gonzales, Blanchard, M'butu,
    Westfall.  Indeed, what IS the difference?

    Message: 7792
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Burkett / 7788
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 13:12:41

         Well?  His theory is unverifiable in the fact that the fossil record
    contradicts it.  What is the missing link anyway?  What's to keep us from
    saying that the reason it's "missing" is because it does not exist?  What
    about the evolutionary process?  Why don't we see evolution happening now?
    Evolutionists say that either (a) It's so slow we can't see it, or (b) It
    happened so fast that we missed it.  So evolution is so slow we can't see
    it, so fast that we missed it - hey, what's to say it DIDN'T HAPPEN AT ALL?

    Message: 7793
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Bill / 7789
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 13:14:43

         I'm unsure whether or not you meant that sarcastically or not, but in
    either case...oh, no...LORDKEEPMEFROMSAYINGITAUUUUUUUGHHHHHNOOOOOOOO!

         Good post.

         AAAAAAAUGH (thud)

    Message: 7794
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl/your share
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:35:51

    Gee Daryl, seems like you should be listening to your self.  Seems like you
    do your own name calling and mudslinging.......
     Were does YOUR integrity stem from??????????

    Message: 7795
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: darly/nonsense
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:39:21

     I think for the most part the scientific community has taken to the belief
    that Carbon Dating IS accurate and reliable.  It's you and your type of
    people that make things so laughable... What are you SO AFRAID of?  The
    truth that doesn't come from a bibble, but from hard evidence?  How much of
    what is in the bibble can actually be proved as actually occurring as
    written down???????????? I wonder.

    Message: 7796
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl/Answer
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:45:58

     Who cares how long ago it happened?  Point is it did happen and continues
    to do so.  Everything in this world, whether you want to believe it or not
    continues to evolve and change.
     I am combining two posts here.  This is in response to your previous post
    about God wanting me.....  I believe that the way one lives life determines
    whether one is in heaven or hell.  It's whatever you care to make of it. The
    poorest person on the planet can be in heaven if that person is at peace
    with himself/herself.  And the other extreme is just as true.  The richest
    smuck on the planet can be in hell if he is not happy with what he/she has.
    I think I have a very good idea of what makes me feel good/happy and I
    believe I have a very good sense of good and wrong.  And I think a lot of
    other people do also, be they religious or not.

    Message: 7797
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: BD/right on!
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:47:32

     I agree with you fully.... WHERE DID GOD COME FROM????
    Can any one answer me?

    Message: 7798
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Rod/sure
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:49:05

     Hehehe....what are your favorite?  I personally like roses....(hmmm could
    go next door and "borrow" a few...hehehehe)

    Message: 7799
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Barbarian
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 16:41:11

         I backtracked and read every single one of my posts on this SIG
    relating to this discussion, and in not a single instance did I attempt to
    insult anyone.  Furthermore, if someone to whom any of those posts were
    directed WAS offended, they must have a very thin skin.

         The only thing I could be accused of on this SIG is speaking my point
    of view and defending it with intelligence and not petty insults.

         Perhaps you are trying to make an issue out of a non-issue in an effort
    to get the "free-thinkers" on this board to rally around your cause
    (whatever it may be) by making unsubstantiated claims against me.  I feel
    you will no doubt succeed since I have seen it happen on here again and
    again in the past.

        And by the way, about those other religions you listed...I have more
    information on the age of them in relation to Christianity that I will post
    later.

    Message: 7800
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Wild Barbarian
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 16:50:53

         Carbon dating is neither accurate or reliable.  It is used because it
    comes up with results (as wildly inaccurate and contradictory they may seem
    even to each other when multiple dating is done) that are based on
    suppositions of "projected dates" set forth by the evolutionists before the
    testing is even done.

         "It's you and YOUR TYPE OF PEOPLE that make things so laughable..."
    (emphasis mine)  Gee, look at that phrase.  YOUR TYPE OF PEOPLE.  Shows that
    real discussion is not your agenda, perhaps?  Would you care to substantiate
    that and show it to be something other than the prejudice it seems to be?

