### Apollo BBS Archive - April 24, 1990

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 6246
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Rog on Rod
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 06:41:34

     An agnostic doesn't know what he believes. Rod KNOWS what he thinks
    he believes. He also has a somewhat obnoxious way of expressing those
    beliefs (or rather unbeliefs). In my opinion, and by his own admission, he
    is an atheist, not an agnostic.

    Message: 6247
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Religion
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 07:17:35

    Paul:  An agnostic believes that he doesn't know.  (without knowledge)

    Mike:  I'm Zoroastrian

    Message: 6248
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Religion
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 07:34:58

    I have yet to meet anyone who I felt was positivity effected by religion,
    Christianity in particular.

    Message: 6249
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: jeff/senge
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 07:54:27

    Jeff, you must read a LOT. I have never heard of Peter Senge. Who is he and
    what did he write.

    Message: 6250
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: carter/atheists
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 07:57:34

    Why are atheists so threatening to you ? Is it because the voice of reason
    calls seductively to you to think ? And once having thought honestly that
    the sandy base of your faith will be eroded until you left with nothing
    but uncertainty and your fellow man ?

    Message: 6251
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Paul on Rod
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 07:59:10

    I'm not going to argue what Rod believes. I have no idea. I can tell however
    that we do share uncertainty and skepticism.

    Message: 6252
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Mike on seeing
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 08:35:15

    I do not need to see something with my eyes before it exists for me. I was
    just making a point. We all choose our paths. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 6253
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Rodger / Me
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 11:48:33

    I don't find atheists threatening in any way for or means.
    Your attempting to put words in my mouth. WHat a shabby excuse
    that was.
    Perhaps the reverse is true...like a perfect Freudian example,
    that YOU are feeling the voice of reason and fear that the truth
    isn't in what your loose beliefs are now. You would be doing yourself
    a favour by investigating it for Yourself...instead of taking the word
    from me or anyone else....from either "side". Look for yourself..or
    are you afraid to?
    I *was* an atheist..a very DEDICATED atheist. I trashed my fair share
    of Bible thumpers and such. But I was equipped with the ability to
    go beyond the superficial, look behind the masks and given eyes and
    a good set of ears to read and learn for myself.

    The only way is through individual searching. No other.

    Message: 6254
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: it's roger !!!
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 13:16:20

    Quite frankly, I find the defensiveness on the part of the "Christian"
    astounding since they should be the most assured of all of us. Your
    automatic response to my questions and points seems to be defensive. Why
    can't you discuss these things rationally. Does "believing" in Christ mean
    you throw away all your critical faculties ? Come on, man, let's reason
    together. Please be honest with me and yourself and admit you DO have
    doubts. One of the greatest of all clergymen of all time is Martin Luther
    and
    he had doubts. My hero in the Bible is Thomas, because he was honest about
    his disbelief. The worst verse in the Bible is the one in the story about
    Thomas and Christ --- where Christ allegedly says that it is better to
    believe when you have not seen. If Thomas was really a skeptic, he would
    have
    still doubted after he touched the wounds of Jesus Christ and asked himself
    "Did he really die". Is this really J.C. or is it an imposter ? So, lets
    talk about it. Or are you afraid ?

    Message: 6255
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Believe it or not!
    Subject: Roger?
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 16:22:07

            Does it upset you that one can believe without doubt?  It sure seems
    so.  Maybe it just frightens you so much you can't stand to see someone at
    ease with this Christian belief.  It is okay for you to have doubts, and
    that is why Mike was trying to help you, not because he needs to prove
    anything for himself.
            I feel the same way as Mike does, and so do MILLIONS of others, if
    you don't understand or agree, that is okay.  Just follow your heart, and
    keep an open mind, you will get there in time.

                                    Cliff the SysOp-

    Message: 6256
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 16:46:13

    This defensiveness as you like to state it is just what Cliff said.
    I have no reason to doubt my beliefs because they're tried and tested
    in my day to day life. My only sin here is to disagree and point out
    the fallacies and assumptions people make about Christianity.
    It's these same fallacies and misunderstandings that people have everywhere
    at one time or another. Sadly, a lot of it gets so public it goes way
    beyond rationality because folks ARE looking for witches to burn
    like they were years ago. Only the witches they want to burn are
    those people and beliefs they cannot understand and refuse to.

    Why is it that my beliefs upset you so?

            -Mike

    Message: 6257
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Religion
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 18:28:33

      There are atheists (people who lack theism) and there are theists (people
    who believe in gods, etc.
      Then there are anti-theists. This would be someone who can not tolerate
    anyone else being a theist, even if that belief is having no ill effect on
    anyone else.
      Likewise, there is the anti-atheist. This would be someone who can not
    tolerate anyone else being an atheist, even if that lack of belief is having
    no ill effect on anyone else.
      I think it is the anti-theist and the anti-atheist who lump everyone in
    the opposing camps together and provoke even the more tolerant individuals
    on both sides.
      Mere theism or atheism in itself does not constitute a threat to anyone. I
    am no more responsible for the crimes of Stalin than Sandy is for the
    Crusades, by virtue of our stands on the existance of God.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 6258
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Believe it or not!
    Subject: cliff/belief
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 20:00:58

    Sorry, Mike was not trying to help me, he was striking back because
    my skepticism threatens his belief. I am asking him to discuss doubt
    and unbelief because most normal people, including me, have doubts.
    To deny you have doubts is being dishonest with yourself. The greatest
    religious leaders in the world have had doubts. The best thing to do
    is to bring them out and examine, rather than deny you have them. I'll
    be glad to discuss this with you if you do have doubts. If you don't,
    fine, then we have nothing to say to each other. I suspect, however,
    that Cliff does have doubts and I'd like to discuss it with him, if
    he wants to.

    Message: 6259
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 20:09:50

    I ask a question and don't get an answer. You will never convert me
    to your brand of Christianity that way. Come on, give me some good
    answers. Why shouldn't we all be like Thomas ?

    Message: 6260
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Mike Carter
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 21:09:59

    You have yet to outline the "horrors" committed in the name of atheism.  On
    the other hand, history contains an almost continuous record of the horrors
    perpetrated in the name of religion.

    In examining your tirade, I see no other points worth responding to.

    Message: 6261
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 21:22:34

    Well, I'm not sure what constitutes "a lot."  My reading rate varies, and
    sometimes I won't touch a book for weeks (except maybe light stuff like Dave
    Barry or something).
    The Peter Senge quote was taken from Turbulent Mirror.  He appears to be a
    systems analyst who applies the concepts of chaos to management systems.

    I like to read at least two books at once; one serious non-fiction and the
    other fiction or humor.  A varied diet, so to speak.  Right now, I'm reading
    a great book called "Great Ideas of Modern Mathematics: their nature and
    use," by Jagjit Singh.  It's one of those great Dover Press books, the kind
    of reprints which would be lost to time it it weren't for them.  I'm not
    sure how much I will fully absorb, but I've already learned new things and
    clarified old concepts.

    BTW, did I exceed the limit in my use of the word "great" in this message?

    Message: 6262
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Roger 6259?
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 22:21:05

    Re:  to Cliff, "You will never convert me to your brand of Christianity..."

    Roger...  I said for you to "Follow YOUR heart" not me or my religion!
    Please show me where I was trying to 'CONVERT' you to anything? And just
    what 'BRAND' of Christianity do I have anyways, Roger? Better fill me in
    since you have me tagged and bagged.....

