### Apollo BBS Archive - May 1, 1990

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 6403
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 04/30/90  Time: 20:15:19

    "Gee, this is progress huh?"

    No, actually, Rod says it's called e-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n...
    Where things are supposed to progress into better beings et al...

    Message: 6404
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 04/30/90  Time: 21:08:51

      I repeat, I did not make any statement to the effect that Christianity is
    not in vogue. I said that it is no longer in vogue to invent new gods. I do
    include the surviving gods along with those no longer worshipped as probably
    having been invented to explain the otherwise unexplainable. This in no way
    substantiates your misquote. Maybe there is some confusion as to what it
    means for something to be in vogue. In the sense that I used it, it is
    synonymous with 'fashionable'. I think you would agree that creating new
    gods is out of fashion, but Christianity is still very widely accepted.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 6405
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Look Ann
    Date: 04/30/90  Time: 22:22:40

            So I come down on you...  Anytime I defend myself agaist Rod or
    anyone... you are ALWAYS on my back.   I do not even mention the word Bible
    and you post a message that "I" am unfair and "I" am quoting from a book
    over two thousand years old.... And when I point out I am quoting form
    science books....  you tell me I am suppose to know what you mean, and you
    do not think it is fair...????  Well if you don't like being 'come down
    hard' on, then maybe you should not get involved.  What you call 'fair' is
    for me to give up and agree with everyone, with what ever they say!

            Re: "What happened to the 'fair' sysop Cliff?  The one who believed
    in free speech on this BBS??"   I see you also think I should just take care
    of the hardware and not stand up for my views.  What you call "free Speech"
    is for me to let the atheists like Rod take over the board with no opposing
    view points.  You don't get upset when they post vulgar posts, only if I
    fight back.  The only one who is not allowed free speech on here is Me..
    Right Ann?

            Are you the one who sent me that obscene letter under an alias,
    telling me to keep my views to myself?  I'm pretty sure it was from and
    agnostic or athiest because of the content of hate.

            Where has your 'freedom of speech' been turned off?  You accused me,
    so now tell me what I did?  Are any of your posts ZAPped?  NO!  Rod's?  No!
    Roger's?  No!  (I know, SysOps should just run hardware...  humph!)

    Message: 6406
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: winged reptiles
    Date: 04/30/90  Time: 22:54:04

            Pterodactyl, a flying reptile having wings of skin streched along
    the body between the hind limb and a very long digit of the forelimb.
    A reptile that flys, but not to be confused with the warm blooded
    vertebrates (Aves) with wings and feathers.

            Ann, you are talking about two different species that are not
    related to each other.  But believe what you want, I just don't care
    anymore.

                                            clif-

    Message: 6407
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Dean H.
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 01:15:56

    My question to you then becomes that of the statement you have made
    in your last rebuttal.
    "I continue to stand by my appraisal of theism as requiring the ascendency
    of faith over reason.."
    Do you beleive that once someone has made the connection between himself
    and found God that it remains true?
    Do you beleive that reason was not a large, if not a majority part of making
    the decision to make the leap of faith before hand?
    I suspect; (A) You're not sure..and (B) You believe that it requires
    the shut-down of reason to continue theism.
    In (B), you would be following in suit with non theist
    reasoning...precisely why, I contend, they remain in the dark about God.
    You see... one isn't born into theism..and this would be the only qualifier
    to be a theist...is that at one point or another, you must be a non theist.
    There is no evidence to support lack of intelligence on either side...
    sucess or failure to be or not to be a theist...much of this bantering is
    spent by those unable to engage in thoughtfull discussion.
    Why anyone would think so is a personal failure on their part, not mine or
    of any other theist.
    I had to reason through all of the claims from both ends. It was my ability
    to be willing to sample either side without bias that pulled me through.
    To find absolute truth, one cannot pretend to search for it.
            -Mike

    Message: 6408
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: e-v-o-l-
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 08:04:30

    It is a misconception that evolution means that things are supposed to
    progress into better beings et al... Evolution states that for any given
    environment, the organisms best adapted to that environment survive to pass
    their genes on to the next generation. That when the environment changes as
    with an ice age or any other cataclysm, those organisms with the appropriate
    survival mechanisms will only survice. You and I are here most likely
    because our ancestors 600 million years ago had fur all over their bodies,
    while the dinosaurs perished in the cataclysm brought on by an asteroid
    impacting the earth.

