### Apollo BBS Archive - August 1, 1991

    Mail from Melissa Dee
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 17:32:16

    A value judgement?  Oh, I get it...
    Did you catch his picture in the paper?  The one as Paul Ruebens?  The
    pointed beard made me think of you.  Hope you're not offended.
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:No, I am not offended.  I have exposed my pee-wee many a time.  I wise the
     2:fucking media would drop it and I wish the fucking court would find him
     3:innocent of playing with his dick.
     4:
     5:Taketh careth.
    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 7716
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: MJ
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 07:16:03

         First of all, I would like for you to justify your labelling Creation
    Research as "pseudoscience."  I believe that God can do whatever He wants,
    however He wanted.  I also believe that He recorded for us how He did what
    He did in the Scriptures, and that this record is reliable.
         As an atheist scientist has to try to connect the geologic and fossil
    records to fit his beliefs, so must a Christian scientist look at the fossil
    record in light of divine revelation to see how it fits.  And it DOES fit.
    Amazingly well.
         I believe that the theory of evolution is the biggest stumbling block
    for people accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ.  People need to know that
    it is just that, a theory, that it has never been proven, in fact it is
    riddled with unfilled holes, and is a belief system that must be held to by
    faith.

    Message: 7717
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 10:57:29

    I don't know what the BIGGEST barrier to people adopting Christianity is,
    but the theory of evolution has got to be much less of an obstacle than
    observations of some Christians trying desperately to reconcile the natural
    and the supernatural and spouting nonsense in the process.  I'd be much more
    open to someone saying up front that Christian beliefs transcend natural
    law.

    Do you actually know anyone who rejects Christianity because of the theory
    of evolution?  I don't.

    Message: 7718
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl/7711
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 13:23:03

    re: evolution not science, belief.
    No it is a science. It is falsifiable and in fact has changed since Darwin
    first proposed it (along with Wallace) Darwin theorized that in order to
    explain what he had observed as a biologist in the Galapagos islands there
    must be a way for species to change gradually from one form to another. He
    saw subtle differences between "varieties" of the species he observed on
    different islands in the Galapagos and the species on the mainland.

    I suggest that you read Darwin's theory of Natural Selection before you
    dismiss evolution as "belief." Evolution theory is dynamic and changing from
    year to year and decade to decade. That is how science works. Science never
    claims it has THE answer, just the most recent best guess. It feeds from
    observation and it's theories change accordingly.

    Creation Science never changes with new observations. When I grew up the age
    of the earth was assumed to be measured in millions of years. When
    discoveries were made to challenge this view, did Creation Science
    re-examine its "theory"? No, it dug deep ditches and high walls around its
    view of the universe --- driving away thoughtful folks from the Christian
    faith because of their insistence on an Inerrant Bible. So, C.S. is belief,
    not science and evolutionary theory is science not belief.

    Message: 7719
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Daryl Was (T)Here!
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 15:41:18

    > We cannot prove the earth is millions of years old because we
    > live in the present, not in the past.

    Then how can you be confident -- prove -- that Jesus existed?  You weren't
    there, were you?

    (Oops.  Forgot I was going to stay out of these pointless religious debates.
     Sorry.)

    Message: 7720
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Science
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 16:38:04

    Science starts with observed facts and attempts to deduce, or induce,
    consistent rules that relate those facts to one another.  Then it tests
    whether the hypothesized rules hold good for other sets of facts.  The
    longer the rules stand up to testing, the more confidence can be placed in
    them.  Eventually the confidence level can be very high.  Science allows us
    to make deductions about the age of the earth without having to actually be
    there millions of years ago.  When we sent spacecraft up to investigate the
    moon, we didn't have to worry that it might turn out to be a small lump of
    green cheese a few dozen miles up.  Science told us how big it was, and how
    far away, without having to be there with a tape measure.

    The age of the earth can't be measured as accurately, or with as much
    confidence; but science doesn't profess to deal in certainties all the time.
    Science deals in probabilities.  When a new theory starts looking a lot more
    probable than an old theory, science modifies or even discards the old
    theory in favor of the new.  This step is just as essential to science as
    formulating a theory in the first place.  Most people believed in a young
    earth initially.  Then science found that other theories were more probable.

    The object of science is to find which of many possible theories best fits
    the observed facts.  Attempting to verify a *particular* theory is only one
    step in the scientific method.  If the entire purpose of an activity is
    directed solely toward trying to prove one fixed, unchanging belief, then
    that activity in itself cannot truly be called a "science".

    Message: 7721
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: last
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 20:08:18

    "If the entire purpose of an activity is directed soley toward trying to
    prove one fixed, unchanging belief, then that activity in itself cannot
    truly be called a science.."

    Exactly why Evolution "scientists" cannot be taken seriously.

    All I have seen offered from the Atheist evolutionist belief camp is
    pure dogma wrapped in layers of thick, juicy predjudice and fat heads.
    No one can offer any shred of factual evidence to support belief in that
    theory. When someone who believes in God and takes his word from the bible
    offers a different view, they *are* offering evidence that pre-dates
    any such evolutionist bunk by thousands of years.
    All these things aside for the moment, you people are so blind to your
    own faults its amazing. You rant off in one direction lamenting about
    how wrong the bible supposedly is, yet can't see how your own stupid
    arguments can be equally applied to your own unfoundable beliefs.

    Again, I ask anyone to tell me why, that for so many people who don't
    believe anything about the bible or God, for those people to waste so
    much time trying to disprove something they don't believe in to start
    with.
    I think even in the dimmest of dungeons in the Atheist minds, some light
    of truth shines through and keeps them stirred into searching.
    Well, that's constructive at least.

    Message: 7722
    Author: $ Tom Slone
    Category: BEHOLD! .....
    Subject: 10th Year
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 21:23:15

            Tonight.... 7/31/91 is Apollo's start on its tenth year.

                            Tom R. Slone

    Message: 7723
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Last....
    Subject: Another milestone...
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 22:32:33

         Hello, Gordon Little
         Is your name correct:Yes

         Password:$$$$$$$$

         Caller # 162438 (24 today)
         It is now 07/31/91  22:26:28
         Last on @ 07/31/91  16:41:31
         Last message read was  (77281)
         Message range is (77031-77283)
         You have logged in 500 times

    By the way, how did you get the Category to say "BEHOLD! ....."?
    When I hit the letter B, all I got was "Believe it or not!"

    Message: 7724
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Last
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 23:19:42

    That's because you aren't an 11(?) year old computer with Sysop powers.

    Message: 7725
    Author: $ Dave Bolman
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Bible/Evolution
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 00:19:42

    I disagree that Christian's cannot believe in evolution and believe in the
    bible.  I have friends and relatives who are ministers and students in
    seminary who all believe in evolution and the teachings of the bible.  Their
    faiths run from the conservtive (American Baptist) to the liberal (United
    Methodist), and a common thread between them is the understanding (generally
    supported by their denomination of the Christian church) that the bible
    cannot be taken literally.  This understanding exists because the bible
    never stood as a finished example of 'God's Instruction Manual for
    Enlightenment', but instead as man's interpretation of the way of God
    through Christ and other old testament figures.  Taking the bible literally
    doesn't work because it has been in a process of change which continues to
    this day.  This change often reflects the current political and social
    position of the church from generation to generation and has resulted in the
    bible's editors adding, dropping and compiling material from this book on
    more than one occasion over the last several thousand years.  In addition to
    man changing the bible over 'worldly' motivations, there are the changes in
    the text that are a result in the signif. differences between its original
    languages and modern english.  The 'literal meanings of phrases become
    distorted as translators attempt to find matches between words which do not
    have direct counterparts (an example being 'it is more difficult to put a
    camel through the eye of a needle than to etc...' this saying is somewhat
    silly until you realize that the ancient word for 'rope' trnaslates most
    closely to our word 'needle'). An additional reason not to take the bible
    literally is understanding that at each line, a man made a translation decis
    The bible as we see it today comes from a long line of individuals and
    committees of individuals doing their best to describe their faith through
    the writings of earlier believers.  By reviewing theological writings, the
    impression I receive is that the Christian church today believes that the
    bible describes in parables and 'soft' historic terms God's relationship to
    man.

    Consequently, I don't believe there is any contradiction between Evolution
    and anyone's professed faith..nor do I believe that science inherently
    disproves God.  Most research done by scientists (who by and large are not
    aetheists) has lead to the realization that the more we scientifically
    analyze the universe the more amazing it is.. I have heard scientists
    frequently embrace their discoveries from quarks to newton as continually
    exposing, bit by bit God's machinations.

    I think that it is not impossible to view modern science as being its own
    extension to the bible.. The scriptures of Christiantity, Judaism, Moslim,
    Buddhist and other faiths comes from translations of ancient writings.
    These writings were done at a time when man's needs did not extend much
    beyond his/her need to survive, interact socially and to contemplate his/her
    own mortality.  This didn't leave much room for how it all worked.  It may
    be a testimonial to the advancement of our species that we now know so much
    about our world, and inherently the God that built it.

    Message: 7727
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Creation
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 02:23:59

     MC>>I ask anyone to tell me why, that for so many people who don't
     MC>>believe anything about the bible or God, for those people to waste so
     MC>>much time trying to disprove something they don't believe in to start
     MC>>with.

    All right, let me have a go.  I think there are two important misconceptions
    in this statement.

    First of all, there's an assumption that the motivation behind evolutionary
    theory is solely to discredit the story told in the Bible.  That just isn't
    true.

     MC>>I think even in the dimmest of dungeons in the Atheist minds, some
     MC>>light of truth shines through and keeps them stirred into searching.

    This on the other hand is *very* true.  Man has an *urge* to know the truth.
    He searches constantly for truths, be they spiritual or scientific ones.
    And it doesn't matter whether the person is a Christian or an atheist.

    Science doesn't only investigate the possibilities of evolution; it explores
    everything under the sun, and far beyond it as well.  Everything from the
    tiniest submolecular particles to the vastness of the cosmos.  Nothing is
    beyond the bounds of human curiosity and the drive to understand, and to
    *know*.

    Why should this be so?  Because knowledge is power.  Knowledge can be
    applied to conquer the physical environment, to make life better by getting
    the material things that we need.  In short, knowledge leads to survival;
    ignorance, to death.