            I slam Rod because he slams me... I could care less if he wants to
    be an atheist or agnostic.  I'm not out to convert ANYONE, but I will
    discuss what I believe if one wishes.... but to assume I am trying to
    convert you is YOUR error!  If you say one thing, and we do not agree, you
    attack us for being defensive.  Just what is it you want us to do?

            As for 'doubt'... I KNOW there IS a GOD!  I fail to believe all this
    is just an 'ACCIDENT' in nature.  Why can't you let me think this, since I
    am no way offended that you may have some doubt and think otherwise.

            I at one time did have my doubts... but I feel I don't anylonger.
    (Hard to place into words) But, I believe in what I believe.

                                            Cliff-

    Message: 6263
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Rebuttal
    Subject: Melissa/last
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 05:10:27

     "I have yet to meet anyone who I felt was positively effected by religion,
    Christianity in particular."
     Either you have led a sheltered life, or you have no feeling at all.
     Let's get together one of these Sunday mornings. I can show you literally
    thousands of people who have been positively influenced by Christianity. Of
    course, you wil have to keep your eyes open, since that is a prerequisite
    for seeing.

    Message: 6264
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 05:12:26

     If you have no idea what Rod Williams believes, you haven't been reading
    his messages for very long Roger. I don't think that the two of you share
    uncertainty at all. He may be skeptical, but he is very certain about his
    unbelief.

    Message: 6265
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Cliff/last
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 05:23:04

     That was very well put Cliff.
     I'm another one who has no doubts about my beliefs. I know whose I am, and
    know that I am in the body of Christ. To quote Jesus' words in Roger's
    "favorite" conversation, speaking to Thomas, "You have seen and have
    believed. Far better are those who have not seen and yet believe."
    I have not personally seen, but I know that I know that I know. My Jesus
    lives! And I can face the future because of that.
     My sins were hung on a cross at Calvary. My eternal life is assured by His
    final defeat of death for all who believe. I believe. No doubt about it.

    Message: 6266
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Jeff
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 07:08:19

    Better than awesome, however.

    Message: 6267
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Rebuttal
    Subject: cliff/belief
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 07:10:24

    It is a long way from belief in God to the extremes taken by some
    fundamentalist literalists. I was going to ask Mike, but I'll ask you too.
    How much of the fundamentalist literalist line do you swallow ?

    Message: 6268
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Cliff/Doubt
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 07:52:37

    If doubt ever creeps into my mind, all I need to do is examine the universe
    around us. From the vastness of our galaxy to the makeup of our planet. From
    the grandest mountain to the atom or DNA molecule. And the fact that it all
    works together without chaos. The only way with which we can guarantee that
    something is going to go where it is supposed to when we shoot it into
    space, is because it's trajectory and speed, etc. are calculated according
    to the ordered regularity with which the universe operates. I believe that
    this intelligent design was simply the result of some cosmic explosion. No
    matter how often we throw paper and ink into a blender and turn it on, we
    are never going to end up with a dictionary. Also, there is no way that the
    infinite order of everything here and "out there" could not have been the
    result of a single random explosion.

       When I do not have the word of God handy to assure me, I need only look
    out my window, or look around me as I travel about. God is with us.

    Message: 6269
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Roger/6267
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 08:00:07

       Given that there are different types of writing in the Bible (history,
    poetry, prophecy, etc.), each part of the Bible must be understood in the
    manner with which it was originally written.
       However, I believe in the accuracy and inerrancy of the Scriptures. I
    read that all Scripture is God-breathed. Therefore, I must be consistent and
    confess that I believe the whole of God's word to be truth. To do otherwise
    would be inconsistent and hypocritical.
       It is the word of God that causes me to believe, not a "fundamentalist
    literalist line." I believe what God tells me, not what people tell me to
    believe about God. If what someone tells me agrees with the Bible, then
    fine, I will be in agreement with them on that.

    Message: 6270
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Paul
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 08:36:40

    I am sure that what you and I would see would be very different.  We live in
    very different worlds.  Both of our eyes may be open, just open to different
    worlds.

    Message: 6271
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl/chaos
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 10:23:13

    Actually you are using the argument from design fallacy. The problem with
    that argument is that used correctly, you get an infinite regression on
    the original creator. For, if you argue that if a system exists that is
    sufficiently complex, it must require a creator, then the creator of that
    system is more complex that the system created, and therefore reasoning
    accurately, requires a creator also. If you insist on having a creator
    popping into existence or always being there, it is better to stop with the
    least complex system, rather than continuing on to create a being that needs
    not be created.

    Message: 6272
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl/inerrancy
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 10:28:02

    Then, if God really breathed those words, which, by the way is a
    mis-interpretation of 2Timothy 3:16 and requires an additional belief in the
    canon (who else defines scriptures) to include or not include a book in the
    canon as scripture, then why are there so many minor nit-picking differences
    in the stories. An excellent example is the four versions of Mary Mag's
    visit
    to the tomb. In one a man is seen sitting on the stone, another a man in
    the tomb, another two men .... If God really had a hand in writing the
    Bible, these minor inconsistencies between stories would not be there.
    Instead, the only reasonable conclusion one can reach is that individuals
    wrote those words, and since they were human they made mistakes. Thus, the
    Bible contain mistakes, and one must be very careful in extracting truth
    from such a book in a mechanistic manner.

    Message: 6273
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: BEHOLD! .....
    Subject: Soup or God?
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 13:01:30

    Life from soup? not hardly, it was Louis Pasteur who proved that spontaneous
    generation is impossible.  He contended that every generation of every
    living creature had to be derived from a preceding generation.  Life could
    not have started spontaneously from inorganic matter.  The spontaneous
    generation of life idea is just wishful thinking on the part of the
    evolutionists.  Dr. Fred Hoyle has calculated that such an accident had one
    chance in 10 to the power of 40,000 of occurring, making it beyond
    possibility.  Now that we know of the enormous complexity of the DNA genetic
    code, and that the information content of a simple cell has been estimated
    as around 10 to the power of 12 bits, we know that random development of
    living matter is an IMPOSSIBILITY.  Consider these facts:  there are 2,000
    complex enzymes required for a living organism, but not a single one of them
    could have formed accidentally.  The genes of the simplest single-celled
    organism contain more data than there are letters in all of the volumes of
    the world's largest library.  As Fred Hoyle put it: "The chance that higher
    life forms might have emerged in this accidental way is comparable with the
    chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing
    747 from the materials within."

            I contend there is a God...  I KNOW there is a GOD!

                                            cliff-

    Message: 6274
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: cliff/biopoesis
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 13:13:13

    Fred Hoyle, unfortunately, doesn't understand how evolution occurs. As you
    probably can guess, that once DNA exists, then the only outcome can be
    evolution. That means that if God created DNA then we evolved from the
    original protein in the "soup" as you put it over 3 billion years ago. On
    the other hand, if you are arguing that DNA could not have arisen from
    inorganic material (actually, organic molecules exists without any problem
    at
    all since they can spontaneously arise given the conditions of a primordial
    earth. So where do you draw the line ? You don't believe that ANY evolution
    occurred, or that only the rise of life (biopoesis) could not have occurred
    without an outside agency. Consider this also: if an outside agency is
    required to form DNA, then it doesn't take a God, only someone smart enough
    and powerful enough to "seed" the world. In fact, this is a subject of
    many Science Fiction conjectures... a world is seeded with the beginnings
    of life, and evolution takes over. The point is that even when you say it
    is impossible (and I am not conceding that it is) that it does not prove
    God exists, since any lesser being could have done the same thing. Then, of
    course, if you argue "where did the "lesser" being come from ?" I will
    immediately respond with, "where did God come from ". If you say God has
    always been, I will say my LGM have always been.