    Message: 6409
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 11:11:02

    Calm down Cliffy dear. See my post on the BB telling you to say what you
    want. I DON'T think you should ever censer yourself.
    No - I did not send you an alias obscene letter. Not my style and I am not
    an agnostic or an athiest.
    If I seem to just defend Rod it is because no one seems to take him
    seriously. He does make good and valid points (whether I agree with him or
    not) but right away, they accuse him of bashing. Yes, he has at times, will
    admit that, but at other's, he does not. If people came down on me like they
    do him at times, I too would stoop to insults, bashing, etc. etc. Don't we
    all in our ways? -=*) ANN (*=-

    P.S. Do you forget the times I have defended you? Agreed with you?

    Message: 6410
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Rebuttal
    Subject: Mike C.
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 15:01:45

      Yes, I am contending that it requires a PARTIAL shutdown of reason to
    remain a theist. That should have been quite clear from the beginning. It
    does not always require a shutdown of reason to become a theist, because the
    indoctrination from an early age leads one to think that it is a reasonable
    course because so many others say so. In an individual who has already
    developed critical judgement as a habit of mind, it requires a leap of faith
    which can not be explained by logic to become a theist. This is readily
    admitted by theists all the time. I am surprised that you take such
    exception to it when all I am doing is noting that theists are easier
    to get along with if this fact is taken into account, and that they are the
    better for the pains they take to  prevent that suspension of reason
    from affecting other areas of thought.
      See You Later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 6411
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: gods
    Date: 05/02/90  Time: 01:53:13

    I'd bet that early cavemen during the ice age had to make up a *god in order
    to keep from losing it. People invent weird imaginary things all the time to
    help them cope.    *(a god or two)  Note: see end of this buffer.

    Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 65193
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod Williams
    Date: 04/30/90  Time: 19:58:20

    Your analogy between a God who "Would set stuff up so in a way that
    he would have foreknowledge of many who would fail must be..."

    Well, that's a narrow minded and very limited view I'd say...considering
    you still don't want the answer.
    What hey? I guess if I use a filter for my coffee grounds I'd be
    guilty of the same eh?
    Well, I KNOW that a vast majority of the coffee will be wasted...then
    again..I dont wanna choke and puke on all of the rest of the garbage
    either....he hh heh heh
    Simply put; The painful knowledge that a sizable number of people will
    remain separated from God is the price from allowing free will.
    The freedom to choose to be with him or not.
    Sorry you deny that, but that's the facts, Jack.
    You can't force someone to love you.

    Message: 65194
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean H.
    Date: 04/30/90  Time: 20:09:24

    I'm glad you clarified your position.
    From your original post, I get the impression that removing the vast
    majority of any non-logical thought processies was your ideal of
    perfection.
    The purely analytical can never achieve perfection...just in the same
    way the purely emotional cannot either. It is the balance or lack
    of balance between the two which allow us to continue when the other
    faculty requires support. Needless to say, there are benefits of having
    the ability to completely balance the amount of analytical and emotional
    content..although no one has been cited as doing so.
    My analogy, contrary to Zaks emotional charge, remain valid for your
    initial message...in that you mentioned removing belief and faith systems
    from a majority of life desicions need to be removed completely. That
    is like saying if someone DOESN't follow this ideal of yours..that they
    cannot function. You did not clarify and this led me to believe that
    unless someone follows your strict conformity of thought processing that
    they are incapable of leading "productive" lives.
    You made a arbitrary rule of thought...much like rascism makes arbitrary
    rules of what is human and what is not.
    We must all strike our own methods which allow us to deal effectively
    with life and its events. The manner, method and means of which make us
    each and every one, a unique individual...
    Generalizing rules of thought only helps to muddy the real process.
            -Mike

    Message: 65195
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike C.
    Date: 04/30/90  Time: 21:40:03

      I disagree, of course. Noting that someone has chosen to abandon logic for
    important decisions bears no comparison to condemning someone because of a
    condition of birth. The quality which is being judged, guidance by reason,
    is a real and important aspect of life. To attach this same fitness for
    judgement to a completely different set{of circumstances, such as skin
    color, does not follow. You are saying that if I dare to say that anything
    is wrong with belief in the unknowable then I must say that something is
    wrong with possessing ethnic traits other than my own. You have established
    that I am willing to pass judgement, as every thinking person must do in
    their own mind, but you have not, and can not, establish that I pass
    judgement on other grounds than I have specified.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 65196
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon Little
    Date: 04/30/90  Time: 23:47:47

