Re: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Should discussions of scripture be a part of this group?
----- Original Message -----
From: "paulsnx2" <paul@...>
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 1:09 AM
Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Should discussions of scripture be a
part of this group?
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Jack Kilmon"
> <jkilmon@h...> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "paulsnx2" <paul@e...>
> > To: <email@example.com>
> > Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 12:18 AM
> > Subject: [creationevolutiondebate] Re: Should discussions of
> scripture be a
> > part of this group?
> > > Why get specific on a scientific opinion when you refuse
> > > to demonstrate your observations with a specific scripture?
> > > Found any religions with a "Faith by Works" theology?
> > Paul, Jesus of Nazareth and the original Jesus people
> > (Nazarenes) were "works" people. In addition to telling
> > believers that they must be "doers,"
> > the Epistle of James goes on:
> > 2:14 What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath
> > and have not works? can faith save him?
> > 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
> > 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed
> > filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are
> needful to
> > the body; what [doth it] profit?
> > 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone
> > 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew
> me thy
> > faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
> > 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the
> devils also
> > believe, and tremble.
> > 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is
> > 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had
> > Isaac his son upon the altar?
> > 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was
> > made perfect?
> > 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed
> God, and
> > it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the
> Friend of
> > God
> > 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by
> > only.
> > 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works,
> when she had
> > received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?
> > 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without
> works is
> > dead also.
> > There's more, but you get the picture.
> > Jack
> Are you referring to the Nazarenes, the denomination?
I am referring to Jesus (Yeshua bar Yahosef) and his talmudayya (disciples)
and followers both before his execution and afterward under his brother
Yaqub (James)....the original Nazarenes. The word comes from the Aramaic
netseraya which means "branchers." They called themselves such because they
believed Jesus was the "branch" from the root of Jesse. Now gentile
Christians have always been nutty people, as history shows, murdering each
other over the NATURE of Jesus instead of focussing on his TEACHINGS which
were a corpus of ethics. The Yeshuine corpus distills to two basic
instructions, 1. Don't be an asshole, and 2. Do good things to your
neighbors. In the Aramaic words of Jesus himself:
Dakma daEBadton l'chad min hoLEYN AHi zeUOreh ly haw EBadton
"inasmuch as you have done it to the ONE, the very least, my brothers, you
have done it to me."
From the horse's mouth.
Paul of Tarsus was a nut who never met or heard Jesus and who invents his
own, totally oblivious to the teachings...so who ya gonna believe? Jesus
and company, or nutty Paul?
But you asked for a religion that believed in good works and the answer is
the ORIGINAL Jesus people, NONE of whom were Christians nor, in good
conscious, would be.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Tong" <mtong5@...>
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: [creationevolutiondebate] More probRe: Question for Tong?
> > Michael: My thought process is the same as that of the NJ Supreme
> > Once they rejected chance as the cause of the ballot positions, they
> > concluded it must have been the result of ID. The physical presence of
> > the defendant was not solid evidence for an IDer since the defendant,
> > Nicholas Caputo said that he chose the ballot positions randomly.
> [ralph] You move too fast and we are speaking of thought processes about
> mushrooms with names. First of all, you cannot reject chance completely
> for the mushrooms. After all, mushrooms normally do have some sort of
> on their tops. But we can say the possibility of chance is low. Agreed?
> As for ID, I agreed there might be some sort of mushroom genius loose in
> my neighborhood, but it seemed even more unllikely than chance to me.
> an individual, with such talents, wouldn't be wasting his time in my
> Non-human ID I rejected because I have no evidence that any such thing
> exists. Where do your thought processes differ?
> Michael: Mushrooms do not spell. They definitely would not
> coincidentally spell your name. A person could produce a mushroom
> pattern which spells your name by first growing mushrooms, then
> transplanting the entire plot to your yard. He would then pull up the
> mushrooms that aren't part of the pattern. But depending on the
> circumstances, this would be difficult. For instance, suppose that in
> the late afternoon of the day before the mushroom pattern appeared, you
> didn't notice the mushrooms in your yard. Consequently, the mushroom
> plot would have had to be planted at night. Also, let's say you didn't
> notice any signs of digging around the mushroom pattern. In this
> situation, you should consider that the mushroom pattern was the result
> of nonhuman intelligence.
[ralph] So if I'm ignorant of enough vital information, then I should
conclude it was the result of nonhuman intelligence? You never answered my
beginning question directly, but perhaps this indirect method is more