    Fun, eh ?

    Message: 6275
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: BEHOLD! .....
    Subject: Thermodynamics
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 14:46:34

                  I'm sorry Roger, your last post violates the Second Law of
    Thermodynamics.  This law indicates "that nature tends to go from order to
    disorder; from complexity to simplicity.  If the most random arrangement of
    energy is uniform distribution, then the present arrangement of the energy
    in the universe is nonrandom."
                               The Mystery of Life's Origin, p.115

            There is NO factual basis of evolution.  It is all THEORY and
    speculation, and each year the theory becomes less and less tenable in the
    light of new scientific evidence.  Many of the world's greatest scientists
    are devout Christians and atheism is actually destroying true science.

                                    See next post.

    Message: 6276
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: BEHOLD! .....
    Subject: A Gigantic Hoax
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 14:49:03

                  The simple fact is that no proof whatever has been found
    indicating that one species evolved into another. The fossil record is
    simply a series of still pictures of species that existed at one time.  They
    do not show how one species evolves into another.  Transitional fossils have
    not been found.  The fossil record shows new species appearing suddenley
    without any ancestors.  For example, evolutionists have done experiments
    with fruit flies for years in hope of demonstrating evolution at work.  But
    the fruit flies have stubbornly refused to develop into anything but more
    fruit flies, despite all kinds of stimuli.  In other words, lions have
    remained lions, monkeys have remained monkeys.

                  Even Darwin wrote in 'The Origin of Species': "The geological
    record is extremely imperfect... and this fact will to a large extent
    explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all
    the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest gradual steps.  He who
    rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will RIGHTLY
    reject my whole theory."

                            cliff-

    Message: 6277
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Cliff/Daryl
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 15:58:17

      Daryl proves the existance of God by saying the our vast and complex
    universe is regular and predictable, while Cliff proves the existance of God
    by saying that new species are occasionally dropped into existance just for
    fun. Which is it?
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 6278
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: 2nd law of thermo
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 17:07:52

    You do not understand the second law of thermodynamics. According to your
    interpretation we should never see a snowflake, or God is out their madly
    creating them. Secondly, if you look at the earth as "closed" system it
    has a net input of energy to drive various processes in the earth system.
    Another example of order arising out of disorder are galaxies, the solar
    system, the sun, the earth, the moon...  Even the particles that make up
    our subatomic zoo increase in seeming variety as the universe cools down.
    At near big-bang energies all four forces are united as one force. As the
    universe has cooled down, we have four forces manifested: the strong
    nuclear,
    the weak nuclear, the electromagnetic and gravitational force. This is
    another example of complexity increasing in a system that is cooling down.

    Now, as far as no transitional forms are concerned, that is simply not true.
    We have an excellent fossil record for the hominid species that have arisen
    and perished over the last 5 million years. If you like, I can also present
    other examples of "transitional" species.

    Finally, a clear understanding of evolution and how it works will help
    dispel some misunderstandings and deliberate obfuscations by the ICR and
    other creationist organizations bent on creating confusion in the minds
    of the public.

    Message: 6279
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Xtianity
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 18:40:16

    Try my brand:  the Moving Target (TM) brand.  I believe, man, and you can,
    too.

    Message: 6280
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl/Paul
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 18:41:20

    So, Daryl, like Paul believes in salvation through belief.  Why aren't you
    helping him to find the true way to heaven, since he has a better chance of
    listening than we do...

    Message: 6281
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: 2nd law
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 22:30:07

    Gosh, doesn't the concept of an eternal, invariant God contradict the 2nd
    law?  If God has an infinite amount of energy at his disposal, then one
    could conclude that, if it is an open system, the universe does too, and
    therefore entropy is an illusion except as a localized phenomenon.

    Message: 6282
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Rebuttal
    Subject: Dean
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 23:46:54

            I did not say "new species are occasionally dropped into existance
    just for fun"...     The present arrangement of energy  in the universe is
    predictable... but, this proves there must be a creator, for matter by
    itself cannot and does not behave creatively.  The evolutionists have not
    been able to explain how inanimate matter, with its inherent tendency to
    decay, reversed itself so as to be able to synthesize life and to build
    complex organisms.  That would have required matter, on its own, to develop
    the highly complex genetic codes found in the DNA molecule.

                                            cliff-

    Message: 6283
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Rebuttal
    Subject: fossil record
    Date: 04/26/90  Time: 00:24:11

            Well Roger..if you have a excellent record for the hominid species
    that ties us back to the one celled amoeba in a step by step evolution, I
    sure would like to see it.  You then have found the 'Missing Links'.
    Paleoanthropologists have hunted high and low for the missing link or links.
     But not only have they not found them, they are now pretty sure that such
    links do not exist.  Let's take your claim to have such fossil records to
    David Pilbeam at Harvard. ( a noted paleoanthropologist )  I am sure he
    would be quite interested.

            Evolution is not a proven fact Roger.  From now on I would like you
    to refer to it as 'Theory of Evolution Drivel'.  Even Darwin said it was
    only a theory of natural selection.  He was proud of the fact it provided a
    counterblow to the idea of creation even if it was all based on pure
    speculation and conjecture.

            Some of your stuff sounds so old, are you reading from Darwin's
    "The Origin of Species", published in 1859?

    read: Darwin's Enigma, On the Origin of Species, Evolution from Space, The
    Mystery of Life's Origin, The Origin of Living Things, The Survival of
    Charles Darwin and The Eighth Day of Creation.

                                    clif-

    Message: 6284
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Evolution/Breeding
    Date: 04/26/90  Time: 00:36:15

            Just making sure these two are not getting confused.  Breeding, or
    variety of breeds within a species, is a function of genetics, not
    evolution.

                                                    clif-

    Message: 6285
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Believe it or not!
    Subject: Lizards & Birds
    Date: 04/26/90  Time: 00:49:07

            All dinosaurs (terrible lizards) were once thought to be just that.
    At the Museum of Natural History (N.Y. of course) they all had their tails
    dragging on the ground. (when I was a kid) Not to long ago, they found this
    not to be the case in all cases.  Seems that many of these lizards were not
    lizards at all, but from the BIRD family.  Now on my last trip to N.Y., I
    see they have corrected this on many of the exibits, their tails are now in
    the air.
            The only thing I am trying to point out here, is science does make
    mistakes!  What is todays fact, is tomorrows myth.   Frankly I feel that
    evolution as stated by Darwin is a snowjob!

                                    clif-

    Message: 6286
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Roger/Angels
    Date: 04/26/90  Time: 00:56:53

    The "difference" in the accounts, is really not all that strange, and
    certainly not contradictory. Frequently the spokesman is noted only and an
    accompanying figure is not mentioned. Words and posture (seated, Jn 20.12;
    standing, Lk 24.4) often change in the course of events, so these variations
    are not necessarily contradictory. They are simply evidence of independent
    accounts.

    Message: 6287
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Beliefs
    Date: 04/26/90  Time: 02:07:42

    Yes Paul, there are so many thousands of Christians here.  There are also an
    estimated 7,000 to 10,000 homeless in Arizona.  Keep up the good work.