            Unfortunately there is someone who feels intimidated, but I am not
    SURE I know who, even though I do have my ideas as to who it is.  Some times
    I wish I was not the SysOp so I could really get involved... But I do have
    the awareness you speak of, and it does bother me that someone might feel
    intimidated to the point they won't post their view.  That hurts, believe it
    or not.
            Yes, I would miss it if I had to keep quiet, so I need to find a
    middle ground where everyone will be happy.

                                    clif-

    Message: 65197
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Get-Togethers (GTs)
    Subject: Apollo, the Movie
    Date: 04/30/90  Time: 23:58:50

            I was hoping someone would suggest a time and date.  Is a week day
    night better for you, or a week end night?   The movie is not all that
    long...  We could get together as a group (Mike, Gordon, Bob)? or one by one
    when ever it was easy for you to make it?

            Bob?
                    Gordon?
                                    Mike?
            Or get together with Dean Hathaway if that is closer for you.

                                            clif-

    Message: 65198
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: last
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 00:45:57

    Better it be held on a weekend ..either day or night of that two day
    period, than to hold it when I cannot attend..namely the nights of
    the work week.

    Message: 65199
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Dean H.
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 00:57:26

    I too disagree, of course.
    It is not the act of actual rascism that makes rascism what it is, but
    rather the circumstances under which it can be nutured.
    The utilization of a natural thought process, either by choice of a logical
    or emotional standpoint is not the issue. The issue is the condemnation
    of anything that could be possibly different from your own.
    You stated that clearly in your post and have yet to deny it.
    More specifically, you cited that without following your ideal method of
    thinking that one could not lead a productive life...
    Perhaps your own limitations here got the better of you and without
    careful consideration, you condemned anyone who doesn't follow this specific
    guideline to lead an inferior lifestyle..
    My analogy was to illustrate how this model of thought process is completely
    without merit except, perhaps, for your own self analysis.
    Discrimination doesn't need be the color of skin, eating habits or other
    visible features...it can be discrimination for thoughts..the way
    of thinking..for ideas...and, as we have seen potently,
    faiths, beliefs and idioms.
    Your judgemental concept parallels that of rascism in that anything that
    does not fit your ideal must be inferior.

    See you later
            Mike C.

    Message: 65200
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Roger's "sources"
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 06:06:45

     Why read books about "the Book" when "The Book" is all you really need?
     Men have been trying to explain God's WOrd, the Bible, for generations,
    usually explaining away those parts they either failed to understand or with
    which they disagreed, to the end that virtually every book written about the
    Bible is little more than just another opinion, few of which agree on much.
     Through all this, however, the Bible lives, and remains intact. Attacked
    from many sides, battered, torn, burned, spat upon, denigrated, defiled and
    demeaned, it stands unchanged and unchangeable, a never failing guide to
    living according to God's perfect will, a never failing answer to all of
    life's problems, a never failing set of principles which, when applied
    according to the Word, always produce as claimed.
     Jump on the wagon, Roger, along with all the humanists, gnostics and
    self-proclaimed know-it-alls down through the ages. Rape God's Holy Word as
    you wish. It will survive your assaults as it has all the others. You,
    however, may not stand at the judgement seat quite as unsullied one of these
    days for your efforts.

    Message: 65201
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Religion
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 06:43:16

    I don't mind telling you all that the discussion of religion on this BBS
    leaves me feeling unhappy.  Christians have a very special belief that in
    most cases has made a significant and lasting impact on our lives, a belief
    we hold near and dear to our hearts, a belief that has given us joy and
    happiness.  We sometimes try to share this joy and happiness with others who
    have not experienced it.  In so many cases though, we are accused of
    "jamming our faith down the unbelievers throat."  When our belief is
    attacked and ridiculed, most believers will try to defend their position.
    Sometimes we are goaded into saying things we regret.  We are told our faith
    makes the unbelievers want to puke and other condescending comments the
    unbelievers no doubt think are very clever and cute.  To the believer these
    remarks cut and hurt though we usually don't admit it.  When someone says my
    God whom I love and worship is a Hitler, it pains.  From my view point I see
    the unbelievers attacking the faith of the believers.  I see the believers
    trying to defend their belief.  I don't not see believers attacking the
    unbelief of the unbelievers.  For the most part that is what transpires here
    on Apollo.