         "...truth that doesn't come from a bibble, but from hard evidence..."
    Haven't seen an atheistic evolutionary scientist that has ever provided
    single evidence one that we evolved from primordial soup OR that the earth
    is millions of years old.  I would like to see some of this hard evidence
    that you claim the evolutionists have.  In fact, I remember not too long ago
    that I asked you to provide some of this good, hard, rock-solid evidence.
    In fact ONE piece, to be exact.  I haven't seen it yet.  (Is it perhaps
    because you don't have it?  Is it perhaps because it doesn't exist except in
    your imagination?)  Seems that all I have gotten in response has been either
    insults or opinions or false accusations.  I'm still waiting.  How much
    longer need I wait?

    Message: 7801
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Barbarian
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 16:57:21

    "Point is it did happen and continues to do so."
         I'm sorry, but opinion (unsubstantiated opinion) does not count as
    fact.  You say "Everything in this world...continues to evolve and change."
    I say that "Everything was made that is made in six days by an eternal
    Creator-God that is Sovereign over all of His creation."  You ask me to
    provide fact.  Look at the world around you.  There's your fact.  Time,
    chance and random process?  Or plan, purpose and design?  If you believe
    that this universe is just the product of dumb chance and really long
    periods of time (that no one can accurately gauge because they weren't there
    at the beginning), then I'm sorry, but I feel as if it is you that hold the
    unbelievable opinion.  Take DNA.  DNA requires proteins, but the proteins
    require the DNA.  But the DNA requires the proteins first.  Which came
    first?  It's the chicken or the egg problem (which I can solve, being a
    believer in the God that created this universe - since God created all
    animals according to their kinds, the chicken would have had to come
    first).

    Message: 7802
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Wild Barbarian
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 16:59:19

        Even if someone could give you an answer to your question (the origin of
    God), your bias would not allow you to accept it.  You refuse to believe
    that God exists or that the Bible is reliable.  Can you tell me, then, why
    you concern yourself with such questions?

    Message: 7803
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl/biology
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 18:22:15

    DNA requires proteins.  Proteins *do not* require DNA.  Nice try.

    If God was such a good designer, explain the digestive system (especially
    the last few bits).  Why don't our bodies convert all input to body
    mass/energy?  Why do we *need* to eat to live?

    (Daryl, don't read this, as I'm giving you your "explanation".  What you are
    going to say is that we just don't have the capacity or knowledge to
    question His ways...)

    Message: 7804
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Wild Barb
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 20:57:23

    WB> Gee, I do believe scientists thru the use of very expensive telescopes
    WB> are seeing the creation of world's far out into space.

    Even with those high dollar telescopes, all they can see is dim glows and
    points of light, where you or they come up with creation of worlds is
    purely unsupported conjecture and opinion.

    WB> ..there must be some starting point for domething.[sic] And it sure aint
    WB> god.  That's the most laughable story I have heard yet.. God had to be

    Well, Mr Barbarian, if you are so certain it *isn't* Gods doing, you must
    have solid evidence to prove whatever theory it is that you subscribe to.
    Please enligten us as to what this cold, solid evidence is. Or was that
    a mere assertion and unscientific opinion of yours seeping out again?
    You must at one point in your life stop and ask yourself something. It will
    be along the lines of "Do I get told how everything is, or do I
    search myself?" If you begin to honestly search for the truth, you may
    just find it. God really wants you to, but you must do it on your own and
    in earnest. If you seek him, he will reveal himself to you.
    God loves you so much he sent his only son to die for you so that you
    had a chance to be with him. Don't throw eternity away for the sake of
    other people's folly.

    Message: 7805
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Matter
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 21:03:04

    Physical fact # 1:
    "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed"

    Question:
    Following sciences own set of rules, how then did matter create itself?

    Summation: The atheist foundations exist in the varied sets of beliefs
    and opinions held by differing viewpoints and ideas supported by so
    many different scientists own theories. They are undeniably still theories
    because no scientific facts can support their conclusions. Wild guesses.
    By scientists own reasoning, we live in an impossible world.
    This world cannot be because the physical sciences deny its beginnings
    in the anals of the popular evolutionist theories.