    People don't often think about this when they search for knowledge.  The
    need to understand is not a chosen course of action, but an innate instinct.
    Children have it.  Nobody tells them to ask questions.  They ask their
    questions anyway.  If we ask why the "need to know" is an innate instinct in
    humans, the answer is that the question is upside-down.  Rather, we should
    ask why those humans with the instinct for knowledge survived, while those
    who lacked such an instinct did not.  Then the answer is obvious, and
    extremely logical.  We call it "natural selection".  But perhaps that's a
    bit too close to "evolutionary theory" for some people to swallow.

    And in the field of knowledge, what is more important than knowing where we
    ourselves came from?  "The proper study of mankind is Man", as Alexander
    Pope said.  We are instinctively obsessed with knowing our origins.  The
    question has a profound emotional significance.  Most people are fascinated
    if they can learn who their ancestors were, how far back they can trace
    their genealogy.  Most Americans are intrigued to find out what life was
    like in "the old country".  And if we look at adopted children or others who
    lack knowledge of who their mother or their father was, we usually see a
    driving obsession to find this knowledge.  Roots are important.

    The reason the theory of evolution is so widely subscribed to today is not
    that anybody wants to destroy the credibility of the Bible out of spite.  It
    is simply that nobody has yet found anything more logical.

    Evolution is not the only theory of the origin of life that has been
    explored.  Another one is "abiogenesis", or the spontaneous generation of
    life.  Before the microscope was invented, it was not possible to see the
    tiny cells that gave rise to living organisms.  Naked-eye observation
    yielded only the impression that life popped out of nowhere.  People
    believed that mud generated frogs; that rotten meat generated maggots; even
    that cheese generated mice.  Heaven knows, we've got so many toads jumping
    around outside that if I didn't know any better, I myself could swear they
    were spontaneously generated by lawn sprinklers.  Aristotle believed in
    spontaneous generation.  So in all probability did William Harvey, who
    discovered the circulation of the blood as late as the turn of the 17th
    century.

    Whatever the arguments for creation, the fact remains that nobody has ever
    *seen* creation happen.  We have an account written down in a book called
    the Bible, but then a great deal of what is in the Bible conflicts with
    observed facts today.  And it even conflicts with itself in places.  Man has
    a need to resolve these conflicts.

    Furthermore, we know that Church dogma has been proven wrong before.  It's
    only a few hundred years since Galileo and others were being persecuted for
    trying to assert what everyone today admits to be the truth: that the Earth
    goes round the Sun, instead of the other way around, as the Church insisted.

    It's hardly surprising that we have great difficulty in *proving*
    evolutionary theory beyond a doubt, when you consider how rare it is to find
    the remains of creatures millions of years old.  But we can actually
    demonstrate natural (or artificial) selection in action.  Ask any animal
    breeder.  That's a lot more than we can say for creation.

    In the meantime, I personally don't have any problem with people *trying* to
    prove creation, or a young Earth.  Whatever they do, they're bound to dig up
    useful information one way or the other.  It's extremely valuable to science
    to have people banging the walls.

    The second very important misconception is to assume that evolutionists
    "don't believe anything about the Bible, or God".  This is far from true.
    Some evolutionists are atheists.  Some are Christians.  Some are Buddhists
    or Jews or Hindus.  Some are just agnostic.  It doesn't follow that they
    don't believe anything about God, just because they don't take every single
    word in the Bible literally.

    Let's start with the assumption that the writing of the Bible was "inspired
    by God".  That's an assumption that's pretty hard to disprove, when the
    whole book starts with the words "In the beginning, GOD..."  Let's also
    assume for the sake of argument that the whole cosmos is maybe ten or
    fifteen billion years old, and the Earth is five, and life evolved and so
    forth.  What did people know of these things three or four thousand years
    ago when they started trying to write the Bible?  They probably couldn't
    count beyond a few thousand or so, if that.  (Some primitive people can't
    even count beyond five.  After that they just say "many".)  So how could
    they possible conceive of the processes involved in forming the Earth or
    creating life?  But they were moved to write *something* down to glorify
    God, so they just made the best stab at it that they could.  It was probably
    the result of sitting around for years and contemplating the myths and
    legends that were passed down to them by their ancestors, and trying to
    figure out exactly how God fits into it all, knowing that He did somehow.
    In the end they passed down two slightly different creation stories to us in
    Genesis, edited to make them fit together.  But they didn't *know* for sure.

    If I were God, would I waste my time piling up great mountains and carving
    canyons with my own hands?  Would I take the time to create a million
    different species of animals individually?  And make a great universe with
    trillions of stars one at a time?  Or would I just invent some laws of
    physics and let the rest of creation take care of itself?  That would be
    more interesting, and a lot smarter too.  Surely God must be smart.

    The original writers must have spent lots of time thinking, and humbly
    scratching their heads trying to figure out exactly how God must have done
    it all.  They would probably regard it as time well spent meditating upon
    the ways of God.  They would recognize their own limitations, which were
    limitations of knowledge and discovery.  At the same time, they would
    probably have hope, and faith, that generations of people who came after
    them would add their own thoughts and discoveries, swell the store of
    knowledge, and bring the human race a little closer to a true understanding
    of how God works.

    They would have been horrified to see, two or three thousand years later,
    that part of the process had ground to a halt.  That people would say to
    others, in effect, "yes, God gave you a brain, and you can use it for
    anything you want *except* figuring out anything about God for yourself.
    We're freezing all knowledge about creation the way it was thousands of
    years ago."  I expect those original writers would feel a terrible burden
    placed upon them if they could have foreseen that the best they could come
    up with about creation would be the state of the art for several millennia.

    But they would have been encouraged by Einstein, whose theories seemed to
    turn the universe inside out.  Paraphrasing from memory, I recall he was
    once asked if his work hadn't changed everything so radically as to call the
    very existence of God into question.  "No," he said.  "It's the fact that
    there's *something* out there,.where by rights there ought to be nothing..."

    Message: 7733
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Believe it or not!
    Subject: Tom's 10th year!
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 05:48:06

    Happy birthday Tom!

    Message: 7734
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Michael
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 07:06:13

      "Christian beliefs transcend natural law"...
    Now that is an interesting thought.
    I'm just now joining this debate, but I'll add this thought. Moses (the
    author of Genesis) wasn't around to report on the creation: Anything he knew
    about it came by revelation from God. Since then, there has (to my
    knowledge) been no significant addition: all the speculation here has
    been based on one (or two) chaapters of the Bible. Science has done most of
    the digging, and what it presents sometimes agrees, sometimes conflicts with
    what we infer from scripture. My own opinion is that there is not enough
    information, either from science or from scripture, to conclusively prove or
    disprove either account of creation.

    Message: 7735
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Abigenesis
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 08:02:17

    Sign me up!  If it was good enough for William Harvey, it is good enough for
    me.  He is a relative, you know.

    Message: 7736
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl on duping
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 08:49:01

    You say I've been duped by believing in evolution. Well, I say you have been
    totally, ridiculously brainwashed with this theory of yours - no doubt
    written by someone that just can except facts that go against their
    religion! Thanks, but no thanks. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    I find that you have a lot of nerve talking about me excepting evolution on
    faith alone when you have done that very same thing with your religion and
    you don't make as much sense!! Sorry Daryl! I don't agree with this one!

    Message: 7737
    Author: $ Dave Bolman
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Adage Correction
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 10:59:01

    A few notes back I used "..putting a camel through the eye of a needle.." as
    an example of how translations can dramatically alter the meanings of
    phrases.  Unfortunately, I was a bit tired when I wrote it and got some of
    the facts flipped about. It's not that the modern 'needle' is the
    translation for rope..oops.. The ancient arabic word for 'knot' translates
    closely to our word for 'camel'.  Consequently, the original arabic phrase
    was something like '..it is easier to get a knot through the eye of a needle
    than to..etc'.  This makes much more sense than putting a 'camel through the
    eye of a needle.

    Message: 7738
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Dave/Adage
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 11:55:48

    I had heard that the
    "eye of a needle" was a name for one of the small gates in Jerusalem. And it
    was impossible to get a camel through that gate. I heard this in church from
    a born-again minister so it MUST be true.

    Message: 7739
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Michael James
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 12:12:35

        I believe that God does transcend natural law, because He created the
    world, but He is not subjected to it.  However, the Apostle Paul wrote in
    his Epistle to the Romans that, "For since the creation of the world God's
    invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been
    clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are
    without excuse." (1:20, NIV)
        '...[C]learly seen, being understood from what has been made...'  I
    think this is evidence enough that if a Christian is to be taken seriously,
    he should be able to show from God's earth, that there is evidence in
    abundance to prove that the theory of a world evolving entirely by chance is
    ludicrous.  (Of course, the evidence of creation is an incomplete testimony
    of God in the sense that it in no way can witness to the individual the
    gospel of Jesus Christ.)
        I do not know of anyone who was explicitly said to me that they cannot
    believe in Christianity because they believe that the theory of evolution is
    true and reliable, but I know a lot of people that have implied it.  I also
    know of others that have ridiculed MY belief because of the theory of
    evolution.  How can someone take God seriously if God says "six days" and
    scientists say "millions of years?"

    Message: 7740
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Green Lantern
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 12:22:42

        So, evolution is science because its views always change?  Sounds more
    like a belief system without a solid foundation.

        When Darwin went to the Galapagos, what did he find?  Big finches and
    little finches with big beaks and little beaks.  What do you find if you go
    there now?  Big finches and little finches with big beaks and little beaks.
    Creation scientists believe in natural selection, however they do not see it
    as one species evolving or changing into another.  Natural selection occurs
    when interbreeding within a particular kind brings out recessive genes
    within that kind, creating different varieties OF that kind.  Now, if there
    light and dark birds that migrate to an arctic region, what is going to
    happen?  The darker colored birds are going to be more visible to other
    creatures of prey while the lighter varieties are going to be better hidden
    among their white surroundings.  Conversely, light and dark birds in, say,
    Africa.  The lighter variety birds, and those varieties that do not blend in
    with the scenery are going to be at a higher risk of being some animal's
    evening meal.  There's no evolution in that.

    "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially to the
    extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the
    history books of the future.  Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and
    dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that
    it has."   - Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher),
    Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario Canada.

    Message: 7741
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Bill Burkett
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 12:23:38

        One can prove that Jesus lived here on earth because of witnesses, both
    Christian and non-Christian, of that time that attest to his existence.

