################################################ Subj: Re: Freud on the psychology of God Date: 16-Oct-00 17:46:28 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: editor@liberator.net, billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com Guys, I wish you all the best but I am out of town on my brothers in laws lap top and have about 100 emails from you all. I will delete them and will do so in the future. You may call me at home at 714 898-8331 if you want to meet and discuss why you feel let down by God. I just dont have teh time to respond to the e mails, although I do admit it was fun and that Dave and Mark are obviously intelligent, and Mrk has a synical wit that I greatly appreciate. Mark, I hope you learn the difference between an allele and a mutation. You will be ridiculed by any biologist, or a nerd biologist (like me) when you try to bluff when you lack the knowledge of something basic. Dave, you are a genius, a patriot and I assume a good family man, just learn to be more open minded and I wish we had never wasted so much time on what we thought you said about my wife. I am certain you did not mean to say what I assumed you said. Here is where we differ gentlemen: I have a little faith that intellignece greater than our created the human body and science backs it up You have blind faith in thinking chemical arranged them selves by chance and made up a human body, oh, excuse my, over billions of years. Just basic knowledge of what an enzyeme is makes that childish, but any childish beliefe that will remove God from your life will do that wont it? I tell you what. I will open one more e ail from you both, after this one, then we gotta have a legal separation. Love, Bill >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > >CC: >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:58:26 -0500 > >I didn't say he wasn't a religious man. However, I doubt he could have >followed any particular faith. His religion was science. > >Einstein got into a heated debate with Bohr when Bohr told his theories of >a >probabilistic universe. Einstein reported something to the effect of "God >doesn't roll dice." Later, Einstein accepted Bohr's theories. > >= ) > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Bill Bequette >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >Cc: >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:53 PM >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >Well he believed in God from studying science and he was a Jew who follow >the Bible except he thought Jesus was just a good Rabbi. I don't see him >not >being religious? Though I disagree with him on Jesus just being a good >Rabbi. I would say we believed in the same God. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:29 PM >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >Bill, I hate to disappoint you but Einstein didn't believe in quite the >same > >God you believe in. He wasn't too keen on the whole faith issue. He was >a > >firm believer in science. Like ancient thinkers, Einstein too believed >by > >studying science, one learns about God since God created the Universe. >He > >felt a direct connection to God from studying science and mathematics -- >the > >language of God. It is my opinion that his quest for the unification >theory > >was as spiritual as it was scientific. > > > >Only simplistic religionists feel that science is somehow separate from >God. > > > >In my opinion, God is the Universe. By studying it, we study God. > > > >We can fall down and think that our brains are too simple to understand >the > >Universe and succumb to mythical stories to pacify ourselves or we can > >discover life's beauty, which MUST include science. > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Bill Bequette > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >Cc: > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:23 PM > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > > > >Well there are theories(String theory and others) put forth that multiple > >dimensions exist and that since time is a dimension that it may simply >have > >been a singularity due to a black hole etc. and at some point we were all > >created when the dimensions unfolded. At some point you have to have >faith > >such as most of the great minds such as Einstein who was Jewish and Isaac > >Newton did(Though he went off the deep end to a degree). When they were > >confronted with all the overwhelming evidence of how fantastic our >universe > >is they realized a God has to exist. I am surprised you don't! > > > >= ) > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Mark > >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:09 PM > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > > > >>What evidence do you have that God has always existed? What makes you > >think > >>he will always exist? > >> > >>If God is the creator of the Universe, why did he create it in such a >way > >to > >>suggest there was a mighty explosion of material? Did God create the > >>Universe in an explosion, like the theory called the Big Bang? If this >is > >>possible, then why is it necessary for religionists to argue with > >scientists > >>who speak of the Big Bang? > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Bill Bequette > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:04 PM > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >>God encompasses all. God has and always will exist. > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Mark > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:41 PM > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >>Bill, it's humorous how you run away from my questions and head to the >same > >>old question "How did life start?" > >> > >>Where did God come from? > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Bill Bequette > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:45 PM > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >>Any interaction will obviously in some way alter the brain chemistry. >God > >>made all men. Read the Bible! Have you ever read the Bible? How did >life > >>start? > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Mark > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:29 PM > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >>Bill, are you saying that social interactions cannot affect brain > >chemistry? > >>Are you also saying that there is no relationship between the Christian >God > >>and a father figure? > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Bill Bequette > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:19 PM > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >>Old Sigmund is a dicredited, cocaine sniffing fraud from an earlier time >as > >>you show below i.e. he died in 1939. Read up on all the recent > >discoveries, > >>since 1939, about how the human brain works based on chemical >interactions. > >>You should thank our wonderful God! > >>= ) > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Mark > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:10 PM > >>Subject: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >>Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) > >>Austrian psychiatrist > >>The psychoanalysis of individual human beings, however, teaches us with > >>quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in the > >>likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends on his > >>relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes along >with > >>that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an exalted > >>father. > >>-- Totem and Taboo, pt. 4, sct. 6 > >> > >>P.S. > >> > >>Bill, you utter meaningless phrases like only babbling Christians do so > >>well. I have faith in reason, hard work, and ethics. > >> > >>You, on the other hand, limit yourself to a single manmade text called >the > >>Bible. > >> > >>Which sounds more fruitful and positive to you? > >> > >>= ) > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Bill Bequette > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:44 PM > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >> > >> > >>You either have faith or you do not. Some things are not explained >except > >>by faith. > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Mark > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:46 AM > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >> > >> > >>Bill, you think the Bible encompasses the past, present and future >better > >>than science? How do vague statements clarify the truth? > >> > >>The Bible does a good job doing one thing: maintaining ignorance. > >> > >>Why else would people like you insist upon Bible literalism such as >mankind > >>being descendants of Adam and Eve, Noah creating an ark and gathering >all > >>animals to fill it, Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, ... > >> > >>Do you realize that those same Bible myths you cherish were actually >stolen > >>from older myths? Research Osiris and the Ressurection. Research >Athena > >>and Immaculate Conception. As a matter of fact, the whole virgin birth > >>story is a common theme with many religions. They signify more of a >birth > >>of mankind than they do anything else you knothead. > >> > >>= ) > >> > >>You're killing me. > >> > >>People believe in prepackaged myths because it's easy to believe what > >people > >>tell you. It's much harder to discover things on your own; however, > >>discovery may be harder but it is much more rewarding. > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Bill Bequette > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:56 PM > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >> > >> > >>Because it encompasses the past, present and future better than just >your > >>present. > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Mark > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:14 PM > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >> > >> > >>Give me some reasons to read that manmade text over any other. > >> > >>Why do you cling to the past? > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Bill Bequette > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:06 PM > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >> > >> > >>Read the Bible. > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Mark > >>To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:09 PM > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >> > >> > >>Bill, substantiate your claim that God provided the 'perfect' code. > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Bill Morgan > >>To: ; > >>Cc: > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:43 AM > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >> > >> > >>Of course god creaed a perfect genetic code. > >> > >>I am really excited to hear what you say regarding why biologically you > >>should not marry a sister. > >> > >>Mark: do you know what an allele is? > >> > >> > >>>From: "Mark" > >>>To: "Bill Morgan" , > >>>CC: > >>>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >>>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:30:35 -0500 > >>> > >>>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >>> > >>>"I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations increase over > >>>time, > >>>thus back then there were few if any." > >>> > >>>What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different from an > >>>inherited genetic trait. > >>> > >>>"God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" > >>> > >>>There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could God >create > >>>such a thing? > >>> > >>>Mark > >>>The Liberator > >>>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >>> > >>> > >>> >From: "Mark" > >>> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > >>> > > >>> >CC: > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > >>> >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 > >>> > > >>> >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating humankind in >light > >>>of > >>> >defects caused by incestuous relations? > >>> > > >>> >Mark > >>> >The Liberator > >>> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >>> > > >>> >----- Original Message ----- > >>> >From: Bill Bequette > >>> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >>> >Cc: > >>> >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >Mark, > >>> >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships result in > >birth > >>> >defects. That is God's answer. > >>> > > >>> >-----Original Message----- > >>> >From: Mark > >>> >To: Bill Morgan > >>> >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com > >>> > > >>> >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" > >>> > > > >>> > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would not >allow > >>> > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of birth > >defects. > >>> >But > >>> > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be knowledgeable of > >>> >science? > >>> > > > >>> > >Mark > >>> > >The Liberator > >>> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>>_________________________________________________________________________ > >>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >http://www.hotmail.com. > >>> > >>>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > >>>http://profiles.msn.com. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >http://www.hotmail.com. > >> > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > >> > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3]) by air-yd04.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 20:46:28 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f162.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.162]) by rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 20:45:44 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 17:45:44 -0700 Received: from 205.188.200.156 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:45:43 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.200.156] From: "Bill Morgan" To: editor@liberator.net, billbeq@mediaone.net Cc: DWise1@AOL.com Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:45:43 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2000 00:45:44.0095 (UTC) FILETIME=[94D46AF0:01C037D3] ################################################ Subj: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? Date: 16-Oct-00 18:04:33 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com bill, you have to be really smart to not believe what it says. Dolts believe teh clear simple message. Geniuses twist it into what they want to be. You dolt! Remember that "silly guy" in the move classic "Airplane?" The bald guy. Thats what mark and dave are like, stretching their imaginations as they twist the bible into what ever they please. >From: "Bill Bequette" >To: "Mark" , "Bill Morgan" >CC: >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:23:56 -0700 > >Jesus loves you! :) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mark > To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:20 PM > Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > > > I either believe what? > > I am a believer but not a believer of your dogmatic, mindnumbing version >of > Christianity. The Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally you dolt. > > = ) > > Get a clue. > > Mark > The Liberator > E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bill Bequette > To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:59 PM > Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > > > You either believe or you don't. The Bible is by God not byman. >Sinple. > If you feel otherwise then so be it. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mark > To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:02 PM > Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > > > Bill, reading the Bible is reading the word of man. We are all inspired >to > write and the writers of the Bible were no more inspired by God than a >dog > who licks himself. > > I bet the dog gets far more pleasure from the ritual. That's for sure. > > It's also far more beneficial since there is a biological reason to >clear > one's glands. This blows a hole in the whole masterbation debate that >is > aspoused from Christians. > > = ) > > Mark > The Liberator > E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bill Bequette > To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:37 PM > Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > > > Read the word of GOD in the Bible then you will understand! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mark > To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net > Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:30 PM > Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > > > Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > "I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations increase over >time, > thus back then there were few if any." > > What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different from an > inherited genetic trait. > > "God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" > > There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could God create > such a thing? > > Mark > The Liberator > E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >From: "Mark" > >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > > > >CC: > >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 > > > >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating humankind in >light of > >defects caused by incestuous relations? > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Bill Bequette > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >Cc: > >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM > >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > > > > > >Mark, > >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships result in >birth > >defects. That is God's answer. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Mark > >To: Bill Morgan > >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com > > > >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM > >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" > > > > > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would not allow > > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of birth >defects. > >But > > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be knowledgeable of > >science? > > > > > >Mark > > >The Liberator > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-za04.mx.aol.com (rly-za04.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.100]) by air-za01.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 21:04:33 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f144.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.144]) by rly-za04.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 21:03:54 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:03:53 -0700 Received: from 205.188.200.156 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:03:53 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.200.156] From: "Bill Morgan" To: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net Cc: DWise1@AOL.com Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:03:53 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Oct 2000 01:03:53.0316 (UTC) FILETIME=[1E0E5A40:01C037D6] ################################################ Subj: Re: Read my lips: I don't save my emails Date: 17-Oct-00 12:56:15 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1 >>But I accept your apology. Based upon your desire to make atonement for even the hint of trashing my wife, I forgive you, the issue is resolved.<< THE HELL IT IS!!!! I DID *N*O*T* APOLOGIZE, BILL M, AND YOU *K*N*O*W* IT! I REFUSE TO APOLOGIZE FOR SOMETHING THAT I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF HAVING DONE! What I did do was to state that *I* am willing to take responsibility for my actions. Unlike YOU, Bill M. This matter will never be resolved until we can compare YOUR "MEMORY" of what happened with what REALLY happened. You have made several accusations against me and have refused to substantiate or support those accusations in any manner. We need to know what you remember the wording as being. I have requested that at least thirty-four times before and you have refused to answer each time. Yes, you have tried to weasel out of it. Yes, you have repeated the accusation. But you have NEVER provided the answer that we need. Here is that list of accusations YET AGAIN, Bill M: 1. Having conducted "bigoted attacks on [you] and [your] wife" 2. Thinking you are "some evil wicked person out to destroy society". 3. Thinking you are "wacked for beleiving in God". 4. "[P]ersonally insulting [you] on the level of a name calling 2nd grader." 5. "[I]nsulting [your] wife and [you]. 6. That my wife and I had labelled you and your wife as evil. 7. Calling you "very nasty names." 8. That I had told you "what [my] wife thought of those who beleive in Gid". 9. That I would think your and your wife "are evil and wicked, the world's most sinister people". 10. That I refuse to meet you because of your beliefs. 11. That I sent electronically "many nasty words that were anti religious". TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS, BILL M! SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ACCUSATIONS! TELL US THE WORDS THAT YOU THINK I HAD WRITTEN! THIS IS THE THIRTY-FIFTH TIME I HAVE REQUESTED THIS! >>I dont save my e mails.<< That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this matter AND YOU KNOW IT! Stop acting like such an idiotic jerk! Stop playing your damnable "rabbit trail" games! That lame excuse will buy you absolutely no weasel room! 1) You don't need a copy of the email to answer the question. We need for you to tell us what you think you remember I had written. Obviously, that is not the same as what was actually written, so the actual messages would not help you in answering the question. The purpose of the question is to get your version so that the message that it might have been loosely based on could be identified and that the two could then be compared to determine whether your accusation is legitimate or not. 2) You already HAVE a complete copy of the messages in question and have had it for EIGHT WEEKS! SINCE 19 AUGUST! You had requested a specific message and my reply, which I did provide on 19 August 2000. In the same message, I wrote: "In the meantime, I have gone the extra mile. I have provided the transcript. The ENTIRE transcript, from 1996 to the present (though not including this message). It is on my web page "Transcripts of the E-Mail Correspondence Between Bill Morgan and DWise1" which I just created today at http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html . Simply point your web browser there and download the files that contain the transcipt. They are of no special format, just plain old text files. Since I had encoded their date in the file extension instead of using the .TXT extension, you may need to tell your viewer program to list "All Files" when you open one. For that reason, I would recommend that you download them into their own separate directory/folder." Then because I had messed up the CC: portion of the message, I sent it again on 21 August. So you received that message TWICE! In addition, I have reminded you a number of times of my having given you the complete transcript of our correspondence, including when I made it available to Bill B. If you could not be bothered to go pick it up, then that is not my problem. The problem would be that you are still ACTING LIKE AN IDIOT! ################################################ Subj: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 17-Oct-00 13:02:21 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1 In response to: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Subj: Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 10-Oct-00 15:37:06 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net The matter is resolved thanks! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% >>The matter is resolved thanks!<< THE HELL IT IS, BILL M! THAT IS A DAMNABLE LIE! This matter can never be resolved until you substantiate your accusations against me with enough information that we can identify the offending messages and compare them against what you "remember" that I had written. >>You insulted my wife's faith in Christ and gave that as your reaosn for not going to Denny's.<< REPEAT THE WORDS OF THE INSULT! OR SHOW ME THE MESSAGE! And don't lie to us and claim that you don't have it, because we all know that you do! If you truly believe that I had "insulted [your] wife's faith in Christ and gave that as [my] reaosn for not going to Denny's", then tell me WHAT WORDS you "remember" that I had written so that I can find the actual message that you think you are talking >about. Stop simply repeating your accusations and SUBSTANTIATE THEM! Repeat what you think you remember my wording to have been! Tell me as many as you can remember of those "very nasty names" you accuse me of having called you! Bill M, was one of those "very nasty names" "*ssh*l*" (synonym for "anus")? Yes or no. This is the THIRTY-SIXTH TIME that I am asking you for this information! You cannot escape the truth, so stop trying to run away from it! These are the answers that you need to answer regarding your accusations. I cannot and will not accept the mere repeating of the accusations. We must be able to use your answer to identify the actual messages in question. You MUST give the actual insults and actual "very nasty names" to the very best of your ability to remember. You MUST describe in detail the "bigoted attacks on [you] and [your] wife" that I am supposed to have conducted. You MUST describe in detail my alleged statement that I thought you are "some evil wicked person out to destroy society". You MUST describe in detail my alleged statement that I thought you are "wacked for beleiving in God". You MUST describe in detail the insults I allegedly used in "[P]ersonally insulting [you] on the level of a name calling 2nd grader." You MUST describe in detail the words I allegedly used in "[I]nsulting [your] wife and [you]." You MUST describe in detail what words were used when my wife and I had allegedly labelled you and your wife as evil. ################################################ Subj: RE:Re: Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 17-Oct-00 13:03:37 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billbeq@mediaone.net CC: editor@liberator.net, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Subj: Re: Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 10-Oct-00 15:44:12 Pacific Daylight Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net End of issue. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% >>End of issue.<< No, Bill B, it is not. Bill M has lied to you yet again. The matter has NOT been resolved. The only way that it can be resolved is for us to identify the messages that Bill M would claim that he has based his accusations and then to compare Bill M's memory of what I had written with what I had actually written. Only then can we arrive at the truth. That has not happened. Bill M has refused to substantiate his accusations against me and has refused to provide the information that we need from him. Instead, he has tried to weasel out with the seriously dishonest trick of unilaterally declaring the matter resolved. We are not going to buy it. ################################################ Subj: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? Date: 17-Oct-00 17:28:32 Pacific Daylight Time From: editor@liberator.net (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com Bill Morgan , you wrote: "bill, you have to be really smart to not believe what it says. Dolts believe teh clear simple message. Geniuses twist it into what they want to be. You dolt! Remember that "silly guy" in the move classic "Airplane?" The bald guy. Thats what mark and dave are like, stretching their imaginations as they twist the bible into what ever they please." If you read the Bible you'll read about a virgin birth. This story has been copied from older myths, like Paganism. In fact, you'll learn about a lot of stories that were stolen from earlier myths. If you don't trust me, read the Bible for yourself. Speaking of imagination, those stories which were taken from other myths didn't require much of an imagination; however, the stories that were specifically prepared for Christianity may have required a good imagination indeed. The composers of the Bible knew how to capture the readers attention. Ever read Revelations? Talk about a violent and wild imagination... It's funny how people have 'twisted' the words in Revelations to match historical events in order to sell books and make a profit. Just for the record, the people who subscribe to those Bible prophecies prove that P. T. Barnum was right! = ) Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >From: "Bill Bequette" >To: "Mark" , "Bill Morgan" >CC: >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:23:56 -0700 > >Jesus loves you! :) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mark > To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:20 PM > Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > > > I either believe what? > > I am a believer but not a believer of your dogmatic, mindnumbing version >of > Christianity. The Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally you dolt. > > = ) > > Get a clue. > > Mark > The Liberator > E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bill Bequette > To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:59 PM > Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > > > You either believe or you don't. The Bible is by God not byman. >Sinple. > If you feel otherwise then so be it. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mark > To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:02 PM > Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > > > Bill, reading the Bible is reading the word of man. We are all inspired >to > write and the writers of the Bible were no more inspired by God than a >dog > who licks himself. > > I bet the dog gets far more pleasure from the ritual. That's for sure. > > It's also far more beneficial since there is a biological reason to >clear > one's glands. This blows a hole in the whole masterbation debate that >is > aspoused from Christians. > > = ) > > Mark > The Liberator > E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bill Bequette > To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:37 PM > Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > > > Read the word of GOD in the Bible then you will understand! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mark > To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net > Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:30 PM > Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > > > Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > "I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations increase over >time, > thus back then there were few if any." > > What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different from an > inherited genetic trait. > > "God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" > > There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could God create > such a thing? > > Mark > The Liberator > E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >From: "Mark" > >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > > > >CC: > >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 > > > >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating humankind in >light of > >defects caused by incestuous relations? > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Bill Bequette > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >Cc: > >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM > >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > > > > > >Mark, > >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships result in >birth > >defects. That is God's answer. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Mark > >To: Bill Morgan > >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com > > > >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM > >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" > > > > > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would not allow > > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of birth >defects. > >But > > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be knowledgeable of > >science? > > > > > >Mark > > >The Liberator > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >http://www.hotmail.com. > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > http://profiles.msn.com. > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-st06.mail.aol.com (rly-st06.mail.aol.com [172.31.34.5]) by air-yd02.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:28:31 -0400 Received: from rly-yc01.mx.aol.com (rly-yc01.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.33]) by rly-st06.mail.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id UAA29954 for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:24:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yc01.