    Message: 65202
    Author: Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Hans
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 07:22:57

    In my opinion, you are OVERemphasizing sex. If you are going to
    deintellectualize a relationship to the point that it becomes just two
    animals who can't control their urges, then no wonder there are so many
    divorces! I view sexual relations between a committed couple as very
    necessary and very important for the relationship. However, I do not believe
    that any other factor of the relationship should be placed in subordination
    to those sexual relations.

    Although I do not speak for anyone but myself (and probably most of the
    Christians on the board)...YES, God is an important part of our marriage.
    Our allegiance is to God first, and then to each other. Of course you are
    not going to understand this, and are probably going to start making snide
    comments, but you know what? I don't care. At least I am being consistent
    with what I believe, and I would think I'd get at least a little respect for
    that. And you know what? We have not had a REAL argument since we've been
    married? Of course, we have our little squabbles and differences of opinion,
    but no voices are raised, and we are generally over them in less than 20
    minutes. And yes, we are sexually compatible, but we are also emotionally
    and intellectually equal.

    I don't agree that people should have sex outside of marriage just to make
    sure they are compatible. Anyone can have sex. Dogs can have sex. It takes
    two responsible, loving, caring individuals to wait until marriage. If it
    works out on all other levels, then there is a good chance that the sexual
    relationship should come quite easy and quite healthy. If one partner has a
    problem sexually, they can always see a counsellor. Perhaps one of them was
    abused during their childhood, and that affects their sexual ability. Now,
    if that person meets up with another and they get to know each other long
    enough that they feel they should have sex, and the one party finds out
    about the other's sexual dysfunction, person A is probably going to say "Oh,
    great. What do I need to hang around THIS loser for? (He/she) can't even do
    it!" and the relationship will probably take a big skyrocket downwards. Now,
    I'm can't say this is going to occur with a lot of people, but it happens
    more times than not. The person with the sexual problem is dumped (probably
    yet AGAIN), and the feeling of self-worth drops down another peg. They most
    likely feel that is something that is their fault, when in all actuality, it
    could have been, like I said, a past sexual abuse, or perhaps a medical
    dysfunction requiring treatment. But with such a heavy emphasis on sexual
    performance, this person is most likely going to get dumped on romantically
    for the rest of his/her life.

    As for the other matters (personal quirks), most of those will likely come
    out in a period of extended dating and/or engagament. A person can easily
    put on their best for the first two or three months, but after that, if they
    have little idiosyncracies, they will probably start to seep back into their
    lifestyle. And if they do, and they affect the other half of the prospective
    couple, they should be able to work out a mutual agreement over what should
    be done. If not, then this could mean potential trouble in the future.

    Your response re: Women's Singles Ad shows that "me-first" attitude that a
    lot of modern couples take (both sides) when going into a relationship. This
    is a sad by-product of our society, where every man on television is either
    handsome and worshipped, or nerdy and demeaned. Style has taken over
    substance. Looks and money and sexual ability take precedence over
    personality, intellect, sincerity and compassion. Before I got married, I
    met many women that the general male public would consider "less than
    physically acceptable." I got to know them and in a lot of cases found a
    much more beautiful person than most of these cover-girl cuties that are
    beautiful and therefore manipulative because of it. (Notice I said "most" -
    I have met some women whose inner beauty was just as wonderful as their
    outward appearance.)

    Anyone who puts limitations on the people they meet/date, their
    relationships are going to, as a result, be limited. Maybe not physically,
    but SOMETHING is going to be compromised.

    Message: 65205
    Author: Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/Creator
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 07:49:19

    Many "good" people are NOT unable to. They don't WANT to. There is a big
    difference there.

    Message: 65206
    Author: Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 07:51:56

    So, I take it you have done quite a bit of hopping around from religion to
    religion? That could explain your confusion.

    Message: 65207
    Author: Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: $HIELDS - ARGH!
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 07:53:31

    I forgot what being non-$tatus was like. This is really going to hamper the
    continued flow of responses to those I need to reply to. If for some reason
    I don't seem to respond to a certain post, please try again. Or maybe we
    could continue a particular discussion in mail?