    Message: 7742
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Gordon / Dating
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 12:28:19

    "It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint
    geologists are here arguing in a circle.  The succession of organisms has
    been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the
    relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that
    they contain." - R.H. Rastall (Lecturer in Economic Geology, Cambridge
    University), Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1956, vol. 10, p. 168

    And they accuse Christians of circular reasoning.

    "And this poses something of a problem:  if we date the rocks by their
    fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary
    change through time in the fossil record?" - Niles Eldredge (American Museum
    of Natural History, New York) in "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian
    Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon and Schuster, New
    York, 1985.

    Message: 7743
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Dave Bolman
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 12:34:50

        Then how can one who claims to be a 'Christian evolutionist' take any
    doctrine of Scripture seriously?  Every chief teaching of the Bible has it's
    origin in Genesis.

        I find it interesting that those that lived and walked and talked with
    Jesus could take the Scriptures literally and seriously, but we, who live
    2000 years later and have not [yet] seen Him, are willing to discard it as
    so much rubbish.  Nay, where does the basis for the Christian belief exist
    at all?  If one is so willing to cast aside the truthfulness of Scripture,
    how can one such even have any solid faith in Christ, or God at all?  After
    all, if the Bible is the sole source of all teaching on the person and work
    of Christ, one's beliefs must have a foundation in Scripture.  Anything else
    and that person's faith is based upon something that he cannot place his
    trust in.

    Message: 7744
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: daryl/science
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 18:54:14

     That's nonsense.... Evolution is most certainly science.  Your just too
    narrow minded to see that this planet evolued over millions of years and
    continues to do so.....  Tell me something.  If God just created earth, 1)
    where did God come from and 2) where did the materials to make the earth
    orginate?  There has to be some starting point, nothing just pops into
    existance....

    Message: 7745
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Carter/ Bibble
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 19:10:25

     Seems to me that the majority of so called Christains here fit your
    description of atheists also.  As many Christains are as fat headed and just
    as preduiced if not more so.  What is the Bible anyway?  Nothing more than a
    record written by HUMANS.  And as such is subject to error and
    misinterpretation as anything else....
      How do you explain other religions, some that are hundreds, if not
    thousands of yrs older than Christainity?  I.E. the Moslum religion, Buddism
    of the orient, etc., etc.,etc.  They are just as valid as anything else. I
    get so sick and tired of hearing how God, Christ and the Chruch is all good,
    loving and caring.....Ever hear of the Crusades?  Who lead them?  The Chruch
    and for what?  It was  a HOLY war.  One religion against another. And then
    we have the Spanish inquistion.... Another lovely episode in HUMAN history.
    And why does god, in his loving, caring manner allow the creation of such
    things as the atom and hydrogen bombs? Not 1 but 2 world wars, Momsters like
    Adolf Hitler and communism to come into existance????????  And then there
    are all the deases and cancers........ Death and destruction in it's many
    forms....  Some kind of god.....

    Message: 7746
    Author: $ Wild Barbarian
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Daryl/dating
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 19:13:54

     But there are new tech now used for dating ancient remains....Ever hear of
    Carbon 21(?) dating???????  It is VERY accurate and reliable.... Takes
    dating out of the realm of circular argueing....

    Message: 7747
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Wild Barbarian
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 19:21:49

         I'm "too narrow minded to see that this planet evolued[sic] over
    millions of years and continues to do so"?  Ok, I'll tell you what.  Give me
    one FACT...ONE fact...that PROVES that the world evolved over millions of
    years.  That's all, just one verifiable fact that the earth evolved over
    millions of years. Give me your best shot.  I'm more than willing to read
    your one unquestionable fact.

    "There has to be some starting point, nothing just pops into existance..."

    You are contradicting yourself.  First you say that everything has to have a
    starting point, and then you say that nothing can just 'start.'  What is
    your evidence for stating with such confidence that the universe could not
    have come into existance instantaneously?

    Where did God come from?  Look up the answer in His Book.  Psalms 135:13,
    Psalms 145:13, Revelation 1:8.  God is eternal.  How?  That I cannot answer
    since knowing everything possible ABOUT God would require one to BE God.
    God created the universe, but He is not subject to it.  God does not change
    because change as we know it is limited to what we know based upon God's
    creation.  God is not a part of creation.  He is present with His creation,
    but not a part of it.  Thus, change as we understand it based upon the world
    and universe around us, does not affect God or His nature.

    Message: 7749
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Carbon-14
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 20:30:48

        "Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered
    foundation, and now lurches onward with feigned consistency.  The
    implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14
    levels are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the
    dates.
        "The early authorities began the charade by stressing that they 'were
    not aware of a single significant disagreement' on any sample that had been
    dated at different labs.  Such enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible
    though it may seem, that 'no gross discrepancies are apparent.'  Surely
    15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a GROSS
    discrepancy!  And how could the excessive disagreement between the labs be
    called insignificant, when it has been the basis for the reappraisal of the
    standard error associated with each and every date in existence?
        "Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on
    costly radiocarbon determinations?  They do so because occasional dates
    APPEAR to be useful.  While the method cannot be counted on to give good,
    unequivocal results, the numbers do impress people, and save them the
    trouble of thinking excessively.  Expressed in what LOOK like precise
    calendar years, figures SEEM somehow better - both to layman and
    professional not versed in statistics - than complex stratigraphic or
    cultural correlations, and are more easily retained in one's memory.
    "Absolute" dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are
    extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments..."

        "No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still
    not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results.  There ARE gross
    discrepancies, the chronology is UNEVEN and RELATIVE, and the accepted dates
    are actually SELECTED dates.
        "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it
    all depends upon which funny paper you read."  - Robert E. Lee,
    "Radiocarbon: ages in error" - Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol 19(3),
    1981, pp. 9-29.

    Message: 7751
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl/fossils
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 22:45:10

      When you say that rocks are dated by the carbon dating of fossils and
    fossils are dated by the rocks they are found in, and that this is a
    circular argument, you would seem to be twisting things a bit to suit your
    own purposes. If a particular strata of rock's age can be estimated from its
    depth and the patterns of strata above it, and the fossils in that rock are
    carbon dated, then the ages of the two materials are not arrived at by
    circular means. You can question the accuracy of either or both methods, but
    they are not interdependent{
      See You later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 7752
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: last
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 04:58:55

    The whole key to your refutal is based upon wholly accepted conjecture.
    The theory that rock strata define age isn't held as factual any more.
    There's too many instances where (A) The scientists found their dating
    methods actually showed a younger age as they went down, and (B)
    the deepest strata often resembles the strata near the surface in both
    biological content and "patterns".
    Your argument that both methods are exclusive from each other is only
    half true; they are different methods, both, however, are far too
    erroneous to be taken factually as you want us to.

    Message: 7753
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Wild Barb
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 05:03:40

    "Nothing just pops into existence.."

    Oh really? Neet concept. Now, please justify your own belief in
    "evolution" an dthe ":Big Bang Theory" which you seem to subscribe to.
    Just where did all this matter evolve from?
    Where's all the dust the big bang came out of and what made a "bang?"
    The atoms that connect your body into existence, where did they
    appear from?
    Remember your scientific laws when answering; "Matter can neither be
    created nor destroyed.."
    A contradiction in itself, but the physical laws by which all physical
    things are bound to cannot seemingly transgress them.

    Look around you. You try to tell me this all popped out of nothing,
    and then say it can't. Therefore it musn't be.

    Message: 7754
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Annie
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 05:56:54

     Not trying to be critical here, dear, but for your own information, please
    check your Webster's or Funk & Wagnall's or whatever, and learn the
    difference between "except" and "accept". Thanks. Love ya!

    Message: 7755
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Big Bang
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 07:27:18

    Well, clearly all of the *matter* and *energy* in the universe have been
    around forever, they just changed form at the big bang.

    If God is eternal, how long did it take him to *think up* our world?  Quite
    a twisted mind that guy has.

    Message: 7756
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Wild #7745
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 09:43:21

    Bravo! Hoorah! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7757
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl on carbon
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 09:45:37

    But even if Radiocarbon testing is millions and millions of years off - in
    error, that would still put the earth older than 8,000 years Daryl!
                              *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7758
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Pauley on my ...
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 09:48:34

    ... spelling! Thanks! we need a breather now and then don't we?

    Sorry about my 'except' instead of 'accept'! This dang Turbo Lightening just
    isn't doing it's job! :)  *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7759
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Daryl/dating
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 09:56:59

      >> "It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint
      >> geologists are here arguing in a circle.  The succession of organisms
      >> has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks,
      >> and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of
      >> organisms that they contain." - R.H. Rastall...  1956...

    If Dr. Rastall really thought this and wasn't being quoted out of context,
    then his definition of "philosophy" must be an extremely narrow one that
    excludes even the smallest vestige of elementary mathematics or probability.
    In this passage he failed to mention one crucial point.  The basis of
    relative dating is easy for anyone to understand.

    Suppose we take several hundred decks of cards, all arranged in sequence.
    Every card represents a rock layer that was laid down at some particular
    point in history.  Cut each deck into several smaller stacks with sizes
    varying from a dozen or so down to one single card.  This represents the
    fact that most areas have rock layers laid down only from certain periods in
    history, not from Earth's entire geologic history.  Pull some cards out here
    and there to represent rock layers that never got laid down in certain
    areas, layers that got eroded away and so forth.  Strew the stacks over the
    floor.  Then kick them around a few times with your feet to imitate the
    results of geologic upheavals.  If you now get down and look at the cards on
    the floor, you will find in general that they're in a muddle.

    But if you carefully record the sequences of all the cards that are lying on
    top of one another, you will find that certain patterns keep cropping up
    again and again, far more than others do.  If you keep finding 2-3-4-5-6,
    4-5-6-7, 6-7-8-9, 5-6-7 of spades over and over again, you can reasonably
    assume that 5-6-7 was the original order of those cards.  Sometimes you may
    find 7-6-5, but you can then infer that the order was simply inverted by
    flipping over with your toe (folding action in the earth's crust).  You will
    also sometimes find 6-10 or 7-2-K, or hearts and clubs together, but *not*
    often enough to be a pattern.  You can then infer that the natural order of
    these cards has been disturbed.  If you analyze the sequence of all the
    cards, you can reconstruct the original order of the entire deck with a high
    level of confidence.