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:23:29 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA45500; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:23:24 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from editor@liberator.net) Message-ID: <004801c03899$e488dba0$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:25:16 -0500 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ################################################ Subj: Re: Freud on the psychology of God Date: 17-Oct-00 17:34:37 Pacific Daylight Time From: editor@liberator.net (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com Bill Morgan , you wrote: "Guys, I wish you all the best but I am out of town on my brothers in laws lap top and have about 100 emails from you all. I will delete them and will do so in the future." Why let good ideas alter your stagnant point of view? ...just ignore them. = ) "You may call me at home at 714 898-8331 if you want to meet and discuss why you feel let down by God." How could the Christian interpretation of God let me down? I'm intrigued how people can swallow other's beliefs without question. It's fascinating. "I just dont have teh time to respond to the e-mails, although I do admit it was fun and that Dave and Mark are obviously intelligent, and Mrk has a synical wit that I greatly appreciate." There's absolutely nothing cynical about wit but thanks for recognizing my views for what they are...brilliant. Just kidding... "Mark, I hope you learn the difference between an allele and a mutation. You will be ridiculed by any biologist, or a nerd biologist (like me) when you try to bluff when you lack the knowledge of something basic." Dave, enlighten me, if you can. "Dave, you are a genius, a patriot and I assume a good family man, just learn to be more open minded and I wish we had never wasted so much time on what we thought you said about my wife. I am certain you did not mean to say what I assumed you said." You know what is said about people who ass-u-me, right? "Here is where we differ gentlemen: I have a little faith that intellignece greater than our created the human body and science backs it up. You have blind faith in thinking chemical arranged them selves by chance and made up a human body, oh, excuse my, over billions of years. Just basic knowledge of what an enzyeme is makes that childish, but any childish beliefe that will remove God from your life will do that wont it?" Why do you assume that the two views are seperate? "I tell you what. I will open one more e ail from you both, after this one, then we gotta have a legal separation." Bill, if we have to get a legal seperation, does this mean you think we were married? = ) Thinking for the two of us, Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > >CC: >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:58:26 -0500 > >I didn't say he wasn't a religious man. However, I doubt he could have >followed any particular faith. His religion was science. > >Einstein got into a heated debate with Bohr when Bohr told his theories of >a >probabilistic universe. Einstein reported something to the effect of "God >doesn't roll dice." Later, Einstein accepted Bohr's theories. > >= ) > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Bill Bequette >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >Cc: >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:53 PM >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >Well he believed in God from studying science and he was a Jew who follow >the Bible except he thought Jesus was just a good Rabbi. I don't see him >not >being religious? Though I disagree with him on Jesus just being a good >Rabbi. I would say we believed in the same God. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:29 PM >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >Bill, I hate to disappoint you but Einstein didn't believe in quite the >same > >God you believe in. He wasn't too keen on the whole faith issue. He was >a > >firm believer in science. Like ancient thinkers, Einstein too believed >by > >studying science, one learns about God since God created the Universe. >He > >felt a direct connection to God from studying science and mathematics -- >the > >language of God. It is my opinion that his quest for the unification >theory > >was as spiritual as it was scientific. > > > >Only simplistic religionists feel that science is somehow separate from >God. > > > >In my opinion, God is the Universe. By studying it, we study God. > > > >We can fall down and think that our brains are too simple to understand >the > >Universe and succumb to mythical stories to pacify ourselves or we can > >discover life's beauty, which MUST include science. > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Bill Bequette > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >Cc: > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:23 PM > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > > > >Well there are theories(String theory and others) put forth that multiple > >dimensions exist and that since time is a dimension that it may simply >have > >been a singularity due to a black hole etc. and at some point we were all > >created when the dimensions unfolded. At some point you have to have >faith > >such as most of the great minds such as Einstein who was Jewish and Isaac > >Newton did(Though he went off the deep end to a degree). When they were > >confronted with all the overwhelming evidence of how fantastic our >universe > >is they realized a God has to exist. I am surprised you don't! > > > >= ) > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Mark > >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:09 PM > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > > > >>What evidence do you have that God has always existed? What makes you > >think > >>he will always exist? > >> > >>If God is the creator of the Universe, why did he create it in such a >way > >to > >>suggest there was a mighty explosion of material? Did God create the > >>Universe in an explosion, like the theory called the Big Bang? If this >is > >>possible, then why is it necessary for religionists to argue with > >scientists > >>who speak of the Big Bang? > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Bill Bequette > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:04 PM > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >>God encompasses all. God has and always will exist. > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Mark > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:41 PM > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >>Bill, it's humorous how you run away from my questions and head to the >same > >>old question "How did life start?" > >> > >>Where did God come from? > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Bill Bequette > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:45 PM > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >>Any interaction will obviously in some way alter the brain chemistry. >God > >>made all men. Read the Bible! Have you ever read the Bible? How did >life > >>start? > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Mark > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:29 PM > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >>Bill, are you saying that social interactions cannot affect brain > >chemistry? > >>Are you also saying that there is no relationship between the Christian >God > >>and a father figure? > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Bill Bequette > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:19 PM > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >>Old Sigmund is a dicredited, cocaine sniffing fraud from an earlier time >as > >>you show below i.e. he died in 1939. Read up on all the recent > >discoveries, > >>since 1939, about how the human brain works based on chemical >interactions. > >>You should thank our wonderful God! > >>= ) > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Mark > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:10 PM > >>Subject: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >>Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) > >>Austrian psychiatrist > >>The psychoanalysis of individual human beings, however, teaches us with > >>quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in the > >>likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends on his > >>relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes along >with > >>that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an exalted > >>father. > >>-- Totem and Taboo, pt. 4, sct. 6 > >> > >>P.S. > >> > >>Bill, you utter meaningless phrases like only babbling Christians do so > >>well. I have faith in reason, hard work, and ethics. > >> > >>You, on the other hand, limit yourself to a single manmade text called >the > >>Bible. > >> > >>Which sounds more fruitful and positive to you? > >> > >>= ) > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Bill Bequette > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:44 PM > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >> > >> > >>You either have faith or you do not. Some things are not explained >except > >>by faith. > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Mark > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:46 AM > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >> > >> > >>Bill, you think the Bible encompasses the past, present and future >better > >>than science? How do vague statements clarify the truth? > >> > >>The Bible does a good job doing one thing: maintaining ignorance. > >> > >>Why else would people like you insist upon Bible literalism such as >mankind > >>being descendants of Adam and Eve, Noah creating an ark and gathering >all > >>animals to fill it, Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, ... > >> > >>Do you realize that those same Bible myths you cherish were actually >stolen > >>from older myths? Research Osiris and the Ressurection. Research >Athena > >>and Immaculate Conception. As a matter of fact, the whole virgin birth > >>story is a common theme with many religions. They signify more of a >birth > >>of mankind than they do anything else you knothead. > >> > >>= ) > >> > >>You're killing me. > >> > >>People believe in prepackaged myths because it's easy to believe what > >people > >>tell you. It's much harder to discover things on your own; however, > >>discovery may be harder but it is much more rewarding. > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Bill Bequette > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:56 PM > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >> > >> > >>Because it encompasses the past, present and future better than just >your > >>present. > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Mark > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:14 PM > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >> > >> > >>Give me some reasons to read that manmade text over any other. > >> > >>Why do you cling to the past? > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Bill Bequette > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:06 PM > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >> > >> > >>Read the Bible. > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Mark > >>To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:09 PM > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >> > >> > >>Bill, substantiate your claim that God provided the 'perfect' code. > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: Bill Morgan > >>To: ; > >>Cc: > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:43 AM > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >> > >> > >>Of course god creaed a perfect genetic code. > >> > >>I am really excited to hear what you say regarding why biologically you > >>should not marry a sister. > >> > >>Mark: do you know what an allele is? > >> > >> > >>>From: "Mark" > >>>To: "Bill Morgan" , > >>>CC: > >>>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >>>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:30:35 -0500 > >>> > >>>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >>> > >>>"I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations increase over > >>>time, > >>>thus back then there were few if any." > >>> > >>>What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different from an > >>>inherited genetic trait. > >>> > >>>"God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" > >>> > >>>There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could God >create > >>>such a thing? > >>> > >>>Mark > >>>The Liberator > >>>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >>> > >>> > >>> >From: "Mark" > >>> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > >>> > > >>> >CC: > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > >>> >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 > >>> > > >>> >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating humankind in >light > >>>of > >>> >defects caused by incestuous relations? > >>> > > >>> >Mark > >>> >The Liberator > >>> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >>> > > >>> >----- Original Message ----- > >>> >From: Bill Bequette > >>> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >>> >Cc: > >>> >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >Mark, > >>> >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships result in > >birth > >>> >defects. That is God's answer. > >>> > > >>> >-----Original Message----- > >>> >From: Mark > >>> >To: Bill Morgan > >>> >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com > >>> > > >>> >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" > >>> > > > >>> > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would not >allow > >>> > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of birth > >defects. > >>> >But > >>> > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be knowledgeable of > >>> >science? > >>> > > > >>> > >Mark > >>> > >The Liberator > >>> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>>_________________________________________________________________________ > >>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >http://www.hotmail.com. > >>> > >>>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > >>>http://profiles.msn.com. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >http://www.hotmail.com. > >> > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > >> > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (rly-yb05.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.5]) by air-yb01.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:34:37 -0400 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:33:38 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA46673; Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:33:30 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from editor@liberator.net) Message-ID: <004f01c0389b$4d893d60$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:35:22 -0500 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ################################################ Subj: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 20-Oct-00 19:04:19 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net, billbeq@mediaone.net The issue has been resolved. You refused to have dinner with us and I took your reasoning to be due to my wife's and mine faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. For the hundredth time I don't save my e mails. For the third time I understand you meant us no ill will what so ever and I harbor no feeling what so ever that you insulted us. I used to think that, but am convinced you do not. The issue is resolved from my end, and I shant pursure it further. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , , >Subject: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail >Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:02:20 EDT > >In response to: > >Subj: Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail >Date: 10-Oct-00 15:37:06 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: DWise1@aol.com >CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net > >The matter is resolved thanks! > >%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > >>The matter is resolved thanks!<< > >THE HELL IT IS, BILL M! THAT IS A DAMNABLE LIE! > >This matter can never be resolved until you substantiate your accusations >against me with enough information that we can identify the offending >messages and compare them against what you "remember" that I had written. > > >>You insulted my wife's faith in Christ and gave that as your reaosn for >not >going to Denny's.