    Message: 65208
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: the book
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 07:58:19

    That's funny. unchanged and unchagngeable. Ho, Ho, Ho.

    Message: 65209
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Religion
    Subject: religion
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 07:59:07

    I think there is entirely too much whining on the board.

    Message: 65210
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Westfall
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 08:39:55

            Hopping around from religion to religion?   Not hardly!  Where did
    you dig that thought from?   I have been a Christian for quite a few years,
    a lot longer then you have been alive.

                            clif-

    Message: 65211
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: The SYSOP Speaks
    Subject: WELCOME
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 08:57:20

            Let's welcome Apollo's newest member, John Cummings (a real person)
    to Apollo.

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

    Message: 65212
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon on women
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 10:48:16

    I agree with Melissa's post #65186 100%! Also, In my opinion, I won't buy
    Playgirl simply because they will not show what I want to see! If we cannot
    see a male erection, then it is not even close to comparable magazines such
    as Hustler & Playboy - which shows just about EVERYTHING! I've often
    wondered what kind of camera they use for those 'IN DEPTH' pix.
                              -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 65213
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff on ground
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 10:54:05

    Why do you feel that you must hold a middle ground? I'd like you to cut
    loose like everyone else does around here. Why not? I see no real enemies
    made by all of us expressing ourselves. Your freedom should be the same as
    ours. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 65214
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on marriage
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 11:01:09

    I cannot say that I would consider marrying someone with out first having a
    sexual relationship - but I will say, it'd certainly be a far better world
    if most people believed the way you do about it. I'd say your wife is one
    lucky gal there Daryl. It is very refreshing in this seemingly jaded world
    we live in. -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 65215
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: John Cummings
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 11:03:01

    Welcome to Apollo John. It's nice to know your a real person too! Ha.
    You will find this is a very different BBS. Unique to say the least.
                               -=*) ANN (*=-

    Message: 65216
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Sex & Love
    Subject: Procreation
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 12:12:07

    Procreation             V.S.            Recreation

    Is it a sin             or              sensual
    Is it for babies        or              your babe
    Is it good for God      or              good for you

    and they say

    "Shame, not there!"                     "Ooh yes, there!"
    "Push him away!"                        "Pump it in!"
    "Our heavenly Father..."                "Oh my GOD..."

    :From the booklet _The Uncomplete Collection of Mychele_, copyright 1989
    Inspired after watching the Pope live in Sun Devil stadium.

    Message: 65217
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Sex & Love
    Subject: melissa/pope
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 12:37:32

    Funny, I didn't get the same inspiration when  I watched to Pope live in
    Sun Devil stadium. What part of the ceremony inspired you ? Was it the part
    where the guy stood next to the Pope with the funny look on his face ?

    Message: 65218
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike C.
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 15:15:57

      Sorry Mike, I didn't say that any other kind of thinking than my own was
    wrong. I said that accepting things on faith instead of thinking was a bad
    way to make important decisions. I can see that you would love to paint me
    as some kind of idealogical bigot in order to cast my assessment of theists
    as people who have suspended reason in at least one part of their lives in a
    bad light. I doubt that you are going to be able to turn the arguement
    away from what I have said and on to unrelated matters in order to
    further that goal.
      See You Later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 65219
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: last
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 15:59:51

    I think you need to re-read your post again. That is NOT what you
    said.
    Now I may have misunderstood it, but that's a part of life too.
    You "take into account" i.e. you assume...that theists have
    suspended a large part of their life from logical reasoning.
    I don't see where this cannot be asessed as anything but ideological
    bigotry.
    My goal isn't to put you into a bad light. I thought you might
    be able to realize that there are two sides to this theism coin...
    I for one am not about to classify anyone in a bad light because they
    have not become a theist...nor am I about to attempt to label their
    way of thinking as errant. It's the content of the discussion, not the
    way it was created.
    Anyway, this "argument" as you wish to call it, is pretty much moot.

    Message: 65220
    Author: $ Bob Thornburg
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 18:45:27

    Re:  "I think there is entirely too much whining on the board."