    If you find the Queen of Spades by herself at some point in this mess, you
    can assign her a place in the sequence based on the *other* places you have
    repeatedly found her sandwiched by the same cards (the Jack and the King).
    It's true that we determine "the relative ages of the rocks...  by the
    remains of organisms that they contain", a natural way of dating rocks that
    have been "shuffled".  But the original sequence was not *only* based on "a
    study of their remains embedded in the rocks" in isolation, as Dr. Rastall's
    passage seems to suggest.  It was based on the study of these remains, plus
    the physical *relationship* of those remains to the other remains in the
    layers lying adjacent to them.  It is *not* "circular reasoning".  This is
    the vital point missing from the passage.

    Besides, plenty of other evidence bears out the results of relative dating.
    Even by studying the fossils in isolation, it's easy enough to see that a
    trilobite is a lot more primitive than a dinosaur.

    Dr. Rastall was writing over a third of a century ago, which is quite a long
    time in science.  Many refinements have taken place in dating of rocks since
    the mid-fifties.  The overwhelming result has not moved us any closer to the
    idea of a 6,000-year-old Earth.  Rather, it has confirmed the opposite.

    No, we weren't around millions of years ago, but we can measure the rates at
    which processes like erosion and depositing of sediment take place in the
    present.  Extrapolating backward in time, even the crudest and most
    conservative estimates for the time taken by these processes are in millions
    of years.  Assuming that such processes occurred several *thousand* times
    faster in the past than they do today is just plain unreasonable.

    Science, as I said before, usually deals in probabilities rather than
    certainties.  The probability of being right increases with the margin of
    error we allow.  If we said that some rock layer is 60-62 million years old,
    we might have a 20% chance of being wrong.  But if we said it was 40-85
    million years old, the chance of being wrong might be only 1%.  The chance
    of it being only 6,000 years old is infinitesimal.  It's always possible to
    find an anomaly here and there in support of an opposite view, but only by
    being very selective and ignoring the overwhelming mass of other evidence.

    Message: 7762
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Debate / dispute
    Subject: Mike/strata
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 12:57:59

     MC>>The theory that rock strata define age isn't held as factual any more.
     MC>>There's too many instances where (A) The scientists found their dating
     MC>>methods actually showed a younger age as they went down, and (B)
     MC>>the deepest strata often resembles the strata near the surface in both
     MC>>biological content and "patterns".

    This is easily accounted for, Mike; in fact, we would *expect* it to happen.
    Try laying a piece of cloth on a flat surface, place your hands down flat on
    either side and move them together.  The cloth gets crumpled and folded.
    When two plates in the earth's crust are driven together, the rock layers
    between them are forced to fold and rear upward to form mountains.  If
    they're forced up far enough, the mountains will be too high and steep to
    stay stable and they'll topple over to one side or the other.  Hey presto!
    the rock strata on the underside of the fold will be upside down.  Then if
    the "right way up" strata on top are eroded away, the ones underneath will
    be left, with the oldest at the top and the youngest at the bottom.  Also,
    individual strata (and the fossils they contain, if any) will be repeated.

    So you can't drill a core at random in the earth's surface and say that the
    rocks on top will always be younger and the ones underneath will always be
    older.  They might not be.  But *usually* they will be.  Lots of geological
    disturbance has gone on to mess up the neat layers, so you have to correlate
    the pattern of findings for the earth as a whole to figure out what the real
    order was.  When you do that, a far more consistent sequence will emerge.

    Message: 7763
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 12:58:50

     DW>>One can prove that Jesus lived here on earth because of witnesses, both
     DW>>Christian and non-Christian, of that time that attest to his existence.

    There was a time in the last century when a number of historians started to
    question and examine whether Jesus existed or not.  But few serious scholars
    today doubt that Jesus existed.  They found too much evidence that he did.

    Message: 7764
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Mike C/rocks
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 16:30:38

      I don't follow when you say, "Your argument that both methods (carbon
    dating of fossils and dating of rock layers by position) are exclusive from
    each other is only half true; they are different methods, both, however, are
    far too erroneous to be taken factually as you want us to." All I said was
    that they were not interdependent on each other and that Daryl was wrong to
    call their use a 'circular argument'. I did not make any claims of validity
    for either method, and I think their independence from each other would be
    true regardless of their accuracy, rather than half true.
      I don't know enough about carbon dating to put a great deal of store in
    it, but I do know that there is validity in the idea that the earth's crust
    can be studied and the approximate age of various formations determined.
      See You later,
        Dean H.

    Message: 7765
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: 'age of earth'
    Date: 08/03/91  Time: 00:08:41

    What difference does it make how many times this planet, or any other
    planet, has gone around its center star???

    But to think that 6000 times ago of this planets revolution about its sun
    was, according to some fanatics, the very beginning of itself is ridiculous.

    Six thousand times in eternity isn't even a dash and neither is 6 trillion
    times although this planet isn't that experienced and probably won't be, at
    least not in its present shape and size.

    It is a good thing that Daryl does not have the power of the Inquisition
    otherwise Paul Savage would only be under house arrest and Dean, Gordon, Dog
    and I would most certainly be long dead.

    Message: 7766
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Camel through needle
    Date: 08/03/91  Time: 00:14:48

    I once put a Camel through the eye of a needle, one puff at a time.

    Message: 7767
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Wild Barb. religion
    Date: 08/03/91  Time: 00:22:05

    That was a well written and thoughful message you wrote to Daryl on
    religion.  You hit many a nail on the head.  Welcome to the light.

    My only disagreement is when you mentioned the existence of communism and
    compared it to a monster.  Communism has not, to my knowledge, ever existed
    in large quanties, not more than perhaps a few people.  If you are referring
    to that thing in Russia that was called Communism then that's different.
    That was just the ruling class ruling the working class just as it is here
    and most other places.

    Message: 7768
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: related to W. Harvey
    Date: 08/03/91  Time: 00:56:36

    Funny, so am I.

    Message: 7769
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Rebuttal
    Subject: Daryl/Darwin
    Date: 08/03/91  Time: 01:01:58

    Darwin did not say that man decended from apes.

    X-Rated Cosmos Bulletin Board command:$C

    Message: 4946
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: $#!+
    Subject: Dee
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 20:12:02

    You ask why parents, teachers, business owners, large corporate
    enterprises would pull the videos from a man who was caught
    indecently exposing himself in public?

    I suppose you would support selling dog-fucking videos and
    blow-jobs by billy goats to kids under 7 as well.

    Then you turn around and ask why there is so much violence
    and crime in this society.

    Well, we know you failed math, because you can't add 2 + 2.

    Message: 4947
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Jokes & Ha Ha's
    Subject: The Candy Bar Story
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 04:46:07

            One day MR. PEANUT wanted a BIT O'HONEY, so he took MARY JANE behind
    the POWERHOUSE on the corner of CLARK & FIFTH AVENUE.  He began to feel her
    MOUNDS.  That was pure ALMOND JOY.  It made her TOOTSIE ROLL.  He let out a
    SNICKER.  She screamed OH HENRY as she squeezed his ZAGNUTS.  MARY JANE said
    "You are even better than the THREE MUSKETEERS".
            Soon she was a bit CHUNKY and nine months later she had BABY RUTH.

    Note:  I will never feel quite the same eating a candy bar... sigh!

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

    Message: 4948
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: 2+2
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 08:03:57

    I'll join Mike in an effort to ban all of those confections.  After all, I
    *can* add.

    Message: 4949
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Mike Carter
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 09:31:13

    Billy goats give blow jobs?  Where can I sign up?

    Message: 4950
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Mike C, the "man"
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 18:03:27

    Gee, what an unemotional and logic response...

    So, if you masterbate to a porno flick in you own home, that's ok but
    because you go see one in public and get caught exposing yourself, then you
    are ranked up there with rapist and killers?  Makes sence to me.  I'm not
    saying what he did wasnt inappropriate.  I think it was.  But it's too bad
    everyone is going to think he is some sex crazy weirdo.  His acting (before
    the Pee Wee character) and the good shows he's put out for kids will be
    banished now and that is what I think is sad.  Unless, he is found to have
    been unappropriate with kids, in which case I'll be really pissed.
    Why can't people seperate sex and lives instead of always thinking one's
    sexlife describes the person?  Like all homosexuals are a certain way
    outside of sex, for instance.  All heterosexuals aren't the same.  All
    molesters don't work in the same sort of jobs.  All priests aren't always
    celebate, especially with young boys.

    Message: 4951
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Quickie
    Subject: Welcome, Thad
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 18:12:32

    The room is dark, minus the green glow from the ceiling fan, from the
    plastic "star" I brought from my old apartment, and the blue neon shine from
    your digital clock. Today reached 110 degrees and the summer air is still
    over the century mark.  The overhead fan sounds its constant rythum. Thurm
    thrum thrum thrum.... My body feels tired, but electric, the heat of the
    night warming me.  The fan's light breeze tickling the hairs on my skin.
            You move closer to me and kiss my cheek goodnight.    I turn my head
    and catch your lips with my tongue.   A french kiss has become the ritual
    for me saying yes.  I hope it can now work as a catylist, too.
    Understanding my plea, you move your mouth over mine and pull me in closer,
    pressing your growing desire into my hip.  I drop my hand below your ribs,
    smoothing my way down to reach your hardness.  It throbs and jumps up into
    my hand, as if it knows its place.  I glide my hand over your smooth,
    stretched skin.  You breathe in sharply then, with short gasps, like the way
    a baby breathes after crying.
    You roll us over and face me.  I take this time to wet my hand from between
    my legs and slip it over your smooth head.  You drop down to kiss me
    inbetween moans. Your hot mouth begins to take in new territory as it picks
    my mouth, then my cheek, then my throat, then my
    ears.  I feel your warm words tickle inside, leaving me with goose bumps
    down that one leg. You found out about this secret quickly, after our second
    time making love. The bumps remind me of the times I would come when I was
    little.  I was just learning about my body and what it would do if I ran
    water over my "privates" in the tub.  I'm sure I came but I can't ever
    remember there being a climax.  I would just feel good, and better, and
    better and then getting goosebumps and having my nipples tighten.  Then it
    wouldn't feel as good anymore.  I would slide back from the faucet, cross my
    arms over my developing breasts, and breathe...