<< > >REPEAT THE WORDS OF THE INSULT! OR SHOW ME THE MESSAGE! And don't lie to >us >and claim that you don't have it, because we all know that you do! > >If you truly believe that I had "insulted [your] wife's faith in Christ and >gave that as [my] reaosn for not going to Denny's", then tell me WHAT WORDS >you "remember" that I had written so that I can find the actual message >that >you think you are talking >about. > >Stop simply repeating your accusations and SUBSTANTIATE THEM! Repeat what >you think you remember my wording to have been! Tell me as many as you can >remember of those "very nasty names" you accuse me of having called you! > >Bill M, was one of those "very nasty names" "*ssh*l*" (synonym for "anus")? >Yes or no. > > >This is the THIRTY-SIXTH TIME that I am asking you for this information! >You >cannot escape the truth, so stop trying to run away from it! > > >These are the answers that you need to answer regarding your accusations. >I >cannot and will not accept the mere repeating of the accusations. We must >be >able to use your answer to identify the actual messages in question. > >You MUST give the actual insults and actual "very nasty names" to the very >best of your ability to remember. > >You MUST describe in detail the "bigoted attacks on [you] and [your] wife" >that I am supposed to have conducted. > >You MUST describe in detail my alleged statement that I thought you are >"some >evil wicked person out to destroy society". > >You MUST describe in detail my alleged statement that I thought you are >"wacked for beleiving in God". > >You MUST describe in detail the insults I allegedly used in "[P]ersonally >insulting [you] on the level of a name calling 2nd grader." > >You MUST describe in detail the words I allegedly used in "[I]nsulting >[your] >wife and [you]." > >You MUST describe in detail what words were used when my wife and I had >allegedly labelled you and your wife as evil. > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yh03.mx.aol.com (rly-yh03.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.35]) by air-yh04.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:04:19 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f273.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.51]) by rly-yh03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:04:12 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:04:12 -0700 Received: from 64.12.104.181 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:04:11 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.12.104.181] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Cc: editor@liberator.net, billbeq@mediaone.net Subject: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:04:11 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2000 02:04:12.0082 (UTC) FILETIME=[34A93920:01C03B03] ################################################ Subj: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? Date: 20-Oct-00 19:06:38 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: editor@liberator.net, billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com Prove the paganism story is older than the "Old Testament." The burden is on you. >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , >CC: >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? >Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:25:16 -0500 > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"bill, you have to be really smart to not believe what it says. Dolts >believe teh clear simple message. Geniuses twist it into what they want to >be. You dolt! Remember that "silly guy" in the move classic "Airplane?" >The bald guy. Thats what mark and dave are like, stretching their >imaginations as they twist the bible into what ever they please." > >If you read the Bible you'll read about a virgin birth. This story has >been >copied from older myths, like Paganism. In fact, you'll learn about a lot >of stories that were stolen from earlier myths. > >If you don't trust me, read the Bible for yourself. > >Speaking of imagination, those stories which were taken from other myths >didn't require much of an imagination; however, the stories that were >specifically prepared for Christianity may have required a good imagination >indeed. The composers of the Bible knew how to capture the readers >attention. Ever read Revelations? Talk about a violent and wild >imagination... It's funny how people have 'twisted' the words in >Revelations to match historical events in order to sell books and make a >profit. > >Just for the record, the people who subscribe to those Bible prophecies >prove that P. T. Barnum was right! > >= ) > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > >From: "Bill Bequette" > >To: "Mark" , "Bill Morgan" > >CC: > >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? > >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:23:56 -0700 > > > >Jesus loves you! :) > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Mark > > To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:20 PM > > Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > > > > > I either believe what? > > > > I am a believer but not a believer of your dogmatic, mindnumbing >version > >of > > Christianity. The Bible wasn't meant to be taken literally you dolt. > > > > = ) > > > > Get a clue. > > > > Mark > > The Liberator > > E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Bill Bequette > > To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:59 PM > > Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > > > > > You either believe or you don't. The Bible is by God not byman. > >Sinple. > > If you feel otherwise then so be it. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Mark > > To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 4:02 PM > > Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > > > > > Bill, reading the Bible is reading the word of man. We are all >inspired > >to > > write and the writers of the Bible were no more inspired by God than a > >dog > > who licks himself. > > > > I bet the dog gets far more pleasure from the ritual. That's for >sure. > > > > It's also far more beneficial since there is a biological reason to > >clear > > one's glands. This blows a hole in the whole masterbation debate that > >is > > aspoused from Christians. > > > > = ) > > > > Mark > > The Liberator > > E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Bill Bequette > > To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 5:37 PM > > Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > > > > > Read the word of GOD in the Bible then you will understand! > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Mark > > To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net > > Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 3:30 PM > > Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > > > > > Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > "I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations increase over > >time, > > thus back then there were few if any." > > > > What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different from an > > inherited genetic trait. > > > > "God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" > > > > There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could God >create > > such a thing? > > > > Mark > > The Liberator > > E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > > > > > >CC: > > >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 > > > > > >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating humankind in > >light of > > >defects caused by incestuous relations? > > > > > >Mark > > >The Liberator > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: Bill Bequette > > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >Cc: > > >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM > > >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > > > > > > > >Mark, > > >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships result in > >birth > > >defects. That is God's answer. > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Mark > > >To: Bill Morgan > > >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com > > > > > >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM > > >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > > > > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > > > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" > > > > > > > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would not >allow > > > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of birth > >defects. > > >But > > > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be knowledgeable of > > >science? > > > > > > > >Mark > > > >The Liberator > > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > http://profiles.msn.com. > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb04.mx.aol.com (rly-yb04.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.4]) by air-yb01.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:06:38 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f280.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.58]) by rly-yb04.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:06:07 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:06:07 -0700 Received: from 64.12.104.181 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:06:07 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.12.104.181] From: "Bill Morgan" To: editor@liberator.net, billbeq@mediaone.net Cc: DWise1@AOL.com Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:06:07 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2000 02:06:07.0411 (UTC) FILETIME=[79670830:01C03B03] ################################################ Subj: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: 20-Oct-00 19:14:16 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: editor@liberator.net, billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com I have to admit I am a little teary eyed. Remember the end of the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy says to the scarecrow she will miss him the most? Well Mark, you are that scarecrow...I will miss you the most. I think with counselling we could reconcile. Dave, I am going to delete all of your future e mails. Mark's are fun. This will shock you all. Do I beleif faith in God is more important than anything? Yes. Is it life or death to me that you beleive? No. I wish you did, but if you don't thats fine, its your choice, your free will. Its not any chaff my hide. Mark's humorous jabs give me joy and mirth and thus I am going to continue to open some of them if they keep coming. >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , >CC: >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:35:22 -0500 > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"Guys, I wish you all the best but I am out of town on my brothers in laws >lap top and have about 100 emails from you all. I will delete them and >will >do so in the future." > >Why let good ideas alter your stagnant point of view? ...just ignore them. > >= ) > >"You may call me at home at 714 898-8331 if you want to meet and discuss >why >you feel let down by God." > >How could the Christian interpretation of God let me down? I'm intrigued >how people can swallow other's beliefs without question. It's fascinating. > >"I just dont have teh time to respond to the e-mails, although I do admit >it >was fun and that Dave and Mark are obviously >intelligent, and Mrk has a synical wit that I greatly appreciate." > >There's absolutely nothing cynical about wit but thanks for recognizing my >views for what they are...brilliant. Just kidding... > >"Mark, I hope you learn the difference between an allele and a mutation. >You will be ridiculed by any biologist, or a nerd biologist (like me) when >you try to bluff when you lack the knowledge of something basic." > >Dave, enlighten me, if you can. > >"Dave, you are a genius, a patriot and I assume a good family man, just >learn to be more open minded and I wish we had never wasted so much time on >what we thought you said about my wife. I am certain you did not mean to >say what I assumed you said." > >You know what is said about people who ass-u-me, right? > >"Here is where we differ gentlemen: I have a little faith that >intellignece >greater than our created the human body and science backs it up. You have >blind faith in thinking chemical arranged them selves by chance and made up >a human body, oh, excuse my, over billions of years. Just basic knowledge >of what an enzyeme is makes that childish, but any childish beliefe that >will remove God from your life will do that wont it?" > >Why do you assume that the two views are seperate? > >"I tell you what. I will open one more e ail from you both, after this >one, >then we gotta have a legal separation." > >Bill, if we have to get a legal seperation, does this mean you think we >were >married? > >= ) > >Thinking for the two of us, > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >From: "Mark" > >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > > > >CC: > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:58:26 -0500 > > > >I didn't say he wasn't a religious man. However, I doubt he could have > >followed any particular faith. His religion was science. > > > >Einstein got into a heated debate with Bohr when Bohr told his theories >of > >a > >probabilistic universe. Einstein reported something to the effect of >"God > >doesn't roll dice." Later, Einstein accepted Bohr's theories. > > > >= ) > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Bill Bequette > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >Cc: > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:53 PM > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > > > >Well he believed in God from studying science and he was a Jew who follow > >the Bible except he thought Jesus was just a good Rabbi. I don't see him > >not > >being religious? Though I disagree with him on Jesus just being a good > >Rabbi. I would say we believed in the same God. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Mark > >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:29 PM > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > > > > >Bill, I hate to disappoint you but Einstein didn't believe in quite the > >same > > >God you believe in. He wasn't too keen on the whole faith issue. He >was > >a > > >firm believer in science. Like ancient thinkers, Einstein too believed > >by > > >studying science, one learns about God since God created the Universe. > >He > > >felt a direct connection to God from studying science and mathematics >-- > >the > > >language of God. It is my opinion that his quest for the unification > >theory > > >was as spiritual as it was scientific. > > > > > >Only simplistic religionists feel that science is somehow separate from > >God. > > > > > >In my opinion, God is the Universe. By studying it, we study God. > > > > > >We can fall down and think that our brains are too simple to understand > >the > > >Universe and succumb to mythical stories to pacify ourselves or we can > > >discover life's beauty, which MUST include science. > > > > > >Mark > > >The Liberator > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: Bill Bequette > > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >Cc: > > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:23 PM > > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > > > > > > >Well there are theories(String theory and others) put forth that >multiple > > >dimensions exist and that since time is a dimension that it may simply > >have > > >been a singularity due to a black hole etc. and at some point we were >all > > >created when the dimensions unfolded. At some point you have to have > >faith > > >such as most of the great minds such as Einstein who was Jewish and >Isaac > > >Newton did(Though he went off the deep end to a degree). When they >were > > >confronted with all the overwhelming evidence of how fantastic our > >universe > > >is they realized a God has to exist. I am surprised you don't! > > > > > >= ) > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Mark > > >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > > > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:09 PM > > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > > > > > > >>What evidence do you have that God has always existed? What makes you > > >think > > >>he will always exist? > > >> > > >>If God is the creator of the Universe, why did he create it in such a > >way > > >to > > >>suggest there was a mighty explosion of material? Did God create the > > >>Universe in an explosion, like the theory called the Big Bang? If >this > >is > > >>possible, then why is it necessary for religionists to argue with > > >scientists > > >>who speak of the Big Bang? > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:04 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > >> > > >>God encompasses all. God has and always will