    (Hey B.Dog, don't read this, I'm offering hard evidence that all of
    the world's scientists aggree upon. So don't feed me this
    "It all came from outerspace in a big bang" garbage.)

    ;-)

    Message: 7806
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Wild B.
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 21:10:33

    Please, before bashing people for their sets of beliefs, examine
    your own and justify them before assualting someone else's in
    an emotional tirade of insult and innuendo.

    You still haven't answered how all of the "Space Dust" from your
    big bang theory came into being...my point on Matter was missed
    by you entirely..your argument is indeed circular.
    Read it again; "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed."
    Also re-read my previous post, it addresses this issue.

    Physical fact #2:
    Chickens come from eggs. It takes a male and a female to reproduce
    another human being.

    Which came first; the chicken or the egg. (Where did either of them
    come from, while you;re at it.)
    And;
    Two members of each species to create the next generation, what started
    the original generation(s) ?

    Don't forget; Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. This same
    fact will refute any evolutionist yMfaith~r/belief system/dogma from
    the word "go".
    Enjoy.

    Message: 7807
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Mike's ravings
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 22:04:34

    "Evolution" doesn't talk to the creation of the Universe (or even the
    earth).  And I'm sure it was a simple spelling error of "annals", yes?

    So we haven't got the physics down to explain why the universe looks like it
    does right now. We're still searching, still coming up with ideas that can
    be tested, throwing away or modifying ideas when evidence shows flaws.

    You have a book which you claim (by circular reasoning) is the word of your
    god.  Other religions have their equally unfounded explanations for the
    existence of the universe, the creation of life on earth, etc.  And none of
    you are attempting honest verification.

    "matter can be neither created nor destroyed" ... really?  What are chemical
    or nuclear reactions, then?  Like I said before (or was it a different
    board?),  you're forgetting about energy.

    As far as the chicken-and-egg problem, this ain't such a problem. May
    organisms reproduce asexually (even cell division in your body). Sexual
    reproduction occurred as a result of mutations.  For the specific
    chicken-and-egg problem, clearly the chicken egg was first -- what laid it
    (and the father) weren't quite chickens, and the gene mix that resulted was
    a chicken egg.  That is, an egg whose embryo would grow up to be a chicken.

    Message: 7809
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: WB/Where?
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 23:31:11

      As I understand it, the Bible suggests that God is Eternal..without
    beginning or end. I don't think He has chosen to elucidate much further
    on His life history. Unless or until He does, you cannot expect debate by
    humans to give a reliable answer.

    Message: 7810
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl/and where
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 23:58:16

    is your proof that anything in the bibble ever actually happened????? You
    don't believe in science and technology because your blind and narrow
    minded.  That I FIND EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE.  I find most so-called christians
    hypocritical.  You spout that the bibble is the truth. PROVE it.  I say
    carbon dating and science are accurate and reliable.  Prove to me that the
    bibble is the same. Or can't YOU.  No, I don't claim to have all of the
    answers or even any of them.  But I do claim science to be an exacting form.
    And yes we can prove accurately the dates of things thru Carbon dating.
    Where do your sources come from??????  I bet they are from a religious
    affiliation.  That in itself makes it predujice.  You will probably wait all
    your life to see the truth that for what ever reason you fear.  Maybe you
    are afraid that your religion is all a lie.  This you use to deny modern
    science.  And yes, I admit that science changes also.  Change is inevidable,
    especially as new data and evidence come into view.  But then again I don't
    expect you to understand this at all...