    Message: 6288
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Rebuttal
    Subject: existence of life
    Date: 04/26/90  Time: 02:13:48

    There is so much mass and energy in the universe that if life did not exist,
    it would be a miracle.

    P.S.  Damn good posts Roger.

    End of the Universe Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 1277
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Piss on it!
    Subject: Hey now!
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 07:23:50

    Let's give a devil's welcome to.... GORDON LITTLE !

    Message: 1278
    Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Gordon
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 09:08:14

            Welcome, Mr. Little ................

    Message: 1279
    Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 09:25:12

            I tend to agree with you as well. A child's personality, one of
    those things that the greater minds of this world can not agree on as to
    whether the child's personality is inherited or enviornmentaly developed or
    both, and, indeed, the involvement and interest the parent takes does have
    an effect.
            Not that I want to call some of the parents I talked to liars, but
    it appears that some schools, who use some of the newer curriculum from the
    federal government, are having a greater effect on the children than the
    partent's. These children were involved in these programs at an early age.
    Some even in Kindergarten.
            Guess I would not be so riled up if such programs were only offered
    at the High School or, better yet, college level as a course offering a
    different type of lifestyle.

    Message: 1280
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: educhildren
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 15:31:55

    I tend to agree with you also. I don't like the idea of a curriculum
    designed to brainwash children into a point of view that is contrary to
    what we may consider to be the authority of the parent in the eyes of the
    child. I do know that we have had discussions with our children on some of
    the more outrageous points of view that they have gotten from their social
    ed classes. namely: that sex before marriage is ok if you take the proper
    steps to avoid pregnancy. Now, I think it is good that pubescent children
    become aware of contraception and that they know it is available. It is not
    good to teach the little sinners that it is OK to go ahead and experience
    sex without considering the moral aspects of such an act. This "If it feels
    good, it's OK" morality leads to, I think, the idea that it's OK to take
    drugs because it feels good, and therefore OK. I think that schools, if they
    are going to teach morality of this sort, need to start over again and teach
    the kids that life isn't a playground, but that hard choices have to be made
    based upon morals that have been around for thousands of years. Otherwise,
    the schools should get out of the business of brainwashing these pre-adults
    and into the business of teaching them how to make a living and compete with
    the Japanese.

    Message: 1281
    Author: $ Sandy SYSOP
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 20:47:06

            Amen!
            Schools should go back to what they used to do. Teach the 3 R's and
    how to make a living and compete with the Japanese.
            Leave the Moral raising to the parents.

    Message: 1282
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Welcome
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 22:41:11

    Good to be here!  'Scuse me while I adjust my horns and tail...

    Message: 1283
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Sandy
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 22:43:25

    It's interesting that you had two separate concerns about what is being
    "taught" in schools, one of which I would interpret differently, while the
    other I would violently agree with.

    To take the "right and wrong" concern first, and to concentrate on sex,
    which is usually more of a hot button for many people, I don't see anything
    wrong with what the textbook was advising these young adults to do.  (And
    biologically they *are* adults -- something this society often tries to
    ignore.)  I see an enormous difference between saying "if it feels good, do
    it" (which considers only present gratification) and "if you and others
    genuinely want to do it, after considering the CONSEQUENCES, then it's all
    right" -- which is what the book was saying.

    To illustrate the significance of the second statement, let's take a look at
    some of the reasons that teenage girls have given for having sex, and what
    that says about the girls themselves.

         "I didn't know how to say no."  (Lack of social skills,
          assertiveness, self-confidence.)

         "I didn't know what he was doing."  (Lack of sex education.)

         "I didn't think I could get pregnant the first time."  (Ditto)

         "I was afraid he would dump me if I didn't say yes."  (Lack of
          self-esteem; dependency upon another for validation.)

         "Everybody was doing it.  I felt left out."  (Lack of independent
          identity; dependency upon peers for validation.)

         "I thought if I got pregnant he would stay with me; maybe we'd get
          married."  (Deplorable lack of education in male psychology.)

         "I thought it would be nice to have a baby.  I didn't know it would
          be such a grind."  (Failed to visualize consequences objectively.)

         "I wanted to have a baby because then I'd have someone to love and
          who would love me.  I'd be a mother, so then I'd have an
          identity."  (Tragic lack of love and self-esteem.)

    These girls did not make decisions that were right for themselves, let alone
    for anybody else.  It's reasonable to conclude that they, and millions of
    their sisters all over the country, might well have said "no" (or at least
    taken better precautions!) if they had possessed certain attributes: self-
    esteem (not "selling" oneself to others for validation); self-confidence
    (believing in one's own judgments, including moral ones); introspection
    (studying one's own motives and what is right for oneself, not pandering to
    others' selfishness); objective understanding of others' motives;
    accurate knowledge about sexuality; clear thinking, not denying reality; and
    a realistic prediction of consequences.  These are the life skills that
    these educators are trying to promote.

    Now, one might argue that none of these skills are needed if we just rely on
    a pat formula for Right and Wrong handed down by some higher authority.  To
    that I say, first, that looking to a higher authority for answers falls down
    in a complex technological world where new moral judgments are constantly
    needed.  What did God have to say about genetic engineering, for example, or
    about nuclear war?  Nothing directly; we have to guess what He *would* have
    said, which means we still can't get away from thinking for ourselves.

    However, the main reason for promoting such skills is that the alternative
    just does not work today.  Like it or not, the majority of young people do
    not believe in unquestioning acceptance of judgments from higher authorities
    -- be they human or divine -- and trying to force such judgments on them
    actually backfires.  If we take sex, it's obvious that the majority of
    adults no longer believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong.  And that's
    judging only from what they say; if we judge by their actual behavior the
    majority is much larger.  Young people can't see the relevance of sexual
    prohibitions to their lives, and so tend to reject anything at all that
    "authority" has to say.  "Just say no" is all very well, but it cuts both
    ways; you have a right to say "no" to anybody, including the people who keep
    telling you to say "no".  These people demand a good reason for saying "no".

    I think mankind has accumulated a lot of wisdom, part of which is that some
    kind of moral code is an absolute necessity for reasonable human
    coexistence.  Religion usually codifies such moral codes in a fixed ex
    cathedra form, but it is also possible to derive an adequate moral code from
    first principles, which is a lot better than nothing.  This does require,
    though, that people -- young people especially -- do some thinking about why
    some things are "right" and some are "wrong", and that they be motivated to
    think about it in the first place.

    To motivate young people to listen, we have to say something relevant and
    helpful to them.  We have to talk in terms of what they want, so that they
    can see how to integrate what they want with what is for the good of
    everybody.  Hence the discussion of "when it feels right", "when all the
    consequences for everybody are considered", and so on.

    I don't think for one moment that any educator would tell young people not
    to talk to their parents (unless the parents themselves were degenerate).
    But these educators are offering an ear to young people who would *like* to
    talk to their parents and cannot get them to listen.  There are far too many
    parents who refuse to sympathetically acknowledge their offsprings' real
    concerns and feelings and needs -- about sex, friends, whatever -- and there
    are many who refuse to even discuss such topics as sex and drugs.  (My
    parents only refused to discuss rock 'n' roll seriously, which I could put
    up with.)  When parents will not discuss the serious topics with their kids
    objectively, or at all, why on earth should the kids listen?  It is far
    better for people in high school to have *somebody* knowledgeable to rap
    with other than their peers, who know no more than they do.