exist. > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Mark > > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:41 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > >> > > >>Bill, it's humorous how you run away from my questions and head to the > >same > > >>old question "How did life start?" > > >> > > >>Where did God come from? > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:45 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > >> > > >>Any interaction will obviously in some way alter the brain chemistry. > >God > > >>made all men. Read the Bible! Have you ever read the Bible? How did > >life > > >>start? > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Mark > > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:29 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > >> > > >>Bill, are you saying that social interactions cannot affect brain > > >chemistry? > > >>Are you also saying that there is no relationship between the >Christian > >God > > >>and a father figure? > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:19 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > >> > > >>Old Sigmund is a dicredited, cocaine sniffing fraud from an earlier >time > >as > > >>you show below i.e. he died in 1939. Read up on all the recent > > >discoveries, > > >>since 1939, about how the human brain works based on chemical > >interactions. > > >>You should thank our wonderful God! > > >>= ) > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Mark > > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:10 PM > > >>Subject: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > >> > > >>Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) > > >>Austrian psychiatrist > > >>The psychoanalysis of individual human beings, however, teaches us >with > > >>quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in the > > >>likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends on >his > > >>relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes along > >with > > >>that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an exalted > > >>father. > > >>-- Totem and Taboo, pt. 4, sct. 6 > > >> > > >>P.S. > > >> > > >>Bill, you utter meaningless phrases like only babbling Christians do >so > > >>well. I have faith in reason, hard work, and ethics. > > >> > > >>You, on the other hand, limit yourself to a single manmade text called > >the > > >>Bible. > > >> > > >>Which sounds more fruitful and positive to you? > > >> > > >>= ) > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:44 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >> > > >> > > >>You either have faith or you do not. Some things are not explained > >except > > >>by faith. > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Mark > > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:46 AM > > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >> > > >> > > >>Bill, you think the Bible encompasses the past, present and future > >better > > >>than science? How do vague statements clarify the truth? > > >> > > >>The Bible does a good job doing one thing: maintaining ignorance. > > >> > > >>Why else would people like you insist upon Bible literalism such as > >mankind > > >>being descendants of Adam and Eve, Noah creating an ark and gathering > >all > > >>animals to fill it, Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, ... > > >> > > >>Do you realize that those same Bible myths you cherish were actually > >stolen > > >>from older myths? Research Osiris and the Ressurection. Research > >Athena > > >>and Immaculate Conception. As a matter of fact, the whole virgin >birth > > >>story is a common theme with many religions. They signify more of a > >birth > > >>of mankind than they do anything else you knothead. > > >> > > >>= ) > > >> > > >>You're killing me. > > >> > > >>People believe in prepackaged myths because it's easy to believe what > > >people > > >>tell you. It's much harder to discover things on your own; however, > > >>discovery may be harder but it is much more rewarding. > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > >> > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:56 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >> > > >> > > >>Because it encompasses the past, present and future better than just > >your > > >>present. > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Mark > > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:14 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >> > > >> > > >>Give me some reasons to read that manmade text over any other. > > >> > > >>Why do you cling to the past? > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > >> > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:06 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >> > > >> > > >>Read the Bible. > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Mark > > >>To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:09 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >> > > >> > > >>Bill, substantiate your claim that God provided the 'perfect' code. > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Bill Morgan > > >>To: ; > > >>Cc: > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:43 AM > > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >> > > >> > > >>Of course god creaed a perfect genetic code. > > >> > > >>I am really excited to hear what you say regarding why biologically >you > > >>should not marry a sister. > > >> > > >>Mark: do you know what an allele is? > > >> > > >> > > >>>From: "Mark" > > >>>To: "Bill Morgan" , > > >>>CC: > > >>>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >>>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:30:35 -0500 > > >>> > > >>>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > >>> > > >>>"I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations increase >over > > >>>time, > > >>>thus back then there were few if any." > > >>> > > >>>What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different from an > > >>>inherited genetic trait. > > >>> > > >>>"God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" > > >>> > > >>>There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could God > >create > > >>>such a thing? > > >>> > > >>>Mark > > >>>The Liberator > > >>>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >From: "Mark" > > >>> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > > >>> > > > >>> >CC: > > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >planet? > > >>> >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 > > >>> > > > >>> >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating humankind in > >light > > >>>of > > >>> >defects caused by incestuous relations? > > >>> > > > >>> >Mark > > >>> >The Liberator > > >>> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >>> > > > >>> >----- Original Message ----- > > >>> >From: Bill Bequette > > >>> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >>> >Cc: > > >>> >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM > > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >planet? > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> >Mark, > > >>> >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships result in > > >birth > > >>> >defects. That is God's answer. > > >>> > > > >>> >-----Original Message----- > > >>> >From: Mark > > >>> >To: Bill Morgan > > >>> >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com > > >>> > > > >>> >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM > > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >planet? > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" > > >>> > > > > >>> > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would not > >allow > > >>> > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of birth > > >defects. > > >>> >But > > >>> > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be knowledgeable of > > >>> >science? > > >>> > > > > >>> > >Mark > > >>> > >The Liberator > > >>> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>_________________________________________________________________________ > > >>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > >>> > > >>>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > >>>http://profiles.msn.com. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > >> > > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (rly-yg02.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.2]) by air-yg02.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:14:16 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f278.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.56]) by rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:13:52 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:13:51 -0700 Received: from 64.12.104.181 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:13:51 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.12.104.181] From: "Bill Morgan" To: editor@liberator.net, billbeq@mediaone.net Cc: DWise1@AOL.com Subject: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:13:51 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Oct 2000 02:13:51.0476 (UTC) FILETIME=[8E01BB40:01C03B04] ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: 20-Oct-00 20:48:33 Pacific Daylight Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), editor@liberator.net, billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com Bill Morgan , you wrote: "I have to admit I am a little teary eyed. Remember the end of the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy says to the scarecrow she will miss him the most? Well Mark, you are that scarecrow...I will miss you the most. I think with counselling we could reconcile." Billy, it's funny you should say these nice things but -- quite frankly -- I will not miss your letters one bit, if you so choose to stop sending them. "Dave, I am going to delete all of your future e mails. Mark's are fun." Of course my letters are fun. I don't deny it. I integrate humor throughout religion. It's the only thing that makes it tollerable. "This will shock you all. Do I beleif faith in God is more important than anything? Yes. Is it life or death to me that you beleive? No. I wish you did, but if you don't thats fine, its your choice, your free will. Its not any chaff my hide. "Mark's humorous jabs give me joy and mirth and thus I am going to continue to open some of them if they keep coming." Why should I stop? I'm having fun. = ) Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , >CC: >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:35:22 -0500 > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"Guys, I wish you all the best but I am out of town on my brothers in laws >lap top and have about 100 emails from you all. I will delete them and >will >do so in the future." > >Why let good ideas alter your stagnant point of view? ...just ignore them. > >= ) > >"You may call me at home at 714 898-8331 if you want to meet and discuss >why >you feel let down by God." > >How could the Christian interpretation of God let me down? I'm intrigued >how people can swallow other's beliefs without question. It's fascinating. > >"I just dont have teh time to respond to the e-mails, although I do admit >it >was fun and that Dave and Mark are obviously >intelligent, and Mrk has a synical wit that I greatly appreciate." > >There's absolutely nothing cynical about wit but thanks for recognizing my >views for what they are...brilliant. Just kidding... > >"Mark, I hope you learn the difference between an allele and a mutation. >You will be ridiculed by any biologist, or a nerd biologist (like me) when >you try to bluff when you lack the knowledge of something basic." > >Dave, enlighten me, if you can. > >"Dave, you are a genius, a patriot and I assume a good family man, just >learn to be more open minded and I wish we had never wasted so much time on >what we thought you said about my wife. I am certain you did not mean to >say what I assumed you said." > >You know what is said about people who ass-u-me, right? > >"Here is where we differ gentlemen: I have a little faith that >intellignece >greater than our created the human body and science backs it up. You have >blind faith in thinking chemical arranged them selves by chance and made up >a human body, oh, excuse my, over billions of years. Just basic knowledge >of what an enzyeme is makes that childish, but any childish beliefe that >will remove God from your life will do that wont it?" > >Why do you assume that the two views are seperate? > >"I tell you what. I will open one more e ail from you both, after this >one, >then we gotta have a legal separation." > >Bill, if we have to get a legal seperation, does this mean you think we >were >married? > >= ) > >Thinking for the two of us, > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >From: "Mark" > >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > > > >CC: > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:58:26 -0500 > > > >I didn't say he wasn't a religious man. However, I doubt he could have > >followed any particular faith. His religion was science. > > > >Einstein got into a heated debate with Bohr when Bohr told his theories >of > >a > >probabilistic universe. Einstein reported something to the effect of >"God > >doesn't roll dice." Later, Einstein accepted Bohr's theories. > > > >= ) > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Bill Bequette > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >Cc: > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:53 PM > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > > > >Well he believed in God from studying science and he was a Jew who follow > >the Bible except he thought Jesus was just a good Rabbi. I don't see him > >not > >being religious? Though I disagree with him on Jesus just being a good > >Rabbi. I would say we believed in the same God. > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Mark > >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:29 PM > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > > > > >Bill, I hate to disappoint you but Einstein didn't believe in quite the > >same > > >God you believe in. He wasn't too keen on the whole faith issue. He >was > >a > > >firm believer in science. Like ancient thinkers, Einstein too believed > >by > > >studying science, one learns about God since God created the Universe. > >He > > >felt a direct connection to God from studying science and mathematics >-- > >the > > >language of God. It is my opinion that his quest for the unification > >theory > > >was as spiritual as it was scientific. > > > > > >Only simplistic religionists feel that science is somehow separate from > >God. > > > > > >In my opinion, God is the Universe. By studying it, we study God. > > > > > >We can fall down and think that our brains are too simple to understand > >the > > >Universe and succumb to mythical stories to pacify ourselves or we can > > >discover life's beauty, which MUST include science. > > > > > >Mark > > >The Liberator > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: Bill Bequette > > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >Cc: > > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:23 PM > > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > > > > > > >Well there are theories(String theory and others) put forth that >multiple > > >dimensions exist and that since time is a dimension that it may simply > >have > > >been a singularity due to a black hole etc. and at some point we were >all > > >created when the dimensions unfolded. At some point you have to have > >faith > > >such as most of the great minds such as Einstein who was Jewish and >Isaac > > >Newton did(Though he went off the deep end to a degree). When they >were > > >confronted with all the overwhelming evidence of how fantastic our > >universe > > >is they realized a God has to exist. I am surprised you don't! > > > > > >= ) > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Mark > > >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > > > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:09 PM > > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > > > > > > >>What evidence do you have that God has always existed? What makes you > > >think > > >>he will always exist? > > >> > > >>If God is the creator of the Universe, why did he create it in such a > >way > > >to > > >>suggest there was a mighty explosion of material? Did God create the > > >>Universe in an explosion, like the theory called the Big Bang? If >this > >is > > >>possible, then why is it necessary for religionists to argue with > > >scientists > > >>who speak of the Big Bang? > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:04 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > >> > > >>God encompasses