    Message: 7811
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: darly/good laugh
    Date: 08/05/91  Time: 00:05:29

     Hmmm...Are you a commedian by proffession??????  If not, maybe you should
    be.  Yes time, chance (for a great part) and random process do tplay a large
    part in the process of change.  The evidence?  The movement of the earth's
    crust, volcanoes, earthquakes.  They depend on many factors occurring
    togather, at or near the same time.  They are both destructive and
    constructive proccess that are forever changing what the earth looks like.
    Your statement about protien needing DNA is TOTALLY WRONG.  Protien is the
    basic building block of DNA.  Ask any high school biology teacher.  And that
    one about the chicken coming first..... Ya, suuuuuuure you can prove
    it.....Maybe I should take you to the horse track with me this year....With
    that kind of knowledge and foresite, I could becomome very rich.....

    Message: 7812
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Darly/to keep
    Date: 08/05/91  Time: 00:07:22

    you from being miserable in your delema about the accurracy of science.
    Besides inquiring minds want to know....

    Message: 7813
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Mr Carter/Number one
    Date: 08/05/91  Time: 00:15:40

     If you care to read the scientific journals with an OPEN mind you would see
    the evidence.  Number two DON't PREACH to me.  Your crap about "DO I get
    told how everything is or do I search for myself" is about as narrow minded
    as you can be.  The told how all is seems that the bibble is the only thing
    there is... BULL.  If God is so loving and caring why has he abandoned the
    human race?  Should I throw your idea of eternity (whatever that may/may not
    be) for YOUR folly..... Sorry, afraid not....... And believe me I am very
    much my own person.  That's one reason I don't believe in any kind of
    magically appearing god....

    Message: 7814
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Mike C/Me insult
    Date: 08/05/91  Time: 00:20:54

     other?????  I'll stop when you do.  Your the one that seems bent on the
    emotions of others.
     Maybe you should answer some of your own questions, before you ask someone
    elses.  In fact Where did the first eggs to produce humans and 99.999% of
    all other living creatures come from???????  A rib is a heck of a long way
    from an egg...

    Message: 7815
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 08/05/91  Time: 00:39:51

    I don't believe in the Christian God of the Bible.  Mine is much more
    up-to-date.

    Message: 7816
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: posts
    Date: 08/05/91  Time: 00:49:34

    Some very good posts here, excellent in fact.

    X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 4958
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: HOT-SEX !
    Subject: Pee-Wee
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 13:43:57

    Compared to some of the stuff James Brown did, Pee-Wee is a saint.  And
    look how much support he got.  Free James Brown.  Fine.

    FREE PEE-WEE HERMAN!

    (Hey, I know he's not in jail!  But it sounds good!)

    Message: 4959
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer !
    Subject: Yeah...
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:26:56

    That's right.  James Brown abused his wife and evidently that is ok with
    most people since he is "the king of R&B" or because the cops were being
    "racist".  Thing is, if this was someone in Guns & Roses, no one would care.
    That fact that Pee Wee did shows for kids, it unexcusable behavior.

    Message: 4960
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer !
    Subject: Melissa
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 21:21:23

    If it was a guns-n-roses buffoon doing that you're right, it woul{n't
    matter. To most folks anyway.
    But when parents of young children expose their kids and place their
    trust in baby sitters, school teachers and yes, impressionable characters
    like Pee-Wee, Mickey Mouse and Donald duck, they will violently object
    to occurences like the one in question. I gather you would not mind
    if your 5 year old daughter or son sat and watched porn?
    I would. But that's just me.
    And there's lots of people out here with the same views I have.
    It's the same reason why there aren't any shows made for children
    hosted by Charles Manson. We have the good common sense of years of
    parenting to tell us plainly that people can influence young children
    to change their behaviour.
    If we take your arguments further than the scope of Pee Wee,
    we should also show kids orgies, snuff flicks, drug and gang violence
    and wife bashing by druken actors.  Why not?
    It seems in your opinion that all of this is just pure, clean good ol
    entertainment..so why exclude the kids?

    Message: 4961
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Mike?
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 22:13:48

    Who is suggesting that we show videotapes of PeeWee's weewee on Saturday
    mornings?

    Can't you distinguish between a character and a body of work and the actor
    behind it all?  Because the guy goes into a XXX-rated theatre you decide
    he's not fit to entertain your kids from the other side of a TV?