    Anyway, that is sample for any new users or old ones that have forgotten my
    tastes, so to say.
    As for the cart pulling the horse, as Gordon said on the public board:
    It's not like there are porn pusher out there.  You have to go out and find
    it, buy it (at very expensive prices, usually) and find the time to view it.
    I would definitely say that the ideation comes first.

    Message: 4954
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Cosmos-Chatter
    Subject: Dogs
    Date: 08/03/91  Time: 00:31:11

    Did someone mention they knew where to get a dog fucking video?  I have
    dyslexia and any information would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

    Public Bulletin Board command:

    Message: 77270
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Daryl
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 05:22:16

     There's just one small correction I would like to make concerning your post
    to Ann.
     You stated that people leave the faith because "they don'T get their
    questions answered". I propose that God will ALWAYS have an answer for every
    question. People leave the faith because they didn't get the answer they
    wanted to hear, the expedient answer that caters to their carnal appetites.
     Other than that, Amen!

    Message: 77271
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Melissa
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 05:30:32

    Where you been for a week? Getting ready for your big day?
     Anyway, for your information, I don't have a big red stamp marked "SEX",
    and try to look at all material witha more or less open mind. (None of us
    have a really open mind in the eyes of all, do we?)
     The pornography to which I was referring was the kind found in sleazy
    movies, etc. that depicts women as nothing more than sex toys, created for
    the sexual gratification of the male. THe whole scene concentrates on and
    climaxes in the ultimate moment of male satisfaction. In my opinion, such
    stories, whether on paper or screen, are degrading and humiliating to women.
    Are you willing to sacrifice your mind, your thoughts, your opinions,
    everything you stand for, on the altar of some man's sexual fulfillment?
    Think about it, Melissa. You, too, Ann.

    Message: 77272
    Author: Thad Coons
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Peter/Porn
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 06:13:37

     I am an omnivorous reader, and the reason I know as much as I do about porn
    is because I got 'caught' by it as a teenager. Personal experience: when I
    claim it is addicting, digusting, perverting, etc., I know what I am talking
    about. It took a long and hard fight to break away from it, and there are
    quite a few people who don't even try. It may not have the same effect on
    all other people, but it does on some.

    Message: 77273
    Author: Thad Coons
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Christians
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 06:30:08

    Seven or eight definitions of a Christian:
     1) Anyone who professes a belief in Jesus Christ.
     2) Anyone who belongs to a 'christian' denomination.
     3) Anyone who belongs to a certain group of Christian Churches
        (excluding sects, cults, schismatics, apostates, and the like)
     4) Anyone who belongs to The True Christian Church (yours, of course)
     5) Anyone who has been 'born again'
     6) Anyone who accepts the New Testament as inspired (somehow) by God
     7) Anyone who obeys or tries to obey the teachings of Jesus Christ.
     8) Any combination of the above.

    The definition of Christian may thus variously include anyone from the full
    range of murderers, warmongers, pimps and prostitutes, liars, theives, and
    various and sundry rascals, scoundrels, and crooks, to the few exemplary
    people of your personal accquaintance. Rod seens to mean 1 or 2; Paul seems
    to mean 3 and 7, for instance, although I am not sure he recognizes the
    distinction among these various definitions.

    Message: 77274
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paul / Answers
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 07:24:09

         I agree that God has an answer for every question for those that seek
    Him with a sincere heart.  What I mean to say is that those who sought Him
    in such manner did not get answers because those that they came in contact
    with were not prepared to give those answers.  I have had that problem with
    pastors, as well.

         I also agree with you that don't accept the answers given them because
    they are not the answers that they wanted to hear.  Unfortunately, there are
    "churches" out there now that will give them what their itching ears want to
    hear.  Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised because such apostasy is
    prophesied in Scripture.

    Message: 77275
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Thad on Porn
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 07:27:09

         Do not feel bad in that respect.  I was caught in an addiction to
    pornography for about 12 years.  I know how difficult it is to break free,
    I would say much like breaking from alcohol or addictive drugs.  The only
    problem is that the after-effects of pornography stay in the mind much
    longer than the residue effects of drugs or alcohol.

    Message: 77276
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Religion
    Subject: daryl/77250
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 12:57:41

    Wouldn't need prisons except for the likes of Jimmy Bakker and other
    Christian sleaze-balls. As far as the homophobia of the sick person in
    Milwaukee, I have heard some very hateful words from our Christians
    right here on Apollo.

    Message: 77277
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Daryl/leaving
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 12:59:32

    The main reason I have left the faith is because of the witness of folks
    like James White, not Rod Williams or others.

    Message: 77278
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Paul/77270
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 13:10:07

    re: Carnal Appetites
    I have been eating mor~re skinless chicken, fish, and good fresh garden
    salads in order to cut down on my saturated fats and cholesterol.

    Message: 77279
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Thad/77272
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 13:11:38

    re:omnivorous reader
    To sate your carnal appetite no doubt. Do your read vegetables as well as
    meat ? I would guess so.

    Message: 77280
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Thad's Baloney
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 15:40:28

    > Full of baloney... What did I say???

    You don't have to say anything.  Everyone on Apollo is full of baloney.

    Message: 77281
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pornoholism
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 16:39:34

    Far from being addictive, I found pretty much the opposite with a lot of
    commercial porn.  It was intriguing to start with, something new and
    different, but after a while it got boring.  Too mechanical, too much the
    same.  After a while I figured I could cook up better turn-ons out of my own
    head.

    I've seen a tendency toward sadistic overtones here and there, but I figure
    that stuff doesn't touch you if you're not into it.  Ted Bundy was duped
    into trying to blame his monstrous activities on his addiction to the
    nastiest kind of porn.  All claptrap.  If he hadn't had so much sadism and
    fury in him to begin with, he would never have been so attracted to sadistic
    porn.  But people will insist on putting the cart in front of the horse.

    Message: 77282
    Author: Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Baloney.
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 17:38:01

    > Everyone on Apollo is full of baloney.

    I see. (or is that bologna?)

    Message: 77283
    Author: Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pornoholism
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 17:54:43

       Pornography doesn't affect everyone the same way. Some people are
    immediately disgusted and avoid it: some people quickly get bored with it,
    and others can't keep themselves away. But what you mentioned, that you
    decide you can make up 'better' stuff in your own head, is one of the side
    effects. A certain percentage go in search of 'bigger thrills', a certain
    percentage decide that fantasy is not enough, and try acting on their ideas,
    and a certain percentage start generating their own and find it
    profitable... It calls different reactions depending on the personality.
      I only heard about Ted Bundy briefly and second hand, but I wouldn't
    dismiss what he said about it as 'claptrap'. If he was heavily involved in
    the 'nastiest kind', then it certainly did nothing to influence him away
    from violence, whether or not it was "the cause" of his behavior. If you
    play in the mud, you are going to get dirty...

    Message: 77284
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pornoholism
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 22:35:47

    Yes, but you wouldn't ban something because it *failed* to influence him
    away from his behavior.  If this guy didn't have any porn to read, he would
    have constructed his own sick fantasies in his mind anyway.

    Message: 77285
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: On the Lighter Side
    Subject: More on Porn
    Date: 07/31/91  Time: 22:36:28

    Scotland Yard is searching for more space in which to store its
    embarrassingly large stock of obscene books and pictures, and Her Majesty's
    Customs is forbidden to burn any more obscene books because they were
    breaking the rules of a smokeless zone by making black smoke.

                                         - The Guardian

                      MOST UNUSUAL PORNOGRAPHIC MOVIE

    At England's Chessington Zoo, officials embarked upon a revolutionary plan
    to perk up the chimpanzees' flagging sex life and get the apes to mate: show
    them skin flicks.  First step in the program, before the chimps would be
    graduated to hard-core porn, would be a BBC documentary film showing
    chimpanzees cuddling.

    "We tried it in three cages in the ape house," said zoo spokesman Andy
    Bowen.  "The orangutans were only interested in the projector.  The gorillas
    became aggressive.  But Cressida [an eight-year-old female chimp] was just
    overcome with passion.

                 THE LEAST SUCCESSFUL PORNOGRAPHIC BOOKSELLER

    In February 1970 a Swiss pornographic bookseller was fined the equivalent of
    $75 and given a ten-month suspended sentence because his books were not
    sufficiently pornographic.

    Angry residents of Biel took him to court because his wares were not as
    "sexually erotic" as his advertising campaign had led them to believe.  At
    the hearing many of them expressed the view that had they been interested in
    veils, curtains, cushions and household plants they would have bought a
    furnishing catalogue.

                                PAWNOGRAPHY?

    A letter addressed to "Degenerate Bawd" in London was correctly deciphered
    by the British Post Office as being intended for the Central Electricity
    Generating Board, according to the February issue of "Power News".

                                     - London Evening Standard

    Message: 77287
    Author: Mark Adkins
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: porn
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 02:00:30

    I saw a program the other night on channel 8, about the fauna of Peru.  It
    was quite amusing to watch the llamas get down to it.  The females kneel on
    their stomachs, and look bored, while the males stand over them snorting and
    sort of screwing their noses up and pulling their lips back to show their
    teeth; in short, really enjoying themselves.

    For some reason which I now forget but which didn't seem terribly
    compelling, they have to collect sperm samples (I think it had to do with
    keeping the herd fit, or something).  Apparently, because of the odd anatomy
    of these llamas, it was not possible to collect the sample mechanically, as
    (presumably) they do with bulls.  So they made this lifelike female llama
    manikin, assuming the position.  The male llama was immediately attracted,
    but in order to keep him interested, some poor Peruvian bloke had to lay
    down next to this thing and make llama love-noises for the twenty minutes
    the process took.  You could tell that the male llama didn't think it was a
    very good lay.

    Message: 77288
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: last
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 02:35:17

    Do you think there's a market in inflatable rubber llamas with built-in
    speakers?

    P.S.  I am NOT going to ask how this Peruvian guy knew what sort of
    love-noises female llamas make...

    Message: 77289
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Green Mann/77277
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 05:34:29

     So you "left the faith" because of folks like James White?
     That's the problem (yours, not James') when you define Christianity on the
    basis of other people. James White is NOT the standard of Christianity.
    Neither is Paul Savage. Neither, for that matter, is Mike Middleton, or even
    you, Roger. The only, and I mean ONLY example of Christianity is Jesus
    Christ, Son of God, Saviour. Beside Him , there is no other. If another
    human being causes you to cast away all that is worth while, your eyes are
    looking in the wrong direction. Don't blame others for that which is your
    own responsibility.