all. God has and always will exist. > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Mark > > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:41 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > >> > > >>Bill, it's humorous how you run away from my questions and head to the > >same > > >>old question "How did life start?" > > >> > > >>Where did God come from? > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:45 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > >> > > >>Any interaction will obviously in some way alter the brain chemistry. > >God > > >>made all men. Read the Bible! Have you ever read the Bible? How did > >life > > >>start? > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Mark > > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:29 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > >> > > >>Bill, are you saying that social interactions cannot affect brain > > >chemistry? > > >>Are you also saying that there is no relationship between the >Christian > >God > > >>and a father figure? > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:19 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > >> > > >>Old Sigmund is a dicredited, cocaine sniffing fraud from an earlier >time > >as > > >>you show below i.e. he died in 1939. Read up on all the recent > > >discoveries, > > >>since 1939, about how the human brain works based on chemical > >interactions. > > >>You should thank our wonderful God! > > >>= ) > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Mark > > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:10 PM > > >>Subject: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > >> > > >>Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) > > >>Austrian psychiatrist > > >>The psychoanalysis of individual human beings, however, teaches us >with > > >>quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in the > > >>likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends on >his > > >>relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes along > >with > > >>that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an exalted > > >>father. > > >>-- Totem and Taboo, pt. 4, sct. 6 > > >> > > >>P.S. > > >> > > >>Bill, you utter meaningless phrases like only babbling Christians do >so > > >>well. I have faith in reason, hard work, and ethics. > > >> > > >>You, on the other hand, limit yourself to a single manmade text called > >the > > >>Bible. > > >> > > >>Which sounds more fruitful and positive to you? > > >> > > >>= ) > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:44 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >> > > >> > > >>You either have faith or you do not. Some things are not explained > >except > > >>by faith. > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Mark > > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:46 AM > > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >> > > >> > > >>Bill, you think the Bible encompasses the past, present and future > >better > > >>than science? How do vague statements clarify the truth? > > >> > > >>The Bible does a good job doing one thing: maintaining ignorance. > > >> > > >>Why else would people like you insist upon Bible literalism such as > >mankind > > >>being descendants of Adam and Eve, Noah creating an ark and gathering > >all > > >>animals to fill it, Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, ... > > >> > > >>Do you realize that those same Bible myths you cherish were actually > >stolen > > >>from older myths? Research Osiris and the Ressurection. Research > >Athena > > >>and Immaculate Conception. As a matter of fact, the whole virgin >birth > > >>story is a common theme with many religions. They signify more of a > >birth > > >>of mankind than they do anything else you knothead. > > >> > > >>= ) > > >> > > >>You're killing me. > > >> > > >>People believe in prepackaged myths because it's easy to believe what > > >people > > >>tell you. It's much harder to discover things on your own; however, > > >>discovery may be harder but it is much more rewarding. > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > >> > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:56 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >> > > >> > > >>Because it encompasses the past, present and future better than just > >your > > >>present. > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Mark > > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:14 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >> > > >> > > >>Give me some reasons to read that manmade text over any other. > > >> > > >>Why do you cling to the past? > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > >> > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:06 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >> > > >> > > >>Read the Bible. > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Mark > > >>To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net > > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:09 PM > > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >> > > >> > > >>Bill, substantiate your claim that God provided the 'perfect' code. > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >>From: Bill Morgan > > >>To: ; > > >>Cc: > > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:43 AM > > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >> > > >> > > >>Of course god creaed a perfect genetic code. > > >> > > >>I am really excited to hear what you say regarding why biologically >you > > >>should not marry a sister. > > >> > > >>Mark: do you know what an allele is? > > >> > > >> > > >>>From: "Mark" > > >>>To: "Bill Morgan" , > > >>>CC: > > >>>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >planet? > > >>>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:30:35 -0500 > > >>> > > >>>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > >>> > > >>>"I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations increase >over > > >>>time, > > >>>thus back then there were few if any." > > >>> > > >>>What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different from an > > >>>inherited genetic trait. > > >>> > > >>>"God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" > > >>> > > >>>There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could God > >create > > >>>such a thing? > > >>> > > >>>Mark > > >>>The Liberator > > >>>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >From: "Mark" > > >>> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > > >>> > > > >>> >CC: > > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >planet? > > >>> >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 > > >>> > > > >>> >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating humankind in > >light > > >>>of > > >>> >defects caused by incestuous relations? > > >>> > > > >>> >Mark > > >>> >The Liberator > > >>> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >>> > > > >>> >----- Original Message ----- > > >>> >From: Bill Bequette > > >>> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >>> >Cc: > > >>> >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM > > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >planet? > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> >Mark, > > >>> >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships result in > > >birth > > >>> >defects. That is God's answer. > > >>> > > > >>> >-----Original Message----- > > >>> >From: Mark > > >>> >To: Bill Morgan > > >>> >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com > > >>> > > > >>> >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM > > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >planet? > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" > > >>> > > > > >>> > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would not > >allow > > >>> > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of birth > > >defects. > > >>> >But > > >>> > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be knowledgeable of > > >>> >science? > > >>> > > > > >>> > >Mark > > >>> > >The Liberator > > >>> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>_________________________________________________________________________ > > >>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > >>> > > >>>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > >>>http://profiles.msn.com. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > >> > > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (rly-zb05.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.5]) by air-zb01.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:48:33 -0400 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:48:03 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA02641; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:47:54 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <006201c03b11$f63ab7e0$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:49:47 -0500 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ################################################ Subj: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 20-Oct-00 20:52:35 Pacific Daylight Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net, billbeq@mediaone.net Bill Morgan , you wrote: "The issue has been resolved." Which issue? "You refused to have dinner with us and I took your reasoning to be due to my wife's and mine faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." If you would like to believe in flaming rabbits that fly ferociously, be my guest but don't expect me to believe it with you. "For the hundredth time I don't save my e mails." You can do as you please with them. "For the third time I understand you meant us no ill will what so ever and I harbor no feeling what so ever that you insulted us. I used to think that, but am convinced you do not. The issue is resolved from my end, and I shant pursure it further." Ahh...I don't give a rat's ass about the whole thing. In fact, I find the insults to be very entertaining. Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , , >Subject: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail >Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:02:20 EDT > >In response to: > >Subj: Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail >Date: 10-Oct-00 15:37:06 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: DWise1@aol.com >CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net > >The matter is resolved thanks! > >%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > >>The matter is resolved thanks!<< > >THE HELL IT IS, BILL M! THAT IS A DAMNABLE LIE! > >This matter can never be resolved until you substantiate your accusations >against me with enough information that we can identify the offending >messages and compare them against what you "remember" that I had written. > > >>You insulted my wife's faith in Christ and gave that as your reaosn for >not >going to Denny's.<< > >REPEAT THE WORDS OF THE INSULT! OR SHOW ME THE MESSAGE! And don't lie to >us >and claim that you don't have it, because we all know that you do! > >If you truly believe that I had "insulted [your] wife's faith in Christ and >gave that as [my] reaosn for not going to Denny's", then tell me WHAT WORDS >you "remember" that I had written so that I can find the actual message >that >you think you are talking >about. > >Stop simply repeating your accusations and SUBSTANTIATE THEM! Repeat what >you think you remember my wording to have been! Tell me as many as you can >remember of those "very nasty names" you accuse me of having called you! > >Bill M, was one of those "very nasty names" "*ssh*l*" (synonym for "anus")? >Yes or no. > > >This is the THIRTY-SIXTH TIME that I am asking you for this information! >You >cannot escape the truth, so stop trying to run away from it! > > >These are the answers that you need to answer regarding your accusations. >I >cannot and will not accept the mere repeating of the accusations. We must >be >able to use your answer to identify the actual messages in question. > >You MUST give the actual insults and actual "very nasty names" to the very >best of your ability to remember. > >You MUST describe in detail the "bigoted attacks on [you] and [your] wife" >that I am supposed to have conducted. > >You MUST describe in detail my alleged statement that I thought you are >"some >evil wicked person out to destroy society". > >You MUST describe in detail my alleged statement that I thought you are >"wacked for beleiving in God". > >You MUST describe in detail the insults I allegedly used in "[P]ersonally >insulting [you] on the level of a name calling 2nd grader." > >You MUST describe in detail the words I allegedly used in "[I]nsulting >[your] >wife and [you]." > >You MUST describe in detail what words were used when my wife and I had >allegedly labelled you and your wife as evil. > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (rly-yg03.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.3]) by air-yg05.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:52:35 -0400 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:52:05 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA03032; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:52:00 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <006901c03b12$88eda660$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , Cc: , References: Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:53:54 -0500 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: 20-Oct-00 20:57:50 Pacific Daylight Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), editor@liberator.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com Bill see you in church Sunday. We can pray for the heathen. Bill -----Original Message----- From: Bill Morgan To: editor@liberator.net ; billbeq@mediaone.net Cc: DWise1@AOL.com Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 7:14 PM Subject: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net >I have to admit I am a little teary eyed. > >Remember the end of the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy says to the scarecrow she >will miss him the most? Well Mark, you are that scarecrow...I will miss you >the most. I think with counselling we could reconcile. > >Dave, I am going to delete all of your future e mails. Mark's are fun. > >This will shock you all. Do I beleif faith in God is more important than >anything? Yes. Is it life or death to me that you beleive? No. I wish >you did, but if you don't thats fine, its your choice, your free will. Its >not any chaff my hide. > >Mark's humorous jabs give me joy and mirth and thus I am going to continue >to open some of them if they keep coming. > > >>From: "Mark" >>To: "Bill Morgan" , >>CC: >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:35:22 -0500 >> >>Bill Morgan , you wrote: >> >>"Guys, I wish you all the best but I am out of town on my brothers in laws >>lap top and have about 100 emails from you all. I will delete them and >>will >>do so in the future." >> >>Why let good ideas alter your stagnant point of view? ...just ignore them. >> >>= ) >> >>"You may call me at home at 714 898-8331 if you want to meet and discuss >>why >>you feel let down by God." >> >>How could the Christian interpretation of God let me down? I'm intrigued >>how people can swallow other's beliefs without question. It's fascinating. >> >>"I just dont have teh time to respond to the e-mails, although I do admit >>it >>was fun and that Dave and Mark are obviously >>intelligent, and Mrk has a synical wit that I greatly appreciate." >> >>There's absolutely nothing cynical about wit but thanks for recognizing my >>views for what they are...brilliant. Just kidding... >> >>"Mark, I hope you learn the difference between an allele and a mutation. >>You will be ridiculed by any biologist, or a nerd biologist (like me) when >>you try to bluff when you lack the knowledge of something basic." >> >>Dave, enlighten me, if you can. >> >>"Dave, you are a genius, a patriot and I assume a good family man, just >>learn to be more open minded and I wish we had never wasted so much time on >>what we thought you said about my wife. I am certain you did not mean to >>say what I assumed you said." >> >>You know what is said about people who ass-u-me, right? >> >>"Here is where we differ gentlemen: I have a little faith that >>intellignece >>greater than our created the human body and science backs it up. You have >>blind faith in thinking chemical arranged them selves by chance and made up >>a human body, oh, excuse my, over billions of years. Just basic knowledge >>of what an enzyeme is makes that childish, but any childish beliefe that >>will remove God from your life will do that wont it?" >> >>Why do you assume that the two views are seperate? >> >>"I tell you