    Then again, I guess that Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Charles Keating, and
    many other have been held to similar standards.

    Message: 4962
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Pee Wee, et al
    Date: 08/05/91  Time: 01:00:42

    Everybody has to cum sometimes.  I see no particular threat to someone going
    into an adult xxx theatre and pounding their pud, pulling their balogna,
    choking the chicken or whatever semi-private, almost to be expected act they
    perform.  It's far better than raping someone.

    Pee Wee was visiting his parents in town and he found himself quite in
    need of sex.  Perhaps he got a wiff of some beautiful girl who happened to
    be in the part of her cycle that causes females to emit a irresistable
    scent.  So, he rushed down to XXX, not knowing anyone in town he could
    readily fuck, and beat off.  Slippery stuff.  He could have rented a tape I
    suppose, taken it to his parents house and did the same but would mom and
    pop have really understood?  Sometimes when a human is in need of sex, they
    are in need, no ifs, ands or buts about it.

    Fucking with Ma Nature can be a really rough experience.

    Public Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 77385
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie/77375
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 05:13:04

     I was merely contradicting your statement in an earlier post that said
    there was no porn in the "good old days".

    Message: 77386
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: B.Dog/PeeWee
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 05:16:12

     I think the character is blown, whether Reubens wanted it or not. His rep
    as a childrens entertainer is toast.

    Message: 77387
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Politics
    Subject: THAD-COOKIN NUMBERS
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 07:36:08

    > I don't get the impression that their problems with rapists and
    > child molesters are 'hatched' in order to get more money for
    > the department.

      No, not entirely, of course.  What I'm referring to is the kind of general
    cooking of numbers any manager (in either public- or private-sector
    endeavors) worth his salt will try to do.
      It goes like this:  The PD sets a series of goals (Not quotas!  They're
    different, although it was never satisfactorily explained to me how.) for
    each year.  It is, contrary to what one might usually think, to the
    Department's benefit to NOT meet those goals.  When budget time comes, the
    Chief says, "Well we didn't meet our goal for porno arrests, but that's
    because we had to spend so much time (in court/on that big murder case/on
    administrative duties.  (Pick whatever works best.))  We know the problem's
    a big one, and we know we've made a dent in it.  If we just had the money
    for a few more men and resources we could really do a lot better.  So, I've
    put in for an X-percent increase..."
      Amazingly enough, the argument works even if the goal is by some
    unfortunate circumstance achieved:  "I think if we had a few more resources
    we could wipe this problem out for good!"
      I spend 12 years as a civilian employee of law enforcement agencies.  I
    helped prepare budgets.  Don't trust their numbers.

    Message: 77388
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: BEAU-ANALYZING P.W.
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 07:36:50

    > So much for the "Time to blow the character" theory.

    Actually, I'd think that would be expected.  When things get really bad for
    a person, doesn't he or she fall back on what's worked in the past.

    Rubens may hate Pee Wee because Pee Wee's all he's got.

    Message: 77389
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: The SYSOP Speaks
    Subject: ther BBS list
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 10:42:07

            I have made a change in the list as suggested by Thad Coons
    and Beauregard Dog....  PLEASE check it out for errors...
            AND..... if there is a change in this list...someone should let me
    know!

            Thanks! *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Message: 77390
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pee Wee's Career
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 13:16:13

          Chock him up in the Hall of Shame next to Phoenix's own Edmus Scarey.

    Message: 77391
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Lasta
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:06:54

    Ever heard of Innocent until proven guilty?

    Message: 77392
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Lasta
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 14:29:27

    Nah, God didn't put that in the bible.

    Message: 77393
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Sandy Marlin/Or
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 15:00:24

     as violent either for that matter....  I think that for most Islamics there
    is very little to do out in the middle of the deset but sell oil and fight
    each other... GRIN
     Before everyone on this board jumps down my throat, I am being most
    sarcastic....

    Message: 77394
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Hawley / 77391
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 17:00:46

         You are right.  Forgive me.

    Message: 77395
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Melissa
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 20:19:32

    Yes, actually, the principal of innocent until proven guilty
    is all through the bible. The adherents to Guilty until proven innocent
    is mankind.