    For a person of strong religious faith -- let's say a Christian, since there
    aren't so many Zoroastrians around here -- there is actually an important
    moral decision to be made.  Given that much of humanity today has rejected
    strict religious teaching, is it better to encourage free will and free
    thought (with its attendant threat to orthodoxy) so that *some* skill in
    moral judgment can develop?  Or is it better to constrain people to two
    alternatives: either you do it this way, or you don't, and then you go to
    hell?  And this with the sure and certain knowledge that most of them are
    going to choose the latter course.  With no help in formulating a reasonable
    alternative they will end up creating a hell on earth, never mind what
    happens in the afterlife!

    The second major issue -- the one I "violently agree" with, is the one about
    teachers cheating.  I suppose what is being taught here is a set of survival
    values; that outside of the risk of getting caught, you get on better in
    life by being dishonest.  I'm not sure if this is even true.  Lots of people
    have made lots of money by being dishonest, but I don't know how they feel
    about themselves unless they're practicing an awful lot of denial.  I
    suppose if what is of value to them is to appear good to everyone else, then
    it's worth cheating, as long as they don't get caught.

    (Once again, it's validation by others versus personal integrity.)  But if
    one's opinion of oneself is worth anything, the cheat must surely realize
    that his high grades are worth absolutely nothing, because they mean nothing
    in reality.  A cheat must feel dreadfully insecure about being put to the
    test!

    What is more important for society in general is that false credentials are
    worth nothing to anybody else, either.  I could forge myself a diploma as a
    civil engineer, but I sure as hell wouldn't live on the top floor of a
    skyscraper I'd designed!  Still, it might be nice to walk up and get awarded
    a diploma for something I hadn't earned.  Instant gratification, at the
    expense of future consequences.  This is part of the essence of morality:
    postponement of gratification for the sake of future gains.  It's also
    something that children have to learn, slowly.  It's part of the definition
    of maturity.  By modeling dishonesty, we are teaching children to be
    immature, and we are raising a society to fall flat on its face later.

    The culture of the 1980s, as I think I've said before, is a bizarre mixture
    of brutal honesty and blatant lying.  All we can hope for is that by
    encouraging independent thought we can assist the triumph of truth over
    trickery.

    Message: 1289
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Devil Shit!!!
    Subject: Dog Shit!
    Date: 04/26/90  Time: 02:16:57

    Welcome Gordon Little.  I'll bet your fingers are sore, wow.

    Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 64973
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Vote
    Subject: ... so far ...
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 07:14:35

    I have a really hard time believing that the oting on Apollo for the
    gubernatorial primaries is representative of the Arizona (or even the
    Maricopa) voting population.  No votes for Terry?  So many votes for
    Steiger?  Come on!  The most recent poll before ours showed Sam and Fife to
    be neck-and-neck.

    Message: 64974
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Vote
    Subject: last on Dog
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 07:27:25

            Goes to show you what a radical bunch we are...........

                                    cliff-

    Message: 64975
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Religion
    Subject: mary of magdala
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 08:05:54

    The evidence that Mary was Jesus' lover is not conclusive. However, she
    is an important woman in his life, and the fact that she is mentioned first
    in all four gospels indicates to me that it is at least arguable that she
    had some special relationship with Jesus. Therefore, it is not unreasonable
    for a film maker to have Mary and Jesus as lovers. It fills out the two
    dimensional comic-book figure that the pseudo-reverent movies of Christ's
    life have portrayed. e.g., the Greatest Story Ever Told.

    Message: 64976
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Politics
    Subject: No Fault
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 09:56:10

            Has anyone on here lived in a state with 'No Fault Insurance'?
    Can anyone here speak pros or cons to this concept?

            I know the lawyers don't like it, period!  But I am not the kind of
    a guy that wants to sue anyone as long as the basic responsibility has been
    met.

                    cliff-

    Message: 64977
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Rod & T-Shirts
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 11:32:02

    Here's a couple from my idea mill;

    "RAPE PILLAGE LIE CHEAT STEAL AND IGNORE.."
     You See, I understand Politics Too!

    "SNOWBIRD FROM HELL"

    "NOW HELL IS FREEZING OVER"

    WET PANTS IN YOUR FACE

    There..

    Message: 64978
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Last
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 11:39:48

    If you ever have the unfortunate experience of ending up in an
    accident over here, you will find that there is no such thing
    as 100% blame. The insurance companies will always place some of the
    blame on you...only VERY rarely will they not be able to blame you for
    a certain percentage of the "fault".
    (1) If your car is parked in your own driveway
    (2) If you're stopped in traffic and you're not:
        Blocking an intersection, sitting too close to the guy in front
        of you and all of your brake lights work and you can prover they did
        before you get munched in a rear-end.
    Through the nose or not, I'll keep my full coverage insurance on my
    truck until the day its value is lower than the premium.
    I'm certainly not well-to-do, rich, money bags or have all the time in the
    world and no where to work or person to work for. I *must* be able to
    get to work reliably and on time. That means if my car gets munchola
    in a crashola, I will at least be able to go get another four wheels
    and a motor.
    Right now I couldn't afford one wheel and a rubber band.

    Message: 64979
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: rod's t-shirts
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 13:09:09

    I would like to submit the following slogan:

    QUANTITY IS JOB ONE

    Message: 64980
    Author: Hans Glans
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 13:43:41

    How about:
    Japanese men do it smaller.

    Message: 64981
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: No Fault
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 18:53:15

    Unfortunately, all No Fault is not created equal. It works differently in
    different states. I have no idea which state the current Arizona bill is
    modeled after.

    Message: 64982
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Get-Togethers (GTs)
    Subject: Mike K.
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 19:15:11

      I plan to bring a friend, who may bring anything from an AR15 to a buffalo
    gun. I will have handguns, and maybe a Spanish American War rifle. Pretty
    much anything goes I would say.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 64983
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/Shirt
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 19:16:18

    Here's a possible shirt slogan I saw on a bumper sticker:
      Protected By A Pit Bull With AIDS

       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 64984
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: GT
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 21:01:32

    I'd love to come, but 9:00 am is a little early -- especially on a Saturday.

    Message: 64985
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: My Dinner with...
    Subject: Weapons Systems...
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 21:04:18

    "From studying the neurology and micro-anatomy of the mindless insects the
    specialists of the mid-twenty-first century quickly obtained splendid
    results.  Their predecessors were truly blind to overlook the fact that such
    insects as bees, seemingly primitive creatures, nevertheless possess their
    own, inherited language, with which the workers in the hive inform one
    another of the location of newly discovered nectar.  Through signal-gesture-
    pantomime the direction of the path is given, the time required to reach the
    nectar, and even its relative quantity.  Of course, the point was not to
    duplicate wasps, flies, spiders, or bees in computer chips or the like; the
    important thing was their neural anatomy with its built-in sequences of
    directed behavior and programmed goals.  The result was a scientific-
    technological revolution that totally and irreversibly transformed the
    battlegrounds of Earth.  Until then, all arms had been fashioned to fit man;
    their components were tailored to his anatomy, so that he could kill
    effectively, and to his physiology, so that he could be killed effectively.
    As so often happened, the beginnings of this complex new trend lay in the
    twentieth century, but at that time no one was able to combine them into a
    novel synthesis, because the discoveries that made possible the
    unhumanization of weapons systems took place in widely separated fields.
    Military experts had no interest in insects (except the lice, fleas, and
    other parasites that beset soldiers in wartime).  Intellectronics
    engineers, who with the entomologists and neurologists studied the neurology
    of insects, knew nothing about military problems.  And politicians, true
    to form, knew nothing about anything."