    Message: 77290
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Bill's baloney
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 05:36:36

     How can you say that, Bill? The only sausage I have eaten in a long time
    are those little Hillshire Farms hot links, and I usually buy the all beef
    ones at that. I'm not full of baloney!

    Message: 77291
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon/isms
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 05:39:39

     How true! The same can be said for those who treat alcoholism as a disease
    and blame homosexuality on genes. It's easy to avoid personal responsibility
    for one's problems, rather than facing them and dealing with them.

    Message: 77292
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Religion
    Subject: James White
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 06:46:01

      I dropped BBS'ing entirely a couple of years ago, partly because I was
    running into James White everywhere. Is he still around, or what happened to
    him?

    Message: 77293
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pornoholism
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 06:49:39

      I understated that a bit. He may very well have constructed his own sick
    fantasies in his mind anyway; there have always been people who do that,
    porn or no. But porn can and does stimulate and feed them and provide a
    starting point.

    Message: 77294
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on Christians
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 08:12:49

    Re: your ... "if everyone became a Christian tomorrow, then there would not
    need to be a fraction of the prisons we have today!"

    You gotta be kidding. I'll venture to say that 85 % of those is prisons
    would admit to being a Christian! And that 85 % applies to the 'crack
    babies' being born - obscene phone calls - gangs -etc. etc. all your list!

    Some of the people that did us the most harm have been Christians, so I
    don't know what you are talking about! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77295
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl #77251
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 08:14:16

    Oh - I have to stop quoting the Bible to support my views, but it's OK if
    you do??? Right? *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77296
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on Christian
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 08:16:22

    I don't want Christianity wiped off the face of the earth like Rod may like
    - I just wish ALL Christians would ACT like Christians! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77297
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Peter # 77261
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 08:19:45

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha. That one cracked me up. I am so glad to see
    someone has a sense of humor. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77298
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Pauley #77271
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 08:26:12

    Re: Porn - it has it's place and it isn't just the man's sexual fulfillment!
    If I want to be scared, I read a Steven King Novel. If I want to be turned
    on, I watch porn. If I want to visit foreign shores, I watch a travelog!
    Etc. etc. etc. A place for everything. See? *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    P.S. What is really great is to watch a travelog and be turned on by all
    those naked natives!! hahahahahahahaha.

    Message: 77299
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl & Thad
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 08:29:42

    I think you two's "addiction" to porn has another name - it's called
    Puberty!! I'd say it lasted from 12 year old until at least 20 and or, you
    started having regular sex and or, got married - which is the same.
                           *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77300
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pauley on James H.
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 08:39:36

    I have to agree with Green Pauley. James White is a 100% more of a turn off
    than he is a turn on!!! Why? Because people that may be an agnostic or
    searching - or even an athiest listening - would be scared off - scared that
    in order to be a Christian, you have to be like that!!

    I don't find you like that at all and that is a compliment! And I am sure
    that you believe as James does, you come on strong - but not repulsively so.
    See?

                         *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77301
    Author: $ Michael James
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann on porn
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 09:43:32

    I agree, it's not very interesting once you start having good sex (or meet
    up with one of Carter's billy goats).  People who think it's addictive
    should examine why their sex lives are so unfulfilling rather than blaming
    the object.

    Message: 77302
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Paul/77289
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 11:46:03

    I'd appreciate it if you would address me as Green Lantern, not Roger.

    Message: 77303
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Thad/77292
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 11:46:39

    James White is on Zephyr.

    Message: 77304
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Paul/Witness
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 11:50:04

    You are very wrong when it comes to people's witness as to the power of
    Jesus Christ in their lives. If Jesus is really God, people would be
    transformed by Jesus into Christians instead of the argumentative and
    aggressive people they really are. In other words BACs are just like you and
    me with a nasty tongue. There's nothing to being saved as people like James
    White prove.

    Message: 77305
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Green Roger / 77276
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 12:41:45

        Would you say that Jim Bakker lives by God's standards?  I sincerely
    believe that the reason that his whole empire fell down around him was
    because he was making a mockery of the faith and of God.  As for the label
    of "Christian sleaze-balls" - From this point on, I don't want you EVER
    shoving Matthew 7:1 in anyone's face ever again.
        As far as Daumer, who said anything about 'homophobia?'  I have not
    been spending any time pondering whether or not Daumer was a homosexual.
    What sickens me is the DEATH.  The MUTILATION.  The DISMEMBERMENT.  The
    CANNIBALISM.  Are you concerned about these things?  Apparently not, you are
    too busy waving a little flag and creating a straw man ('homophobia') that
    you can easily knock down and feel proud of yourself.  DID CHRISTIANITY
    CAUSE THIS SICKENING SCENARIO?  Of course not.

    Message: 77306
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Green Roger / 77277
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 12:45:30

        Although I cannot assert without a doubt since I cannot see into your
    heart, I suspect that you are a little too willing to lay the blame for your
    decision to reject Christianity on someone else's shoulders.  It was your
    decision, and you made it.  James White will not be standing at the Throne
    and having to explain his actions, for he has, and does, defend his beliefs
    and does so with Scripture.  His faith is strong, otherwise he would not
    continue to defend it.  You need to take responsibility for your own
    actions, Roger.

    Message: 77307
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon / Porno
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 12:48:06

        You say that after a while it gets boring.  Do you think that is a
    valid reason why many viewers of porn move to harder stuff after a while
    (child porn, snuff porn, bestiality, &c.)?  It's like a drug, after a while
    you lose the sensitivity to that drug, and the buzz is not as exciting.  So
    one moves on to harder stuff.

    Message: 77308
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon / Porno
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 12:50:17

         "He would have constructed his own sick fantasies in his mind anyway."

         Without the porn, what benchmark would he have to create his own sick
    fantasies by?  If I remember correctly, my fantasies in youth were rather
    innocuous and tame prior to exposure to pornography.

    Message: 77309
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann on Christians
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 12:59:22

        Just because someone calls themselves a Christian does not mean that
    they are a Christian.  Read Matthew 7:15-23.

        Have you ever considered that the reason that many prisoners claim the
    Christian faith is because of the vigorous prison ministries in place in our
    country?  Prisoners who have little hope, are given hope.  Those who are
    given Bibles have more than enough time to spend reading it, and it changes
    a lot of lives.  But then again, just because a prisoner calls himself
    Christian does not mean that he is.  To some, Christianity means chanting
    prayers, fondling beads and kissing statues.  To others, it means watching a
    "Christian" program on television on Sunday mornings.  To others, it means a
    vital and active faith, moved by a real and living Savior.  The latter is
    the only one that is Biblical and the only one that produces the good
    fruits.

    Message: 77310
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann / 77295
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 13:01:32

        YOU were the one that asked me to stop quoting Scripture in my messages
    to you, and (unless I have slipped), I have tried not to.  I have tried to
    limit myself, whenever possible, to providing the reference and hoping that
    you'll take the time to look it up for yourself.
        Why do you set the rules, and then refuse to live by them yourself?

    Message: 77311
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann / 77296
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 13:04:08

         Ok Ann, speaking from the standpoint of a non-believer that refuses to
    believe in God or His Son, and who has no respect for His Holy Scriptures...

        What works would you prescribe that would make someone a REAL Christian
    in your eyes?

    Message: 77312
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann / Porn, &c.
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 13:04:54

         Why in the world would you ever WANT to be scared?

    Message: 77313
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann / Porn
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 13:08:11

         Thank you so much, O psychiatrist.  I still have a problem with porn
    and the way that it has tainted my thinking.  If I could go back and change
    one thing in my life, I would have turned away at the first opportunity I
    had in my malleable years to look at porn.

    Daryl ("Recovering Pornoholic, by the Grace of God") Westfall

    Message: 77314
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Thad's B-A-L-O-N-E-Y
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 13:33:28

    >> Everyone on Apollo is full of baloney.

    > I see. (or is that bologna?)

    It's baloney.  Of course.

    Message: 77315
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: War!
    Subject: Paul's Sausage
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 13:33:51

    > How can you say that [everyone on Apollo is full of baloney],
    > Bill? The only sausage I have eaten in a long time are those
    > little Hillshire Farms hot links, and I usually buy the all
    > beef ones at that. I'm not full of baloney!

    Oh, Paul!

    Why is it you must take what I write and twist it to suit your own evil
    ends?  It is perfectly obvious what I meant and if you had read my message
    with open eyes and a true heart its meaning would be clear to you.

    Message: 77316
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: War!
    Subject: Porn
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 18:09:01

    I disagree that everyone, or even most, would become addicted to porn and
    turn violent.  If someone was reading love stories, the harliquin type and
    that was a turn on for them (as many women have confessed to me), does that
    mean they go home and rape their husbands?  No.  In fact, many couples enjoy
    sharing "turn on" material and don't become addicted to it.  I don't know
    whether I have read or seen much "porn" but you obviously do not know of my
    reputation.  Now that you have status, I'll give you a sample of my writing
    in the Cos sig, where I think this discussion should continue.

    Message: 77317
    Author: $ Melissa Dee
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Paul
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 18:17:22

    My time is almost up so I'll make this short.
    Yes, I've been busy planning for the wedding.  There's a lot to do in only
    three months.
    Anyway, as for porn, I agree.  There are some really disgusting (to me) and
    degrading stuff out there.  That is partly the reason I started to write and
    publish my own stories, to show that you can be loving and erotic without
    being degrading or hurting anyone.  I always try to use loving, caring
    couples.  I think of it as sex education, the emotional side of it
    (Go for it, Mike, that tag is just waiting to be ripped to shreads)

    Message: 77319
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Michele / Porn
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 20:34:28

         Certainly not everyone is going to react the same way when exposed to
    pornography.  But one is certainly going to be more curious at an early age,
    as I was.

    Message: 77322
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/Green
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 21:40:08

    I would appreciate it if you would not use the name "Roger" when sending
    messages to the Green Lantern.

    Message: 77323
    Author: $ Daryl Westfall
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: GL / 77322
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 21:44:53

    "I would appreciate it if you would not use the name "Roger" when sending
    messages to the Green Lantern."

    I'm sorry, I am not comfortable in responding to people by names that I know
    to be made up, pen-names, handles, etc.  I prefer, whenever possible, to
    talk to someone by using their real name.