    It would be easily provable that you subscribe to the same, given
    your previous responses to accusations made against religion in
    general.

    Look at the log in your own eye before picking at the splinters in
    Daryls.

    Message: 77396
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Dean on porn
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 20:45:52

    DH> Pornography, at least the kind most people would enjoy, depicts sex as
    DH> being both possible and enjoyable outside the rigid theist's rules,
    DH> and yet suggests that it might be enjoyed without threat or harm.
    Please explain where the Bible and Christianity labels "sex" as threatening
    or harmful. Your assertions are both unfounded and ludicrous.
    Also, explain "what most people enjoy". There are no "rigid theist rules".
    There are warnings and guidelines, much like what our surgeon general does,
    to help you avoid the perils of casual sex. Anyone foolish enough to
    laugh at the statistics and ignore the warnings deserves what they get.

    DH> It's seductive images [porn] dispute the religious conviction that such

    Pictures in porn books don't convey the dangers of social diseases,otherwise
    they wouldn't sell well. People are usually turned off by rotting appendages
    and puss. How you say it "disputes religious conviction" is irrational.
    It doesn't ever address religion or the warnings therin.

    DH> doings can only make one miserable.. It hints that sex might be enjoyed

    I don't know about you and your wife, but me and mine don't need pictures
    of naked strangers to stimulate our sexual passions for each other.
    There's no religious conviction that sex is un-enjoyable. Please state your
    opinions correctly, instead of fallaciously making facts from them.

    DH> ...without destroying one's relationships or health.

    Sex in marriage builds that marriage into a stronger bond. Sex between
    strangers has increasingly become life threatening, or have you read the
    news [about AIDS, Syphillus, Herpes and Gonarreah] lately? Perhaps not.
    Most if not all men and women would tend to aggree that if their mate
    slept around with others it would destroy the relationship between them.
    I suppose you and your wife are different in this respect?

    DH> [porn] also makes the theists jealous just to think about anyone doing
    DH> what their own repressive mythology forbids to them.

    My "repressive" religion tells me what can happen if I sleep around or
    engage in sex with beasts, the same gender or complete strangers.
    I'm not in the least "jealous" as you may wish me to be, in fact, after
    5 years I can only say that sex is so much better that I have no desires
    to ruin a good relationship with a disease infested one-night fling.
    I have found a good amount of fullfillment in my marriage; something that
    porn addicts don't get because they're constantly searching for more.

    Perhaps this is where the real jealousy is, where I have fullfillment
    and many others do not.
    The only way to true fullfillment is through Christ, not nude pictures
    of children and strangers.

    DH> rare and illegal abominations [such] as child pornography.

    Oh? So you have a limit as to what you consider obscene and what you would
    classify as clean? Amazing. Did you know that all of your arguments
    could justify child pornography just like you would try to justify your
    own tastes and morals? A lover of child porn would view you just like you
    view people of religious conviction. To me, you are one in the same,
    both using weak arguments to justify your own shallow moral values.

    DH> Violent or degrading pornography exists to a much larger extent
    DH> in the minds and utterings of moral crusaders than

    I can't speak for moral crusaders, I don't see how you could either, but
    personally what I find offensive is someone who would go around broadly
    labelling my wife and I as evil, violent, jealous and regressive soley
    because we beleive in a loving God who cares for his creations and follow
    a moral code set out to protect us from things like AIDS and other pitfalls.
    The problems resulting from use and abuse of pornographic materials cannot
    be heaped upon the world religions. That kind of mentality belongs to the
    irresponsible and is their sole domain. Fortunately there are more people
    with common sense than there are Dean Hathaways. Otherwise we'd have
    police arresting people attending church for praying instead of patrolling
    problem areas like bars, porn shops and other drug dealing sites.
    -See you later.

    Message: 77399
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/James W.
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 23:06:09

      Paul, I think, mentioned his behavior on the Ark. That is one piece of
    evidence. Also, I think he is a liar... When I had discussions with him, he
    was presenting things as what I believed, when he had good reason to know
    that what he was presenting was not what I actually believed.