what. I will open one more e ail from you both, after this >>one, >>then we gotta have a legal separation." >> >>Bill, if we have to get a legal seperation, does this mean you think we >>were >>married? >> >>= ) >> >>Thinking for the two of us, >> >>Mark >>The Liberator >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> >> >From: "Mark" >> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" >> > >> >CC: >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:58:26 -0500 >> > >> >I didn't say he wasn't a religious man. However, I doubt he could have >> >followed any particular faith. His religion was science. >> > >> >Einstein got into a heated debate with Bohr when Bohr told his theories >>of >> >a >> >probabilistic universe. Einstein reported something to the effect of >>"God >> >doesn't roll dice." Later, Einstein accepted Bohr's theories. >> > >> >= ) >> > >> >Mark >> >The Liberator >> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: Bill Bequette >> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> >Cc: >> >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:53 PM >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> > >> >Well he believed in God from studying science and he was a Jew who follow >> >the Bible except he thought Jesus was just a good Rabbi. I don't see him >> >not >> >being religious? Though I disagree with him on Jesus just being a good >> >Rabbi. I would say we believed in the same God. >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Mark >> >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >> > >> >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:29 PM >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> > >> > >Bill, I hate to disappoint you but Einstein didn't believe in quite the >> >same >> > >God you believe in. He wasn't too keen on the whole faith issue. He >>was >> >a >> > >firm believer in science. Like ancient thinkers, Einstein too believed >> >by >> > >studying science, one learns about God since God created the Universe. >> >He >> > >felt a direct connection to God from studying science and mathematics >>-- >> >the >> > >language of God. It is my opinion that his quest for the unification >> >theory >> > >was as spiritual as it was scientific. >> > > >> > >Only simplistic religionists feel that science is somehow separate from >> >God. >> > > >> > >In my opinion, God is the Universe. By studying it, we study God. >> > > >> > >We can fall down and think that our brains are too simple to understand >> >the >> > >Universe and succumb to mythical stories to pacify ourselves or we can >> > >discover life's beauty, which MUST include science. >> > > >> > >Mark >> > >The Liberator >> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > > >> > > >> > >----- Original Message ----- >> > >From: Bill Bequette >> > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> > >Cc: >> > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:23 PM >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > > >> > > >> > >Well there are theories(String theory and others) put forth that >>multiple >> > >dimensions exist and that since time is a dimension that it may simply >> >have >> > >been a singularity due to a black hole etc. and at some point we were >>all >> > >created when the dimensions unfolded. At some point you have to have >> >faith >> > >such as most of the great minds such as Einstein who was Jewish and >>Isaac >> > >Newton did(Though he went off the deep end to a degree). When they >>were >> > >confronted with all the overwhelming evidence of how fantastic our >> >universe >> > >is they realized a God has to exist. I am surprised you don't! >> > > >> > >= ) >> > > >> > >-----Original Message----- >> > >From: Mark >> > >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >> > > >> > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:09 PM >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > > >> > > >> > >>What evidence do you have that God has always existed? What makes you >> > >think >> > >>he will always exist? >> > >> >> > >>If God is the creator of the Universe, why did he create it in such a >> >way >> > >to >> > >>suggest there was a mighty explosion of material? Did God create the >> > >>Universe in an explosion, like the theory called the Big Bang? If >>this >> >is >> > >>possible, then why is it necessary for religionists to argue with >> > >scientists >> > >>who speak of the Big Bang? >> > >> >> > >>Mark >> > >>The Liberator >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Bill Bequette >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:04 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>God encompasses all. God has and always will exist. >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Mark >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:41 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Bill, it's humorous how you run away from my questions and head to the >> >same >> > >>old question "How did life start?" >> > >> >> > >>Where did God come from? >> > >> >> > >>Mark >> > >>The Liberator >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Bill Bequette >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:45 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Any interaction will obviously in some way alter the brain chemistry. >> >God >> > >>made all men. Read the Bible! Have you ever read the Bible? How did >> >life >> > >>start? >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Mark >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:29 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Bill, are you saying that social interactions cannot affect brain >> > >chemistry? >> > >>Are you also saying that there is no relationship between the >>Christian >> >God >> > >>and a father figure? >> > >> >> > >>Mark >> > >>The Liberator >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Bill Bequette >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:19 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Old Sigmund is a dicredited, cocaine sniffing fraud from an earlier >>time >> >as >> > >>you show below i.e. he died in 1939. Read up on all the recent >> > >discoveries, >> > >>since 1939, about how the human brain works based on chemical >> >interactions. >> > >>You should thank our wonderful God! >> > >>= ) >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Mark >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:10 PM >> > >>Subject: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) >> > >>Austrian psychiatrist >> > >>The psychoanalysis of individual human beings, however, teaches us >>with >> > >>quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in the >> > >>likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends on >>his >> > >>relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes along >> >with >> > >>that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an exalted >> > >>father. >> > >>-- Totem and Taboo, pt. 4, sct. 6 >> > >> >> > >>P.S. >> > >> >> > >>Bill, you utter meaningless phrases like only babbling Christians do >>so >> > >>well. I have faith in reason, hard work, and ethics. >> > >> >> > >>You, on the other hand, limit yourself to a single manmade text called >> >the >> > >>Bible. >> > >> >> > >>Which sounds more fruitful and positive to you? >> > >> >> > >>= ) >> > >> >> > >>Mark >> > >>The Liberator >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Bill Bequette >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:44 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>You either have faith or you do not. Some things are not explained >> >except >> > >>by faith. >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Mark >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:46 AM >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Bill, you think the Bible encompasses the past, present and future >> >better >> > >>than science? How do vague statements clarify the truth? >> > >> >> > >>The Bible does a good job doing one thing: maintaining ignorance. >> > >> >> > >>Why else would people like you insist upon Bible literalism such as >> >mankind >> > >>being descendants of Adam and Eve, Noah creating an ark and gathering >> >all >> > >>animals to fill it, Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, ... >> > >> >> > >>Do you realize that those same Bible myths you cherish were actually >> >stolen >> > >>from older myths? Research Osiris and the Ressurection. Research >> >Athena >> > >>and Immaculate Conception. As a matter of fact, the whole virgin >>birth >> > >>story is a common theme with many religions. They signify more of a >> >birth >> > >>of mankind than they do anything else you knothead. >> > >> >> > >>= ) >> > >> >> > >>You're killing me. >> > >> >> > >>People believe in prepackaged myths because it's easy to believe what >> > >people >> > >>tell you. It's much harder to discover things on your own; however, >> > >>discovery may be harder but it is much more rewarding. >> > >> >> > >>Mark >> > >>The Liberator >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Bill Bequette >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:56 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Because it encompasses the past, present and future better than just >> >your >> > >>present. >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Mark >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:14 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Give me some reasons to read that manmade text over any other. >> > >> >> > >>Why do you cling to the past? >> > >> >> > >>Mark >> > >>The Liberator >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Bill Bequette >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:06 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Read the Bible. >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Mark >> > >>To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:09 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Bill, substantiate your claim that God provided the 'perfect' code. >> > >> >> > >>Mark >> > >>The Liberator >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Bill Morgan >> > >>To: ; >> > >>Cc: >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:43 AM >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Of course god creaed a perfect genetic code. >> > >> >> > >>I am really excited to hear what you say regarding why biologically >>you >> > >>should not marry a sister. >> > >> >> > >>Mark: do you know what an allele is? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>>From: "Mark" >> > >>>To: "Bill Morgan" , >> > >>>CC: >> > >>>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >>>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:30:35 -0500 >> > >>> >> > >>>Bill Morgan , you wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>>"I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations increase >>over >> > >>>time, >> > >>>thus back then there were few if any." >> > >>> >> > >>>What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different from an >> > >>>inherited genetic trait. >> > >>> >> > >>>"God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" >> > >>> >> > >>>There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could God >> >create >> > >>>such a thing? >> > >>> >> > >>>Mark >> > >>>The Liberator >> > >>>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >From: "Mark" >> > >>> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" >> > >>> > >> > >>> >CC: >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >> >planet? >> > >>> >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 >> > >>> > >> > >>> >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating humankind in >> >light >> > >>>of >> > >>> >defects caused by incestuous relations? >> > >>> > >> > >>> >Mark >> > >>> >The Liberator >> > >>> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >>> > >> > >>> >----- Original Message ----- >> > >>> >From: Bill Bequette >> > >>> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> >> > >>> >Cc: >> > >>> >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >> >planet? >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> >Mark, >> > >>> >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships result in >> > >birth >> > >>> >defects. That is God's answer. >> > >>> > >> > >>> >-----Original Message----- >> > >>> >From: Mark >> > >>> >To: Bill Morgan >> > >>> >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com >> > >>> > >> > >>> >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >> >planet? >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would not >> >allow >> > >>> > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of birth >> > >defects. >> > >>> >But >> > >>> > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be knowledgeable of >> > >>> >science? >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >Mark >> > >>> > >The Liberator >> > >>> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> >> > >> >>>_________________________________________________________________________ >> > >>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >> >http://www.hotmail.com. >> > >>> >> > >>>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >> > >>>http://profiles.msn.com. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >>_________________________________________________________________________ >> > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >> >http://www.hotmail.com. >> > >> >> > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >> > >>http://profiles.msn.com. >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >>_________________________________________________________________________ >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. >> >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >>http://profiles.msn.com. >> >> >> > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-za01.mx.aol.com (rly-za01.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.97]) by air-za04.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:57:50 -0400 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-za01.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:57:28 -0400 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA27992; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000a01c03b13$f4cd8160$fdc1fea9@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: "Bill Morgan" , Cc: Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:04:05 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 20-Oct-00 20:58:19 Pacific Daylight Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net Pray for the heathen. -----Original Message----- From: Bill Morgan To: DWise1@aol.com Cc: editor@liberator.net ; billbeq@mediaone.net Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 7:05 PM Subject: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail >The issue has been resolved. > >You refused to have dinner with us and I took your reasoning to be due to my >wife's and mine faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. > >For the hundredth time I don't save my e mails. > >For the third time I understand you meant us no ill will what so ever and I >harbor no feeling what so ever that you insulted us. I used to think that, >but am convinced you do not. > >The issue is resolved from my end, and I shant pursure it further. > > >>From: DWise1@aol.com >>To: >>CC: , , >>Subject: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail >>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:02:20 EDT >> >>In response to: >> >>Subj: Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail >>Date: 10-Oct-00 15:37:06 Pacific Daylight Time >>From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >>To: DWise1@aol.com >>CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net >> >>The matter is resolved thanks! >> >>%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% >> >> >>The matter is resolved thanks!<< >> >>THE HELL IT IS, BILL M! THAT IS A DAMNABLE LIE! >> >>This matter can never be resolved until you substantiate your accusations >>against me with enough information that we can identify the offending >>messages and compare them against what you "remember" that I had written. >> >> >>You insulted my wife's faith in Christ and gave that as your reaosn for >>not >>going to Denny's.