    Message: 77324
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Puberty
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 21:58:02

      I think I mentioned that had something to do with it...

    Message: 77325
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Zephyr
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 22:00:13

     Thanks. Zephyr just left my BBS call list.

    Message: 77326
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Religion
    Subject: GL/James White
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 22:03:47

     I got into a few discussions with James White a couple of years ago: in my
    opinion, he is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

    Message: 77327
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Full of baloney
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 22:06:24

     I resemble that.

    Message: 77328
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: War!
    Subject: Porn
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 22:20:00

      I'm afraid I won't see your writing in COS, Melissa, because I am not
    putting that in my 'profile'. I think I mentioned that 'a certain
    percentage' of people become addicted to it, and I might also agree with
    Ann and others that it appeals mostly to people whose sex lives are for some
    reason or other unsatisfactory... but I have also heard of marriages where
    the marital relationship BECAME unsatisfactory because one of the partners
    became involved with it.  A 'certain percentage' of people are led in the
    direction of violence, not necessarily  a majority.
      (I am avoiding COS on general principles... nothing personal at all)

    Message: 77329
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: PORN-O-RAMA
    Date: 08/01/91  Time: 23:36:39

         If a certain percentage of people are lead into violence by watching
    porn, I would venture to say this percentage is very very small.

         Porn addicts are coming out of the woodwork on Apollo BBS.  Some people
    have an addictive personality.  It could be porn.  It could be
    drugs/alcohol.  It could be many things, but the point being you can't blame
    the medium.  The addiction is within YOU.

         Can an addictive personality type be changed?  That's a hard one to
    call.  Often these people will go from one addiction to another.  Can it be
    controlled?  I would think so, although it could be a constant struggle.

    Message: 77330
    Author: Mike Elkanich
    Category: Question?
    Subject: BBS's in town
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 00:43:04

       Hello.  I hope someone out there can help me.  I have just started
    my IBM for communication purposes.  About 5 yrs ago I ran a Bulletin
    Board on an older Atari model.  I went through my old list of BBS
    numbers and this is one of the only BBS's I could find.  I would hope
    that someone out there will see this message and respond to it and
    let me know of some BBS's in town or in Tucson.  I would appreciate it
    greatly!!!
                                            Thanks for your help,

                                            MIKE ELKANICH

    Message: 77331
    Author: $ Mike Carter
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Porn
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 05:10:13

    Peter asserts that there's a "very very" small percentage of people
    who become violent as a result of reading porn...

    (1) His view isn't supported by the people who deal with porn addicts
        on a daily basis; the Phoenix P.D. Some honest truth searching here
        would take any shadow of a doubt from your biased opinions that porn
        is indeed synonymous and condusive to violence and crime.

    (2) Even assuming "very very small percentages". [ Which isn't true ].
        Let's say 1 out of every 30 addicts is violent, hostile and prone
        to crime. If there's 300 addicts in the entire state of Arizona, there's
        ten too many violent criminals out there who are more than ready
        to rape your wife/girlfriend/daughter, steal your posessions and
        possibly even murder you or someone close to you.

    Using the same arguments the anti-gun lobby uses, Porn should be banned
    completely, irrevocably and totally.
    Now, Peter, justify 10 murderers for the sake of a handfull of addicts.

    Message: 77332
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Thad/James
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 05:21:29

    James White now has his own BBS, called Pros Apologian. If you don'T want to
    run into him, I presume you're not interested in the number.
     He also can be found on Zephyr BBS, usually confined to the Heavens Gate
    section, another good place not to be if you wish to avoid him.

    Message: 77333
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie/Christians
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 05:27:33

    "I just wish ALL Christians would ACT like Christians!"
     Don't we all, Annie? Problem is, if we all acted like Christians ALL the
    time, that would take away from our humanity, and that's not why Christ came
    and died at all. He did not eliminate sin from the world. He gave us the
    path of redemption from sin. We who name the name of Christ are really no
    better (or worse) than anyone else, since our redemption is none of our own
    doing at all. As nice as it would be to be able to look at any Christian and
    see Jesus, it just isn't always possible, since we are not the example of
    everything a Christian should be. He is.

    Message: 77334
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie/porn
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 05:31:59

     If it takes pornography to turn you on sexually, something's wrong, Annie.
    Either Whitey's not doing his job as a lover (and no, I'm not asking) or you
    need some competent professional help.
     To say that you watch porn to be turned on is to give tacit approval to
    everything that goes on in those films, no matter how debasing or degrading
    it may be. I'm not at all sure you really mean to do that, but you do.

    Message: 77335
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie/James White
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 05:37:13

     I have probably had as much as anyone to say against James' methods of
    attack as anyone. When the Ark BBS was functional, I found it necessary to
    deny him access to it after several requests to cease and desist his
    negative attacks on anyone who did not subscribe to his narrow theology.
     That is still no reason to throw the baby out with the dirty bath water,
    or to deny Christianity because of what one individual feels is his
    particular calling in life. James White is no more THE example of
    Christianity than I am. THere is but one example, and that is the one who
    died on the cross almost 2000 years ago, for your sins and mine.

    Message: 77336
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Green Mann
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 05:39:38

     Your appreciation is neither solicited nor valued too highly, Roger. I
    still maintain that the methodology of your identity change was, to say the
    least, tacky. If you don't choose to pardon my lack of recognition of your
    chosen "handle", that's your problem, not mine.

    Message: 77337
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Roger Lantern
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 05:46:39

     Not all Christians are cursed with a nasty tongue, Roger, and to hold James
    White up continually as a prime example of what  you think Christians are is
    a gross error on your part.
     James can rant and rave all he wants against anything that does not conform
    to his narrow brand of theology. That does not change the validity of what
    Christ gave His life for one iota.
     Nobody has pointed out the inevitable failure of his brand of negative
    ministry to him any more than I have, but that disagreement has not
    diminished my love for Jesus at all. Neither does your rattling on about
    your rather odd set of beliefs (or lack thereof). All you are doing is
    offering proof positive that your eyes are turned in the wrong direction.
     You don't believe in Jesus Christ because of James White? How abou
    believing in Jesus Christ because of Jesus Christ, in spite of James White,
    or any other man?

    Message: 77338
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: War!
    Subject: Bill's ends
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 05:51:09

    Why? Because I just live to twist your writings to my own evil ends, of
    course! It's the high spot of my day when I can do that! It's even better
    than the first cup of coffee in the morning!

    Message: 77339
    Author: $ Beauregard Dog
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Felix
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 07:19:12

    Hey, Bob, why have you been so silent?

    Message: 77340
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Hard/Software
    Subject: Elkanich/BBSes
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 08:16:03

    > I would hope that someone out there will see this message and
    > respond to it and let me know of some BBS's in town or in
    > Tucson.

    Now that you've found Apollo, Mike, why do you need any other BBS?  :^)

    In the Main Menu, hit the ther Systems command to get a list of other
    BBSes in the Phoenix area.  Sorry I don't have any suggestions for Tucson.

    Message: 77341
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Mike's Porn Stats
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 08:16:57

    > His view isn't supported by the people who deal with porn
    > addicts on a daily basis; the Phoenix P.D.

    Don't forget, Mike, that the Phoenix PD (all law enforcement agencies,
    really) has a vested interest in popularizing the notion of a "porn crisis."
     Budgets have to be protected, you know.  Especially in tough times.

    Message: 77342
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Bulletins
    Subject: the ther BBS list
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 08:41:30

            Sorry, it is not there...It got so old (so fast) that people kept
    complaining... I removed it.  I also at that time asked if anyone would like
    to take the job of keeping an active list of the best local BBS's....  No
    one answered.

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

    Message: 77343
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on porn
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 09:07:15

    The goof balls that 'move on' from porn to child porn, bestiality et al
    would still be like that regardless if porn is around or not! You imply that
    porn is to blame - which it is not. These types are mentally disturbed. They
    could watch the 'Comedy Hour' and find justification for what they want to
    do. In other words, they are sick. When I was a kid, believe me there was a
    lot of diviates around and there was NO porn! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77344
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Daryl # 77309
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 09:09:09

    And of course, you are the latter, right? *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77345
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Religion
    Subject: Daryl #77311
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 09:14:08

    Boyee. You want us to listen to you, but you don't listen to us very well.
    Where have I EVER said I wasn't a believer? Or that I didn't believe in God
    or His Son??? I am not an Athiest or an Agnostic Daryl. I just don't believe
    it like you do - for which I thank God. You have made a hard row to hoe in
    this life for yourself. I gave that up long ago. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77346
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on scared
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 09:20:50

    Re: your ... "why in the world would you ever WANT to be scared?

    I've ask myself that many times in my life. I was this way as a very little
    kid too. I think I have the answer - maybe a couple of them .... I am one of
    those cowards that wouldn't go on a ferris wheel or a  roller coaster - the
    merry-go-round being my most daring thing I try - so I think that reading
    horror stories and being scared takes the place of the roller coaster - in
    other words, thrills!!! But the safe kind. I think also that I like fantasy
    - things that don't/can't happen in real life. I can watch or read about a
    cold bloody killing - hatchet jobs - beheadings etc. but I could hardly read
    the paper about such things as the Manson murders on up to what horror is
    going on today! I guess you'd say this is escapism! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77347
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl on porn
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 09:24:08

    Re: your .... Certainly not everyone is going to react the same way when
    exposed to pornography ...."

    But you'd certainly outlaw it if you could wouldn't you? *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77348
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Paule #77333
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 09:30:24

    Re: your .... "We who name the name of Christ are really no better (or
    worse) than anyone else."

    Then would you please tell Daryl that? He's having trouble with it!

                              *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77349
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pauley #77334
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 09:34:01

    For one thing we never watch anything "debasing or degrading"! For another,
    several things in this life can turn me on - porn is one of them, that's
    all! Nothing decadent, degrading, sleezy about it! We can live without it,
    but why should we? It's available. It's legal. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77350
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: On Green
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 09:38:05

    Say you guys - can't you respect Green Lantern's request you call him that
    and not Roger? None of you know for a fact he is Roger! And if he is and
    wants to be called Pee Wee Herman, that's his prerogative. We respect
    Doggy and don't go around calling him Ron and then there's Apro! Why don't
    you back off? He's legal! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77351
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/porn
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 10:03:58

    I don't think anybody moves on to child porn, bestiality, heavy sadism or
    similar things unless those things happen to turn them on in the first
    place.  I suppose some people might look at the stuff once or twice out of
    curiosity, but the average person with a healthy sexual make-up would pretty
    quickly reject it.