    Well, quit whining about it!  :-)

    Message: 65221
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Ann on Ground
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 20:04:42

            I have been told I insulted Jeff Beck, and he has left the system.
    I have been told I hurt Rod's feelings when I counter his messages.  I annoy
    Zak because I am unable to post the source for everything that I say.  James
    Hawley thinks I am always wrong. Ann Oudin thinks I hurt free speech by
    posting my views too strongly. Jeff, James H. and Zak think I am an
    illiterate.  Roger thinks I am a gun-nut.  Dean H & Rod think my though
    process has stalled. And now Westfall thinks I change religion like I do
    socks.
            There must be a middle ground here somewhere! ?

    Message: 65222
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Hans/Pope
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 20:27:34

      Hey, one man does not speak for a whole religion, and I doubt very much
    that the Pope even said what you claim he did.
      The official view of the Roman Catholic Church on contraception is
    admittedly more conservative than that of most of the rest of us, but many
    Catholics don't go along with it, anyway.  The general opinion of Catholics
    on sex has always seemed (to me, at least) pretty much the same as the rest
    of us.
      In any case, you're still doing what I accused you of earlier.  *Claiming*
    that we have certain beliefs, and then ridiculing them.  Instead, why not
    ask us what our beliefs really are (instead of making them up for us), and
    then ridiculing what we actually believe?

                        =(u,u)=  Yawn!

    Message: 65223
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Sex & Love
    Subject: Melissa/Playgirl
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 20:41:44

    Well, the existence of Playgirl popped into my head when I was writing the
    piece, and I thought I'd mention it to prove that women aren't immune to
    enjoying the attractions of nude members of the opposite sex!  Of course, I
    couldn't seriously argue that the female market for nudie pix is anywhere
    near the size of the male market.

    Male sexuality seems to be more easily aroused by parts and clues and things
    associated with the love object, whereas women's sexuality seems to be more
    holistic.  [Ugh, I just reread that, and it wasn't meant to be a pun!  :-) ]
    It's usually men who have fetishes of various kinds, some of which must seem
    very odd to women.  I'm sure the difference is hard-wired into men's brains.
    So I would guess men always will be more stimulated by pictures focusing on
    anatomical details.  It's an immutable part of our nature.

    I started off under the assumption that it was the men themselves that women
    were annoyed at because they like to (and do) look at pictures of naked
    women.  You've introduced the subject of the large profit made from
    commercial marketing of such pictures.  Now I'm not sure how much it's the
    men themselves who are the target of this ire, and how much it's the
    commercial profiteers.  Or maybe it makes no difference.  The market
    wouldn't exist without the demand, of course, which comes down to men
    themselves.  But since we're talking about a communications medium here,
    I suppose it can be argued that the content of the medium influences and
    encourages its readers.  I have seen publications I would call nasty (those
    that encourage thoughts of real violence against women), but they are only a
    part of the market.

    I'm still having trouble seeing that anger against nude pictures in general
    is justified.  I do *understand* how the anger arises; I just don't think
    it's justified (or does much good for that matter).  The way I understand
    it, women quite naturally hate being put down and kept down based on a
    philosophy that says "women are dumb and incompetent, and what they're
    really here for is housework and sex".  So they say "OK, we're not dumb and
    incompetent, and we will object violently to anyone who says we are."  So
    far, so good.  But instead of unbundling those particular falsehoods from
    the philosophy and treating them separately, many women seem to want to turn
    the entire thing on its head by saying "*and* you're not allowed to discuss
    our sexual merits any more!"  So if some guy dares to express the idea that
    a particular woman turns him on sexually, a little light seems to go on in
    her head and she says to herself "Oh, he thinks of me in a sexual way.  That
    MUST mean (as if it were a logical deduction) that he's a male chauvinist
    who thinks I'm *only* good for sex, that I'm dumb and stupid and of no
    consequence..."  And that doesn't make any sense to me.  I don't understand
    how it's "exploitative" to think of women in a sexual way as long as you
    treat them fairly in other ways.  I don't see why men can't appreciate women
    for their sexual attractions as well as their many other talents.  I guess I
    object to simple binary choices, like "either you're a chauvinist pig or
    you're asexual".  (Or: "if you're not Republican, you must be a Democrat!")

    Message: 65225
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Get-Togethers (GTs)
    Subject: Apollo, the Movie
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 20:54:07

    I like weeknights (wee knights????) better on the whole.  I'll be busy this
    Thursday night, and also if it's any later than next Tuesday I'll be away
    for nearly four weeks.  I guess that doesn't leave a lot of leeway.  Still,
    there's no rush...  (Come to think of it, next Monday might be the only
    really good day for a while!)