    Message: 77400
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: War!
    Subject: Porn 2/4
    Date: 08/04/91  Time: 23:12:18

      Third, Ann, I will grant that there are sick people who would go from
    to violent extremes regardless of whether or not there was porn...
    That doesn't mean that porn doesn't influence them in that direction.
    There was too porn when you were a kid. You just couldn't get it at the
    Circle K or at the nearest bookstore or family theater...
      Fourth, Gordon, I follow and agree with you up to a point, but if
    you are going to claim that porn does not 'deviate' people, we begin
    to part company. I KNOW better. Consider, for instance, that a person
    with a knowledge of mathematics or business law will be able to
    imagine things in their fields more clearly and more vividly than
    an untrained person, and would even be able to imagine things that
    would never occur to such an untrained person. Ideas will occur to
    those who are steeped in pornography that would NEVER occur to most
    people who have never seen it, and since, as you say, acting out is
    'better' than mere fantasy...
      If chemistry or language were as enticing as pornography, believe me,
    there would be a lot more chemists and linguists. If porn were presented
    to children as natural and normal (as some seem to be advocating), we
    would very quickly have a society made up largely of perverts of all
    persuasions and varieties.

      Fifth, Dean has corrected me by reminding me that the real danger of
    porn is not so much that it produces the grosser sorts of perverts.
    If I may quote, "Pornography, at least the kind most people would enjoy,
    depicts sex as being both possible and enjoyable outside the rigid
    theist's rules, and yet suggests that it might be enjoyed without threat
    or harm. Its seductive images dispute the religious conviction that
    such doings can only make one miserable. ... It hints that sex might
    be enjoyed just for what it is, without destroying one's relationships
    or health."
      I really couldn't have put it better myself. Very seldom in pornography
    will you find anyone catching AIDS or any venereal diseases; seldom
    will you find single women getting pregnant and then being abandoned by
    their lovers, being left to raise their children with insufficent means
    and education; seldom will you see one of the partners gettin bored
    with the other(s) and leave for 'greener pastures' elsewhere; seldom
    is there heartbreak, disappointment, or misery, because someone you
    trusted has betrayed you. (a la Martina). Good sex cures all...  Go
    ahead and enjoy yourself...who cares what the consequences might be?

        These are just some of the grosser and more visible consequences
    of the kind of behavior which pornography portrays. There are other
    and more subtle ones, which suggests that there are sounder reasons
    for the 'rigid theist's rules' which Dean derides than he is willing
    to consider.
        Finally, (for this series), If I were a gambling man, I would lay
    money that an exit poll of an 'adult' bookstore would show a great
    majority of men...not women.  Household slave to sex toy is not much
    of a promotion for women... or is that too much of an extreme radical
    feminist idea for a male chauvinist like me to entertain? How many
    women (or men, either, for that matter) are valued in pornography
    for anything but their sexual prowess? Truly an ennobling concept
    of humanity!

    Message: 77403
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: porn
    Date: 08/05/91  Time: 01:16:02

    I think that everyone at one time or another has looked for porn.  I know
    that I did.  The times I looked the most were the times I was without a
    companion.

    Believe it or not some people seem to have great difficulty finding a
    companion.  I guess you could say that porn can become their life.

    Even priests need companions, one way or another.

    Marry an ugly person and you may be saving a child.  Some people are
    pleasant looking on the outside but can be very emotionally scarred from
    childhood experiences and they can even consider themselves as an ugly
    person.

    The human race is sick.  The cure seems far away.  It will only come about
    when we as a race learn charity.  Building more prisons will just cause more
    ugliness in our world, not more beauty.  Prison guards and related staff are
    affected by this ugliness and they sooner or later develop unhealthy
    attitudes.

    Message: 77404
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Joke
    Subject: Extraterrestrial
    Date: 08/05/91  Time: 01:19:25

    What do extraterrestrials call this earth?   (A) Devil's Island.