    Obviously we can differentiate between "softcore" and "hardcore" porn, and
    up to a point we can organize different kinds of porn into a linear spectrum
    in increasing intensity of stimulation -- ranging from swimsuit scenes to
    bare breasts to "ladies with no clothes on" to couples engaged in actual
    sexual activity.  Up to that point, someone who was titillated by titties
    would certainly "move on" to being interested in intercourse.  Now, the vast
    majority of people would agree that sex with animals, say, is unnatural and
    that sex with children is just plain wrong.  So somebody who thinks that sex
    itself is "wrong" or "dirty" would be tempted to superimpose a spectrum of
    "increasing wrongness" over the whole thing, ranging from bathing suits at
    one end to bestiality and other badness at the other.

    But such a spectrum would be based on confusing "intensity of turn-on" with
    "wrongness".  If sex or even nudity is wrong, then bare breasts are worse
    than bathing suits, nakedness is even naughtier, sex is sinful, and whipping
    is wicked.  But it doesn't follow that the more "wrong" something is, the
    more people get turned on by it.

    A more accurate way to look at it is that people are increasingly turned on
    by *refinement*, or "tuning", in the direction of their particular desires
    and fantasies.  If some guy looks at a partly clothed woman, that gets him
    thinking in a particular direction.  A *naked* woman is right in line with
    the direction he's thinking, and gets him more turned on.  Actual sex is a
    further refinement in the same direction, with an even more intense effect.

    Up to that point, we're dealing with normal and natural fantasies.  But the
    question is, where do we go, after sex, in terms of further *refinement* to
    bring pornographic images more in line with people's fantasies and get them
    even more turned on?  If some guy's thinking is oriented toward children or
    sadism, then those themes will be the ones he'll look for.  But for other
    people, the refinement will be in terms of detail.  Favorite fantasies might
    be oriented around the girl who sits next to you in school, and she looks
    like *this* and has blonde hair like *that* and dresses in such-and-such a
    manner, and you might imagine being with her in a particular setting and
    saying certain things and doing certain things in such-and-such a way.  The
    possible variety is endless, and it gets harder to find pictures of somebody
    *else's* fantasy that happens to be tuned in with yours.  Porn often also
    lacks warmth.  So it may be stimulating, but never quite as much as what you
    can dream up in your own head.  Or (of course!) actually *doing* the things.

    People who find themselves attracted to truly wrong and hurtful things
    should look into their own heads and try to find out why, not blame porn.

    Having said that, I would add that (as somebody hinted) the *repetition*
    of particular thoughts, once you're attracted to them sexually to begin
    with, does intensify the attraction.  On those grounds there could be an
    argument for banning some of the exteme sadism and other things found in
    porn.  There's an excellent argument for banning kidporn in that sellers of
    it are collaborating in the abuse of their child models.  But sex drive has
    to go somewhere, so if we follow that argument we should replace the banned
    porn with lots and lots of freely available "normal" porn showing natural
    sex and related activities.  And then we get into serious questions and
    disagreements about where to draw the line between what is "right" and what
    is "wrong".

    It doesn't surprise me to learn that sexual deviates of various kinds use
    porn a lot more than "straight" people.  But that isn't because the porn
    turned them in a deviant direction.  Remember what I said about it being
    most exciting to *do* the activity.  If the activity that somebody is
    attracted to is socially unacceptable or just plain wrong and abusive, they
    will have much less opportunity to practice it and are far more likely to
    resort to porn for their jollies than better-adjusted people.  The porn
    didn't cause the kink.  The kink caused the porn.  Arguing otherwise is
    reversing cause and effect.

    Message: 77354
    Author: Mike Elkanich
    Category: Question?
    Subject: BBS's
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 16:11:57

       HELP!!!  if anyone does know of any BBS's it would be greatly
    appreciated.  Please leave me a message or post it for all.

                                              THANKS,

                                              MIKE ELKANICH

    Message: 77355
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Daryl/Utopia
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 16:48:12

       When you say that your big list of problems would be solved if everyone
    were Christian, I think that isn't quite true. What you are really saying
    is: "If everyone were just like me everything would be great!"
       Christians do not agree between themselves. They argue and fight and
    kill each other over any number of things. Now if you narrow that to your
    own exact interpretation of 'Christian', leaving no room for any difference
    of opinion, then you aren't specifying Christians, you are specifying Daryl
    Westfalls.
       I could just as easily solve a list of problems by making mankind over
    in my own image. No more problems with drugs, alcohol, or tobacco, since I
    don't use them. No more fraud or coercion, since I don't believe in them.
    No more religious crusades since I am an atheist. No more income taxes
    since I am not a Marxist. No more killing for jealousy, since I don't see
    another person as my property. No more MTV since I don't have cable
    anymore. No more arguments over what is the best computer or the best car,
    since everyone would use an Epson and drive a '65 Thunderbird (we would
    have to put the '65 Thunderbird back into production since there aren't
    enough to go around).
       See You Later,
         Dean H.

    Message: 77356
    Author: $ Dean Hathaway
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Porn
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 16:49:07

       The religious stand against pornography is a predictable result of the
    way religions exploit sex for their own gain. Sex is a bit like a genie
    for these theists, but only as long as they can keep it in their own
    bottle. For centuries they have worked to persuade whole societies
    that only evil can come from sex, unless it has been cleansed by religious
    permission. Thus, the human sex drive has long been harnessed to tie people
    into theist traditions and institutions. Couples show at least some outward
    appearance of religious belief by marrying, even though many only do it out
    of tradition, etc. New converts are brought in as people are induced to
    accept the religion of their intended mate just to pave the way for that
    church's 'service' of okaying their relationship.
       In order to protect this franchise, sex without a theist blessing must
    be represented as evil; it cuts out the holy middleman. Degradation,
    disease, and despair must surely be the lot of the evil fornicator we are
    told. Of course, religious sanction in itself doesn't inoculate one against
    any of these things, and a perfectly healthy relationship and family life
    are possible for people who value each other, even if they don't submit to
    the expected rituals. Caution protects one from harm just as well whether
    it is done out of blind adherence to theist dictates, or out of rational
    self-interest.

       Pornography, at least the kind most people would enjoy, depicts sex as
    being both possible and enjoyable outside the rigid theist's rules, and yet
    suggests that it might be enjoyed without threat or harm. Its seductive
    images dispute the religious conviction that such doings can only make one
    miserable. It chafes the theist because it threatens their hold over sex by
    undercutting their brainwashing program. It hints that sex might be enjoyed
    just for what it is, without destroying one's relationships or health. It
    also makes the theists jealous just to think about anyone doing what their
    own repressive mythology forbids to them.
       Obviously then, pornography is something the theist would like to
    stamp out, just as they would stamp out everything else that doesn't
    conform to their authoritarian code. So, it is branded with all sorts of
    foolish labels. It is rather ridiculous to hear bible-thumpers, those
    fervent promoters of archaic sexist attitudes, jumping to join militant
    feminists in claiming that pornography degrades women. What the militant
    feminist really means is that any sex with a man degrades women, and what
    the bible-thumper really means is it degrades him to see a woman who
    doesn't stay in her husband's kitchen where she belongs.

       Of course pornography exists which could rightly be called degrading to
    women. Would this lead someone who didn't already look down on women to
    begin doing so? I don't think so. Likewise, it is probably only someone who
    is already abnormal and dangerous who would seek out such rare and illegal
    abominations as child pornography. Violent or degrading pornography exists
    to a much larger extent in the minds and utterings of moral crusaders than
    it does in the market. After all, women are a large part of today's market
    and the most successful materials would tend to be targeted toward them as
    well.
       See You Later,
         Dean H.

    Message: 77359
    Author: $ Thad Coons
    Category: Hard/Software
    Subject: Bill/BBS's
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 17:42:19

      Hmmm. Lat time I looked at the  command, it said that Cliff had gotten
    tired of trying to keep an accurate BBS list and did some other $tatus user
    want the job.  I'm trying to make a list, but when there are presently BBS's
    going up and down all the time, it IS a lot of work to keep a list
    current... I might make up a short list of ones that I have called and know
    are working, if cliff is interested, but it is limited to
    what is local from Tempe.

    Message: 77360
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: THad/last
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 19:40:23

            I *AM* very much interested!

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

    Message: 77361
    Author: $ Peter Petrisko
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: A BETTER WORLD
    Date: 08/02/91  Time: 23:06:53

         Let's just ban EVERYTHING.

    Message: 77362
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Porno
    Date: 08/03/91  Time: 00:00:38

    I think the causes of hard porn should be examined and a cure be found
    instead of incarcerating the user, making the problem worse.  This causes
    great expense to everyone, not to mention possibilities of future trauma to
    an innocent child or dog.

    I won't say that religion causes 100 per-cent of sexual misfits of any
    society, only 99 per-cent.  The other 1% comes from brain damage.

    Check out countries where there exists a healthy understanding of sex.
    There you won't find many deviates, at least not nearly as many as in the
    United States.

    There is a major religion in India where boys are kept physically chaste
    from the opposite sex during their natural period of curiosity.  Because of
    that there are a large percentage of homosexuals.

    Imagine, if you will, a scenario that I'm sure has happened at sometime,
    somewhere on this globe during our human history.  Probably many a time.

    A boy is taught by his priests that to fondle, engage in, or consider for
    any length, a remedy to his new found frustrations, he will certainly burn
    in the fires of hades forevermore.

    The boy who has been 'properly' brainwashed by a religious belief will
    cook and stew from the time mother natures tells him he is ready until he is
    allowed by his society to find release.

    There are a lot of 'strange' people walking around who have come to some
    unnatural conclusions about sex due to religious dictates.

    Daryl, if you would just think back to when you weren't getting any then
    you may see, once again, what I am talking about.  We have a word for
    someone like you and it ends in 'whipped'.  Know what I mean?  -Rod

    Message: 77364
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Paul Sausage
    Date: 08/03/91  Time: 00:43:02

    Dear Pauley,  You sure have a strange last name, now!

    If you want to be pig headed and not respect anothers right to something
    that (A) is legal and (2) has been paid for then I suggest you say 20 hell
    Mary's and go jump off a tall building.     -Rod