    Message: 65226
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Sex & Love
    Subject: Ann
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 20:58:36

    Notice something?  I put in this post, and out of those who participate
    regularly here I got a response from 100% of the women.  I only got a
    response from...  well, I don't know, but it must be under 10% of the men.
    Since it's a topic of concern, I would have thought women would be angrier
    about the fact that so many men refuse to discuss it.  Actually, refusing to
    discuss something is a good way of sabotaging the "negotiation procedure" I
    was talking about in the original post.

    Message: 65227
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike C.
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 21:24:40

      I said that a theist must suspend reason in that one area of thought in
    order to remain a theist. Whether or not that person allows that to affect a
    larger part of their life is up to them. This is all very simple, and it is
    readily acknowledged by theists themselves. Noting a simple fact such as
    this when dealing with a person is hardly bigotry. Failing to take it into
    account is a mistake which can lead to serious problems. This whole
    discussion is a very good example of that. You have admitted, as any honest
    theist must, that theism is not arrived at by logic. Yet, when I mention
    that and point out an obvious consequence of that fact (that this acceptance
    of non-reason for guidance by the theist may have affected their judgement
    in other areas) it is taken as a heinous personal insult by both you and
    Cliff.
      It is much like my admitting that I am overweight and then taking offense
    at anyone who suggests that I eat too much. True, I might rightly think it
    rude of them to bring it up, but the suggestion remains valid just the same.
       See You Later,
          Dean H.

    Message: 65228
    Author: $ Roger Mann
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: hurt feelings
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 21:34:55

    Everyone has carte blanche to be as nasty as you want when you send
    me messages. I will not have hurt feelings ! I think everyone needs
    to stop being so so sensitive and just let loose. If I say something
    nasty, I expect the same from anyone else. I don't care if you call me
    a liberal, I won't get mad. I don't care if you call me a knee-jerk
    agnostic christian basher, I won't get mad. I don't care if you call
    me a gun-loving NRAt right-wing neanderthal, I won't get mad. You
    can call me a gun-hating ACLU-lover and I won't get mad. You can call
    me Jay, you can call me Ray, but you can't call me mad.

    Message: 65229
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Roger/Hurt feelings
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 21:43:24

    Re:  Everyone has carte blanche to be as nasty as you want when you send me
    messages.

            Well Roger,  I want to talk to you about your deodorant.......
    You need to use some!

                                    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SYSOP *=* (-;

    Message: 65230
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Get-Togethers (GTs)
    Subject: Gordon on Monday
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 21:50:43

            Week day nights are best for me too...as Weekends are so busy.
    However, anytime you wish to see it, give me a call.  There need not be a
    formal GT to view this movie.  This goes for anyone else...  Mike? Bob?

                            clif-

    Message: 65231
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Dean H on overweight
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 22:00:33

            Eating is not the only reason some people become overweight....
    However, just how do you suppose I arrived at my theism view?  My parents
    are athiests by the way.  I went to PUBLIC schools, and was NEVER forced to
    attend church.   Since I don't think on my own, I need help learning how I
    arrived at my beliefs.

            As I understand it, Lippard's parents are religious... so why is he
    an atheist?

                                    clif-  (Humph!)

    Message: 65232
    Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
    Category: Sex & Love
    Subject: Women
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 22:10:27

            I know better... Women in my mind are not just for Sex and house
    work.   How any man can think that is beyond me.  Sandy can do many things
    better then I can.  We are a TEAM, and work together.  We are equal, with no
    boss... (well, maybe Sandy has the edge here)

                            *=* the 'Housebroke' Apollo SysOp *=*

    Message: 65233
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Dean H.
    Date: 05/01/90  Time: 23:23:45