    "Thus, while intellectronics was developing microcalculators so small that
    they competed in size with the nerve bundles of mosquitos and hornets, the
    majority of artificial intelligence enthusiasts were still busy programming
    computers to carry on stupid conversations with not-too-bright people.  The
    mammoths and dinosaurs of the computer species were beating chess masters
    not because they were more intelligent but only because they could process
    data a billion times faster than Einstein.  For a long time no one imagined
    that all the ordinary front-line soldier needed was the skill and enterprise
    of a bee or a hornet.  In basic military operations, intelligence and combat
    effectiveness are two entirely different things.  (Intelligence can actually
    be a negative factor.  In battle, the soldier's instinct for self-
    preservation, incomparably greater than a bee's, can interfere; the bee, on
    the other hand, will sting to defend its hive though the sting means its own
    death.)  Who knows how long the old-fashioned way of thinking would have
    continued in the weapons industry -- the search for new conventional and
    unconventional instruments of warfare, the spiralling arms race -- had it
    not been for a few works that directed the public's attention to a remote
    and unusual episode in our planet's history."

    (to be continued)

    Message: 64987
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff/psych in school
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 22:36:28

    Sorry, I'd almost forgotten you asked me what sort of psychology I'd teach
    children in schools.  Well, I wouldn't start with Freud, that's for sure!  I
    was thinking of more things of practical use.  Effective listening and
    communication.  How to handle other people and get what you need without
    alienating people.  How to deal with feelings -- fear, shame, and especially
    anger, in oneself and in others.  (I don't completely agree with Asimov that
    violence is always the last resort of the incompetent, but I would say it is
    frequently the FIRST resort of the incompetent.)  What motivates diifferent
    people, and how people differ in this respect.  And the fundamental but
    dangerous truth that People Do Things For Their Own Reasons.

    This last is especially important, because people substitute other myths for
    this truth and fall into different traps as a result.  Some people think the
    world exists for their own benefit.  These narcissists get lots of grief
    from others.  Some people classify others as "good" or "bad", judged
    exclusively from their own point of view of course, which leads to an "us"
    versus "them" mentality and inevitable conflict.  However, if one
    acknowledges that people do things for their own reasons -- oneself included
    -- it is easier to understand and accept the weird or even hostile behavior
    of others.  Trouble is, this knowledge is threatening to a lot of people,
    especially politicians, who would prefer us to think that they are only
    doing what they are doing for our own good.  Many people are threatened by
    competent children, which is why psychology isn't taught in schools.

    Message: 64988
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Mary of Magdala
    Date: 04/24/90  Time: 23:01:42

    Somebody (I think it was on the SIG) mentioned, as a facetious argument,
    that some material in the Gospel could be interpreted as meaning that Jesus
    was homosexual.  Well, there was a radical minister in England, 20 years or
    so ago, who did make that claim in all seriousness.  Needless to say, he
    created quite a furor.  Part of his claim was based on the words that speak
    of Peter as "the disciple that Jesus loved".  I felt rather sorry for the
    fellow, because as a Christian he ought to have understood that there ARE
    other kinds of "love" in the world besides the purely sexual.

    To interpret some of these passages clearly it might be helpful to go back
    to the original language.  Sure, Greek had umpteen words for love, but I
    thought most of the Gospels were written in Aramaic, so how clearly do we
    understand the different shades of meaning in that language today?

    Message: 64989
    Author: Vittorio Sgarbi
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Hello!
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 01:20:24

    Hi, everybody!!!

    I 'm calling from Italy.... How are you???? Fine, i hope...
    Well, this is my English, it isn' t good, I, know....
     mr^m{
    I remmber Formula 1 Grand prix from Phoenix... great!!!

         Vittorio

    Message: 64990
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Vote
    Subject: Beau
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 05:00:41

     Realizing that the primaries do not allow for cross-over voting, this may
    be at least one of the reasons for the "no votes for Terry". I am a
    registered Democrat who wouldn't vote for Terry the Terrible if he was
    running for dog catcher. If it becomes a Goddard-Steiger general election, I
    plan to vote for Sam.
     Of course, if by some faint chance it becomes a Goddard-Mecham general, I
    will probably recant the above statement and vote for Goddard in self
    defense.

    Message: 64991
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Vittorio/last
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 05:06:34

    Sure.
    And I've got some ocean front property just outside of Yuma that you wold
    just love. The price is right, too.

    Message: 64992
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Religion
    Subject: gospel language
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 07:06:27

    I thought the Gospels were written in Greek.

    Message: 64993
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: T-Shirt Slogans
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 08:06:34

    Keep us informed.

    Oh, yeah, and I want a regular statement in the mail, too.

    That idea took me at least four seconds to make up. And time is money, you
    know. I guess .25 for four seconds worth of work is pretty good money. That
    would be, what...only $3.75 an hour? Wait, I thought they boosted the
    minimum wage. ROD!!!

    (grin)

    PS: My contribution to the current Earth-mania movement:

    TAKE CARE OF THE PLANET. WE ONLY HAVE IT ON LOAN.

    Message: 64994
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/MofM
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 08:15:34

       But when a filmmaker makes a film about something based on the only
    evidence available on that something, he should stick to that evidence, and
    not resort to an idea that the evidence does not support. The Biblical
    account of Jesus has a far wider scope than just the fact that "he lived on
    Earth." There was a reason why he came, there was a reason why it had to be
    him, and there was a reason he led the life that he did. If he gave in to
    sin, then his work to atone for the sins of the world would have come to
    nothing. Trust that he was fully able to come down off the cross, and his
    human nature probably tempted him to. But to do that would have voided out
    everything he came here for. The same goes for a "one night stand" with Mary
    of Magdala.

    Message: 64995
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/64992
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 08:22:04

    I believe so, too. Why would the Gospel writer need to translate an Aramaic
    term such as "Eloi Eloi, lama sabachthani," if they were writing in Aramaic
    to begin with?

    Message: 64996
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Daryl/MofM
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 10:17:11

    Actually, the filmmaker wanted to make a "non-historical" movie. It was
    not intended to be historical. However, the filmmaker wanted to show Jesus
    as a man and thereby "fictionalized" the account.

    As for being sinless, he couldn't be sinless because he was born of Mary,
    who, the last time I looked, was a human. Assuming that the immaculate
    conception myth is true, the issue of that union still carries Mary's genes,
    and therefore Adam's sin. (Of course, I also think that Adam and Eve are
    mythological creatures also, due to the fact that homo sapiens evolved
    around
    2-5 million years ago in the center of Africa.

    Message: 64997
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: The SYSOP Speaks
    Subject: Modem test
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 12:14:32

            Well, 60 days and this new modem seems to be working better then the
    older one...  Is that right Ann?

            Anyway, this is my last [plug] for the sponsor of the new modem.
    Are your keys old and not working properly?  Have you lost keys and would
    like your locks all re-keyed to a *new* & different key?  Well, by Golly,
    Call Hawley, the QUALITY locksmith who works cheap!  (discounts to $tatus
    users too) He can be reached at anytime at 277-9595 (mobil phone).
    For FAST---> and friendly service, call TODAY!
    (Don't be like the Assp (the ungrateful that her modem connects faster) that
    called a BRAND X locksmith)

    To J.H.  Send check ($153.00) now.... or I will take it all back!

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=* cliff *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=*

    P.S.  Really, he is a GOOD locksmith!

    Message: 64999
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Sex & Love
    Subject: IT'S HERE!!!!
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 13:30:12

    Yes the moment I have all week been waiting for
    _sex, lies, and videotape_ is in a video store near you just waiting to be
    rented.
    "Rent me, rent me" it squeals in a whisper...
    Just forget about the garbage and watch it!

    Message: 65000
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/t-shirt
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 16:09:11

      Here is another slogan from a bumper sticker:
         "Don't Blame Me, I Voted LIBERTARIAN"

       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 65001
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: transitional forms
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 19:20:58

    Another transitional form is Archaeopteryx, thought to be a transitional
    form between reptiles and birds. Here is an excerpt from the May 1990
    article in Scientific American:
    "In 1985 the British astronomer Fred Hoyle charged that the Archaeopteryx
    specimen in the British Museum of Natural History was a fake. He claimed
    that a forger had created the specimen by first applying a thin layer of
    binding material mixed with pulverized rock to the fossilized skeleton of
    Compsognathus -- a type of small dinosaur called a theropod --- and then
    making impressions of feathers in it. Hoyle and his colleagues also
    suggested that the other Archaeopteryx fossils either were forgeries or
    did not really show imprints of feathers. In England, Archaeopteryx soon
    became know as the Piltown chicken.
    Because of the publicity surrounding the affair, the British museum
    decided in 1987 to stage a special exhibition to accompany the scientific
    reexamination of its fossil. Various tests proved that the stone in which
    the feather imprints were found did not differ in structure or composition
    from the surrounding material. Notwithstanding the modern appearance of
    Archaeopteryx's feathers, nothing pointed out their being forgeries.
    Moreover, the stone plates encasing the skeleton fit together perfectly,
    which would have been impossible if the fossils had been tampered with
    by adding a layer of cement.

    Ironically, the features that Hoyle saw as proof of the fossil's
    inauthenticity -- its mixture of Compsognathus-like bones and modern
    feathers-- are some of the most important clues that paleontologists
    have for understanding how birds and bird flight evolved. Its combination
    of anatomical characteristics from two distinct classes of animals make
    Archaeopteryx, the oldest-known bird, a textbook example of a transitional
    form between reptiles and modern birds."

    This article was authored by Dr. Peter Welinhofer, the main curator
    and vice director of the Bavarian State Collection for Paleontology and
    Historical Geology in Munich, where he specializes in the study of fossil
    birds and flying reptiles. He is the author of numerous articles on the
    subject of Archaeopteryx and the editor of the Encyclopedia of
    Paleoherpetology.

    Message: 65003
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Zak/Recommended book
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 21:34:32

    None.

    Sorry, that's a very brusque and unhelpful answer, but it was the first one
    that came to mind.  But since Apollo's line was busy, I took a quick glance
    over the bookshelves to see, and after a (fairly cursory) check I was unable
    to spot anything that was at once so original and wide-ranging as "Zen".

    There are of course lots of books I've enjoyed, many of which were also
    "worthwhile".  I used to read a lot of SF, but I don't so much now.  I think
    that's because most of the ideas (gadgets, time paradoxes, different flavors
    of aliens) eventually got covered, so it's increasingly hard to find
    something new (meaning new to me).  The last good SF book I read was by
    Sagan.  Can't remember the title, and my books are jumbled since we moved;
    it can take up to ten minutes to find a book.  Oh, and Michael Crichton's
    "Sphere" wasn't at all bad.

    This "discovery" factor is important, though, in the impact of a book.  The
    Gospels are vital books ; but how do you judge the "impact" of something you
    have known since childhood?  Random thoughts: I was impressed at the time by
    Morris's "Naked Ape"; Pohl's "Tunnel Under the World" (short story); "The
    Bible as History"; "In Search of Bridie Murphy" (actually a fraud); "The
    Slave Trade" (in N. Africa/Saudi Arabia); Fowler's "Modern English Usage";
    Alice Miller's books.  And I *must* read "Goedel, Escher, Bach" some time.
    (I know you're not keen on the Gospels, but there are good thoughts there.)

    Message: 65004
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Zak/books
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 21:39:08

    Funny, I remembered somebody asked me about books, so I wrote up this
    post.  Then I checked to see who it was, and saw it was Zak.  So I thought,
    "well, sounds as if I'm pushing religion or something".  And unfortunately
    the buffer was too full to add an explanation.  Well, no big deal, they're
    all good books.

    Message: 65005
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: News Today
    Subject: Comment
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 21:40:57

    I sometimes listened to Y95 radio in the mornings.  Don't know why, except
    laziness.  Some friends stayed over a couple of days and they left the radio
    tuned to Y95.  Such a lot of insane noise poured into my ears; but then it's
    *meant* to be insane, especially in the morning.  Irritation wakes people
    up.  "WAAAAAAAAAAAKE UUUUUUUUUUUP!" screamed that voice from Bedlam.  And I
    did.

    I finally got stirred out of my lethargy by listening closely to a string of
    words the announcer uttered.  I use "uttered" deliberately here, because the
    words were not "said"; it was more a mixture of gabbling and singing.  There
    was music in the background also.  But the words themselves did have
    semantic content.  It was something like: "Arecentreportsaysthatpeopleliving
    intheindustrializednationsuseorwastetheworld'sresourcesatfiftytimestherateof
    peoplelivinginThirdWorldnationswealthymembersoftheindustrializednationsuse
    resourcesatonethousandtimesthatrate..."

    There was such an extreme contrast between the words themselves and the way
    they were gabbled, with intonation matching the background music rather than
    the meaning of the words, that I found myself wondering if the announcer was
    crazy or if I was.  Was this meant to be newsreading?  Giving people
    information?  How unlike the steady, sober voice of a BBC announcer, or even
    the artificially hyped-up emotion of some television news.  What message was
    the announcer giving?  "Here's some information, but don't bother to listen
    or think, let alone worry about it; it isn't important anyway."

    I decided that if I kept letting this pollution pour into my ears I was in
    serious danger of having my brain fried, so I turned off right away.  Later
    that day I listened to some news on -- KFLR, is it?  "Family Life Radio"?  I
    don't go much on a diet of religious songs, but at least they read the news
    as if it meant something.

    Then I turned to KDKB, and I'd been listening to that for about a month.  I
    liked their music better than Y95 anyway.  It was OK.  Then, this morning,
    up came the news.  It went like this.

         ANNOUNCER:  Right now, let's see what you think of this: "President
         Bush is holding off on sanctions against the Soviet Union for its
         crackdown on Lithuania..."

         CHORUS of Voices in the background:  BORING!  BOOOOORRRRRING!

         ANNOUNCER:  Oh.  Well, let's try this: "The space shuttle Discovery is
         in orbit following yesterday's successful launch, and the Hubble Space
         Telescope will be deployed today..."

         CHORUS:  BOOOOORRRRRING!  BOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRING!

    I'm beginning to think of these voices as the "Moron Tabernacle Choir".  The
    announcer continued:

         ANNOUNCER:  All right.  How about this?  "Donald and Ivana Trump have
         announced their "free love" agreement, in which..."

         MORON TABERNACLE CHOIR:  HOORAY!