    No, you need to re-read message # 65069.
    You did *NOT* say what you claimed in your most recent post.. that
    you narrowed it down to the one part of theism...
    In message # 65069, you state: "I just take into account that the
    theist holds a large part of life apart from inquiry and modification.
    Many of them can still function fairly well, if they do a good job of
    restricting that uncritical habit of mind to as few areas of thought
    as possible."
    Now, your dance around the facts in your last post was cute, but no cigar.
    This is what was so incensing to begin with. It was like reading a passage
    right out of "Apartheid made easy".
    I was correct in stating you were assuming and generalizing that
    any theist *must* hold inquiry or reasoning apart from life.
    In your own words...a large part...in order to function fairly well...et al.
    My original point was to correct you that this does not apply to myself
    or many other Christian friends or theists that I know of.
    In my theism, much of what I learn requires a lot of thought and reasoning
    to interpret what the scriptures say. I don't learn on faith and I certainly
    don't need to keep reasoning apart from my faith.
    Where you fail to make the connection is not my duty to assist you in
    finding it. It becomes my duty when someone so blindly assumes anything
    about the way I think or act . Your defensive nature on this shows me
    you too can feel the same injust response when someone else assumes you
    are something you are not....

    Message: 65234
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Cliff on Lippard
    Date: 05/02/90  Time: 02:06:09

    Jim told me that he was raised as a Christian fundamentialist but during the
    Great Apollo Debates on Religion in 1984/85 he was convinced by the more
    logical side.

    Message: 65235
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 05/02/90  Time: 02:07:51

    I know that your suggested slogan for t-shirts will sell.  Would you accept
    an advance of $12?

    I think you earned it.

    Message: 65236
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Daryl/2768 Bytes
    Date: 05/02/90  Time: 02:09:50

          I really don't know how to begin this, there are so many ways.

          The majority of people are "joiners" in that they like to "go with
    the flow", feel secure and safe and have something "bigger" than themselves
    handle the main problems in their lives.

          We live in a fairly gruesome world and it isn't easy here during our
    stay.

          You have, what is called, a "god of convenience", meaning that even
    if you had been born and raised as an Iranian citizen you would go for the
    most promoted deity, Ali.  The vast majority do and it is natural.

    I learned a long time ago to be a fighter and to go it alone.  I have in my
    charge seven children with another due in a few months.  My father has been
    dead for many years and my mother has been dying for quite a few herself.
    I have no brothers and sisters to speak of, no family support.  I left home
    to be on my own when I was fifteen and kept it that way.

    The god you chose (and I understand you didn't really have a choice in the
    matter) should be investigated more carefully.  Any advertised god that
    excludes a large percentage of its creation from final reward, or any god
    who sets up ridiculous and petty rules should be put aside.

    "You can only gain eternal reward if you believe in my son" strikes of a
    con job on humanity.  If there were indeed a Satan then I suspect that he
    would set rules up like that.  If your deity is all knowing then it must
    have know from the very beginning that many of what it created would burn
    forever by its very rules.  Is this all-loving, Daryl?  Is it fair?

    No, it is not.

    Now I want to introduce you to a god I recently met.  His name is Carl.
    He claims that he created all living things as well as the earth, stars and
    other heavenly entities.  He wants his creations to be happy.  To him
    everything he made, all life, is absolutely equal.  He loves all that he
    made.  He did not make mistake one because he couldn't have, he is god. Carl
    has a beautiful wife and four lovely children, two boys, two girls. He keeps
    trying to tell the majority of people to "chill out" but very few will
    listen.  They just go around spouting things like: "My god is better than
    your god and I am going to heaven because it says so right here in this
    book.

    Carl has regular updates on his books, movies, plays, poems, and
    paintings.  Most all of his inspired works win awards plus the people who
    hear Carl win them also.  Carl is secular and he has a big sense of humor.
    In fact if you capitalize the word "he" when referring to him, he blushes.

    There is a special place for all living things in Carl's world because he
    made us all.  He is sad though because most people do not listen.  Shhhh.
    I think I hear him now........

                                            Rod

    $tatus Bulletin Board Entered: ER

    Message: 6412
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Rebuttal
    Subject: Evolution/Mike
    Date: 05/02/90  Time: 02:38:38

    Mike, I never said that "things" are supposed to get better but it would
    be nice if they did.  If people would get their heads out of their butt and
    start thinking for once in their life that THEY just might be able to make
    change.  Instead many people are waiting for their heavenly father to cause
    a nuclear war between the bear and eagle or some such bullcrap all in the
    name of fulfilling some ambiguous, outdated book.

    When people take responsibility for their own actions instead of thinking
    their own particular deity had a cause in it then this world will begin to
    make some needed progress.

    Until then just look for more of the same coming from our Christian
    politicians who go to church on Sunday and rape the people on Monday.

          Yours in brotherhood,  Rod

Content of this site is © Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.