    The announcer then continued with the most important news of the day: how
    the Trumps had agreed that each would be free to "see" other people.

    I must say that KDKB was less objectionable to me than Y95.  KDKB's message
    about the importance of news was at least upfront, clearly presented and
    available for criticism.  Y95's message, on the other hand, was camouflaged
    with noise and had to be dug out before it could be examined and either
    accepted or rejected.  KDKB was honest; Y95 was subliminal and deceptive.

    I don't know if it's worth listening to the radio news, because they only
    read what I can read for myself in the Repugnant later the same day.  But
    even the Repugnant thought that George Bush's dislike of broccoli merited
    front-page headlines.  Interesting and entertaining, yes, but not my idea of
    front-page significance.

    You can see why I get seriously worried about this culture's discouragement
    of clear, coherent, independent thought.  I've said some words elsewhere
    about whether schools encourage children to think or not.  Like alcohol, the
    Babel of sound assaulting our ears may appear a stimulus to some, but is
    really a depressant.  The anesthetic quality of sound is well known, and is
    used in dentistry.  Drugs also anesthetize people.  Drug laws are a great
    way to give the impression of dealing with the problem of drugs -- and also
    create jobs on both sides of the law -- while letting people continue to be
    anesthetized.

    I hardly watch TV any more, though I do watch movies.  I can see why I like
    BBSs.  The people on them are usually trying to say something that makes
    sense.  Even when they only succeed in annoying people, at least something
    real gets communicated.  You know also that people are listening and
    processing.  As Milton almost said, "They also serve who only sit and read".
    At least it keeps them awake.

    That voice on Y95 radio screeching at people to "wake up" really is ironic,
    because the insanity behind it is really telling them to go to sleep.  Those
    patients of Oliver Sacks who laughed at the President's message would have
    found THAT funny.

    Message: 65009
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/T-shirts
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 21:48:46

    I did like your slogan a lot.

    One that popped into my head yesterday was

    THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH HUMANITY THAT A GOOD NUCLEAR WAR CAN'T FIX

    I HOPE that this one has become outdated...

    Message: 65010
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Vittorio
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 21:55:08

    Benvenuto, Vittorio.  Sorry, this is a large percentage of the Italian
    I know.  I've been on other boards where people have called from
    as far away as London, so I could believe you were genuine.  But the
    "s" and the "g" together did make me wonder.  I never saw that in
    Italian.

    Still, people do have strange names.  My favorites from the Phoenix
    telephone directory:

         Kilo Watt (almost certainly false)
         Phongsavanh Xoumphonpmakdy (almost certainly genuine)

    Message: 65011
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/psych
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 22:13:23

    My initial question remains.  Whose theories of these things are you going
    to teach?  Furthermore, though your phrase "people do things for their own
    reasons" is rather vague, it suggests a multiplicity of motives whose
    complexity would defy any generalized system of analysis.
    Effective listening and communication -- who would argue against teaching
    such things?  And yet, even when dealing with such an elemental subject, the
    fact remains that effective listening and communication is not an invariant
    technique, but rather a multivariant one which depends on, among other
    things, the attitude(s) of the listener(s) and speaker(s), in relation to
    each other, their immediate environment, their past histories, and your
    relation to them, real and perceived.  What constitutes effective
    communication techniques at a meeting of the Algonquin round table does not
    necessarily hold true at meeting of the Klu Klux Klan.
    The other things are even more subjective.  Whose theories of how to deal
    with feelings are you going to teach? Leo Buscaglia's, or Robert J.
    Ringer's?  Christ's or Buddha's?  Or any other the innumerable alternatives?
    Whose theories are you going to teach regarding "what motivates different
    people, and how they differ in this respect"?  Again, you say this as though
    this was a matter of scientific record.
    All of this is complicated by the most important fact that, even if one was
    able to delineate some "best" system of analysis, it is not as though people
    would be amenable to it.  People already know why they REALLY do things, by
    and large, but choose to ignore this or pretend otherwise for various
    reasons.

    Message: 65012
    Author: $ Jeff Beck
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl and Roger
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 22:18:28

    I have to agree with Daryl on this one.  This suggestion of a one night
    stand with Mary Magdala is reminiscent of an article in the Leisure section
    of the Republic the other day, dealing with the question of obscenity in
    art.  In comparing Maplethorp's works with standard religious works, the
    writer described one well known painting (whose name eludes me) as follows:
    "An angel is piercing her breast with an arrow, and her head is tilted back
    *in the moment of orgasm*."  An absurd interpretation, both in light of
    art history, religion, and visual evaluation of the evidence.

    Message: 65013
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Roger/Daryl/Gospels
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 23:06:37

    Yes, color my face red, the earliest known sources of the four Gospels are
    indeed written in Greek (according to the Britannica).

    However, what I was remembering was that the originals of some of the
    Gospels were probably written in Aramaic, which would have been the language
    of the Disciples.  What I remember (Jane is shuffling through the books but
    hasn't found it yet) is that the three so-called Synoptic Gospels --
    Matthew, Mark and Luke, which contain a great deal of parallel material
    (unlike John) -- may have drawn on an earlier "Q" (German, "Quelle") source
    that is now lost.  I think it was more complicated than that, or more likely
    the scholars couldn't make up their minds, but it was perhaps this "Q"
    source, or an earlier Gospel of Mark (also lost) that was probably written
    in Aramaic.

    Message: 65014
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Jeff/psych
    Date: 04/25/90  Time: 23:21:07

    Very quick and incomplete answer (just read your post).  Effective
    listening is simple enough.  It is just a technique for reflecting back to
    the speaker what you have heard him or her say.  You'll come across this
    idea in "Leader Effectiveness Training", Teacher Effectiveness Training",
    "Parent E.T.", and so ad nauseam.  Point here is that people, like computer
    communications protocols, repeat themselves unless they've heard an "ACK"
    from their audience.  If they don't, they'll go into retry mode.  You can't
    get heard by somebody else until they are convinced that what THEY have said
    has sunk in.

    Feelings are somewhat similar.  If you reflect somebody's feelings back to
    them ("empathize" with them), you enhance rapport and encourage them to do
    the same with you.  If you don't, they won't be in a mood to listen to what
    you have to say, and if they fail after repeated retries, they'll just give
    up and break off communication.

    "People do things for their own reasons."  I suppose it's a sort of
    psychological Theory of Relativity.  It amounts to the idea that you have to
    place yourself in somebody else's position to see why they act the way they
    do.  Such understanding is impossible solely from one's own position.  "Walk
    a mile in my shoes..."

    Motivation":  more complicated, but there are theories with reasonable
    consensus.  What do we teach but theories, anyway?  Who says 2+2=4?

    Message: 65015
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/64996
    Date: 04/26/90  Time: 01:10:44

    But what caused the Word to become flesh? It was the Holy Spirit. The Holy
    Spirit did not produce sperm to fertilize an egg inside Mary, for that would
    not be a virgin birth. The Word was made flesh by the Holy Spirit. Mary
    became the vehicle by which Jesus was born.

    By his human nature, he could be tempted to sin, BUT:

    By his divine nature, he could NOT sin.

    He was tempted, YES...but didn't sin.

    Again, you are trying to eliminate Christ's Divinity, and make him just a
    man.

    Message: 65016
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/Synoptic
    Date: 04/26/90  Time: 01:14:05

    I do have information on that, and I will look it up.