<< >> >>REPEAT THE WORDS OF THE INSULT! OR SHOW ME THE MESSAGE! And don't lie to >>us >>and claim that you don't have it, because we all know that you do! >> >>If you truly believe that I had "insulted [your] wife's faith in Christ and >>gave that as [my] reaosn for not going to Denny's", then tell me WHAT WORDS >>you "remember" that I had written so that I can find the actual message >>that >>you think you are talking >about. >> >>Stop simply repeating your accusations and SUBSTANTIATE THEM! Repeat what >>you think you remember my wording to have been! Tell me as many as you can >>remember of those "very nasty names" you accuse me of having called you! >> >>Bill M, was one of those "very nasty names" "*ssh*l*" (synonym for "anus")? >>Yes or no. >> >> >>This is the THIRTY-SIXTH TIME that I am asking you for this information! >>You >>cannot escape the truth, so stop trying to run away from it! >> >> >>These are the answers that you need to answer regarding your accusations. >>I >>cannot and will not accept the mere repeating of the accusations. We must >>be >>able to use your answer to identify the actual messages in question. >> >>You MUST give the actual insults and actual "very nasty names" to the very >>best of your ability to remember. >> >>You MUST describe in detail the "bigoted attacks on [you] and [your] wife" >>that I am supposed to have conducted. >> >>You MUST describe in detail my alleged statement that I thought you are >>"some >>evil wicked person out to destroy society". >> >>You MUST describe in detail my alleged statement that I thought you are >>"wacked for beleiving in God". >> >>You MUST describe in detail the insults I allegedly used in "[P]ersonally >>insulting [you] on the level of a name calling 2nd grader." >> >>You MUST describe in detail the words I allegedly used in "[I]nsulting >>[your] >>wife and [you]." >> >>You MUST describe in detail what words were used when my wife and I had >>allegedly labelled you and your wife as evil. >> > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yc04.mx.aol.com (rly-yc04.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.36]) by air-yc02.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:58:19 -0400 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-yc04.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:58:01 -0400 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA28173; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:57:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001101c03b14$09ca2000$fdc1fea9@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: "Bill Morgan" , Cc: Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:04:41 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? Date: 20-Oct-00 21:03:11 Pacific Daylight Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: editor@liberator.net (Mark), billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) CC: DWise1@aol.com Dogs have bad dreams about the heathen. -----Original Message----- From: Mark To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net Cc: DWise1@aol.com Date: Sunday, October 01, 2000 6:19 AM Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"When you know the truth you are happy." > >Were you happy to learn that your personal savior is a character in a story? > >= ) > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >>From: "Media One Mail" >>To: "Bill Morgan" , >>CC: >>Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? >>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:59:47 -0700 >> >>Bill have you ever noticed how unhappy some people are? Why is that? Bill >>your real happy most the time! I think I know why!!!!! >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Bill Morgan >> To: editor@liberator.net ; plasma@worldnet.att.net >> Cc: DWise1@aol.com >> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 7:08 AM >> Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? >> >> >> I don't know about hype about exercising, I have always exercised. I >>have >> been busy watching the Olympics (really as back ground noise while doing >> other vital things). Do gymnasts hate their bodies? Oh the humanity! >> >> >> >From: "Mark" >> >To: "Bill Morgan" , >> >CC: >> >Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? >> >Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:16:24 -0500 >> > >> >Have you noticed all of this exorcism hype? First the Pope tries to >> >exorcise a woman but fails. Next a priest is trained as an exorcist. >>Then >> >the film The Exorcist will be re-released soon. Coincidence? Nah.... >> > >> >People love fiction. It's entertaining.... >> > >> >Mark >> >The Liberator >> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: Bill Morgan >> >To: ; >> >Cc: >> >Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:08 PM >> >Subject: What do dogs have bad dreams about? >> > >> > >> >We will have a 6 foot long submarine sandwich and chips and stuff. >>Please >> >bring a liter bottle of your choice. >> > >> > >> > >From: "Mark" >> > >To: >> > >CC: , >> > >Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer >>to >> > >you >> > >Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:52:56 -0500 >> > > >> > >If it's possible for fictional characters to love... >> > > ----- Original Message ----- >> > > From: .. >> > > To: Bill Morgan ; DWise1@aol.com >> > > Cc: editor@liberator.net >> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:50 AM >> > > Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now >>offer >> >to >> > >you >> > > >> > > >> > > Break bread and become friends!!!! It is amazing what a cup of pop >>and >> > >piece of pizza can accomplish! Jesus Loves You! >> > > Bill >> > > ----- Original Message ----- >> > > From: Bill Morgan >> > > To: plasma@worldnet.att.net ; DWise1@aol.com >> > > Cc: editor@liberator.net >> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 10:56 PM >> > > Subject: RE: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now >> >offer >> > >to you >> > > >> > > >> > > Bill, good point, I offered to meet Mr Wise for food and drink >>many >> > >times >> > > and have been rejected. You know how much I hate typing. >> > > >> > > Mr Wise, lets meet and eat! :) >> > > >> > > >> > > >From: "Bill Bequette" >> > > >To: >> > > >CC: , >> > > >Subject: RE: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now >> >offer >> > >to >> > > >you >> > > >Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:27:55 -0700 >> > > > >> > > >Sorry, >> > > >I didn't see the explanation below when I sent the other email. >> >Well >> > >if >> > > >Bill does not agree with your viewpoint or seems to have >>slandered >> > >your >> > > >name >> > > >it may be because discussions about religion are a very >>emotional >> > >topic and >> > > >even if you were correct you could not ask him to relinquish >>his >> > >"lifes >> > > >values". You may be asking him to relinquish everything that >>he >> > >believes >> > > >in >> > > >i.e. his entire personality and vice versa. I don't believe >>much >> >is >> > > >accomplished in discussing religion, or politics. Neither >>party >> >will >> > >ever >> > > >agree with the other in most cases. I am not refuting that I >> >believe >> > >in >> > > >God >> > > >by the above or that you or Bill are correct(I just don't have >>the >> > >time to >> > > >review all your emails) just that some issues are better left >>alone >> > >if the >> > > >goal is to convert the other based on the discussion at hand. >> >Maybe >> > >you >> > > >should all get together and have a pizza and chill a little. I >> >wish >> > >you >> > > >all >> > > >well. Take Care, Bill B. >> > > > >> > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > From: DWise1@aol.com [mailto:DWise1@aol.com] >> > > > > Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 2:56 PM >> > > > > To: plasma@worldnet.att.net >> > > > > Cc: dwise1@aol.com; editor@liberator.net; >>billyjack1@hotmail.com >> > > > > Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I >>now >> > >offer to >> > > > > you >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Bill B., I understand that Bill Morgan (Bill M.) is your >>friend, >> > > > > but I would hope that that friendship would not prevent you >>from >> > > > > seeking the truth. I am not asking you to side with me >>against >> > > > > your friend, but rather that you side with the cause of >> > > > > determining the truth of this matter. From my own >> >fundamentalist >> > > > > Christian training, I remember being taught that Christians >>at >> >to >> > > > > serve the God of Truth, which Bill has echoed in his >>published >> > > > > writings by telling proselytization trainees that they serve >> > > > > Truth. Unless fundamentalist Christian thought has changed >> > > > > radically in the past few decades (besides the heavy >> > > > > politization), I would expect you to also want to serve >>Truth. >> > > > > That is all that I ask, that you honor and apply those >>Christian >> > >values. >> > > > > >> > > > > In order to serve Truth, the facts must be examined. That >>is >> >why >> > > > > I had CC:'d all those messages to you, so that you could >>learn >> > > > > something about what the situation here really is. That is >>also >> > > > > why I told you where you could find copies of the >>correspondence >> > > > > between Bill and me, so you could see for yourself what had >>been >> > > > > said and what was going on. >> > > > > >> > > > > Bill misled you to believe that this was a disagreement over >> > > > > world-views and that I was closing my eyes to the facts. I >>am >> > > > > truly sorry to have to tell you this, but Bill lied to you. >> > > > > World views had not had a chance to enter into the >>discussion. >> > > > > And I have steadfastly insisted that we examine the facts >> >whereas >> > > > > Bill has steadfastly refused to and is willfully preventing >>our >> > > > > examination of the facts. >> > > > > >> > > > > No, what the disagreement is over is that Bill has >> > > > > libelled/slandered me and I am trying to resolve that >>matter. >> >He >> > > > > has made several false accusations against me, saying that I >>had >> > > > > said or that I believe various horrible things. I am sure >>that >> >I >> > > > > had never said such things to Bill or about Bill in print. >>I >> > > > > have repeatedly asked Bill to substantiate his accusations, >>at >> > > > > the very least he needs to tell me what I had said, as close >>as >> > > > > he can remember it. Bill steadfastly refuses. Until he >> >provides >> > > > > that information, we cannot know which messages to examine >>in >> > > > > order to arrive at the truth. >> > > > > >> > > > > In order to arrive at the truth in this matter, we need to >> > > > > examine the facts, ie, what does Bill think I had said and >>what >> > > > > had I actually written? I have repeatedly called for >> >examination >> > > > > of the facts and Bill has steadfastly ignored those >>requests. >> > > > > Since I find it impossible to believe that he could have >>missed >> > > > > over 20 very clear requests (about 27 now, if we include >> > > > > references to those requests), Bill must be withholding his >> > > > > information willfully. That would mean that Bill is >>willfully >> > > > > opposing the Truth. Is that how a Christian is supposed to >> > >behave? >> > > > > >> > > > > As I said, I am not asking you to side with me against Bill, >>but >> > > > > rather that you side with the Truth. I have just repeated >>to >> >you >> > > > > what I see the situation as being. You can read the actual >> > > > > transcript to see whether I am being truthful or Bill is. >>Or >> > > > > neither of us. >> > > > > >> > > > > In either case, we still need to resolve this matter. >> > > > > Unfortunately, Bill is being intransigent. We need help. >> > > > > >> > > > > The actual role that I would like you to take is to try to >> > > > > convince Bill to relinguish his information so that we can >> > > > > finally examine the facts. What does he think I said to >>insult >> > > > > his wife? What "very nasty names" does he think I called >>him? >> > > > > At the end of this message, I will repeat the list of >> >accusations >> > > > > Bill made against me; at least he confirmed that he had >>indeed >> > > > > made those accusations. >> > > > > >> > > > > If you are unsuccessful in that endeavor, then at least try >>to >> > > > > get Bill to explain to you why he refuses to divulge that >> > > > > information. Please remind him that if I had truly done the >> > > > > things that he had accused me of, then we would find them >>right >> > > > > there in the record. >> > > > > >> > > > > Then if he refuses to give you that explanation, please ask >>he >> > > > > why he is afraid to have the facts examined in this case. >> > > > > >> > > > > Personally, I believe that Bill Morgan sees this mess as one >>big >> > > > > "rabbit trail" that he wants to milk for all that he can. >>As >> > > > > long as we are mired in this mess, we cannot have a >>meaningful >> > > > > discussion. About three years of correspondence with Bill >>has >> > > > > taught me that he is very evasive and will do almost >>anything he >> > > > > can to avoid having a meaningful discussion. Even break one >>of >> > > > > the Ten Commandments by bearing false witness. >> > > > > >> > > > > A list of a few of the false accusations Bill Morgan has >>made >> > > > > against me and refuses to substantiate follows: >> > > > > >> > > > > 1. Having conducted "bigoted attacks on [him] and [his] >>wife" >> > > > > >> > > > > 2. Thinking he is "some evil wicked person out to destroy >> > >society". >> > > > > >> > > > > 3. Thinking he is "wacked for beleiving in God". >> > > > > >> > > > > 4. "[P]ersonally insulting [him] on the level of a name >>calling >> > > > > 2nd grader." >> > > > > >> > > > > 5. "[I]nsulting [his] wife and [him]. >> > > > > >> > > > > 6. That my wife and I had labelled him and his wife as evil. >> > > > > >> > > > > 7. Calling him "very nasty names." >> > > > > >> > > > > 8. That I had told him "what [my] wife thought of those who >> > > > > beleive in Gid". >> > > > > >> > > > > 9. That I would think he and his wife "are evil and wicked, >>the >> > > > > world's most sinister people". >> > > > > >> > > > > 10. That I refuse to meet him because of his beliefs. >> > > > > >> > > > > 11. That I sent electronically "many nasty words that were >>anti >> > > > > religious". >> > > > > >> > > > > Bill needs to either substantiate these accusations or else >> > > > > acknowledge that they are false and offer a most sincere >>apology >> > > > > to all parties for having made those accusations and >> >particularly >> > > > > for having prevented the timely resolution of this matter. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >_________________________________________________________________________ >> > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >> > >http://www.hotmail.com. >> > > >> > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile >>at >> > > http://profiles.msn.com. >> > > >> > >> >> >_________________________________________________________________________ >> >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >>http://www.hotmail.com. >> > >> >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >> >http://profiles.msn.com. >> > >> > >> > >> >> >>_________________________________________________________________________ >> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >>http://www.hotmail.com. >> >> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >> http://profiles.msn.com. >> > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zd05.mx.aol.com (rly-zd05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.229]) by air-zd02.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:03:11 -0400 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-zd05.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:02:43 -0400 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA00147; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003f01c03b14$b13e2ac0$fdc1fea9@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: "Mark" , "Bill Morgan" Cc: Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:09:22 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? Date: 20-Oct-00 21:25:00 Pacific Daylight Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette), editor@liberator.net (Mark), billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) CC: DWise1@aol.com Bill Bequette , you wrote: "Dogs have bad dreams about the heathen." Huh? Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ -----Original Message----- From: Mark To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net Cc: DWise1@aol.com Date: Sunday, October 01, 2000 6:19 AM Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"When you know the truth you are happy." > >Were you happy to learn that your personal savior is a character in a story? > >= ) > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >>From: "Media One Mail" >>To: "Bill Morgan" , >>CC: >>Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? >>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:59:47 -0700 >> >>Bill have you ever noticed how unhappy some people are? Why is that? Bill >>your real happy most the time! I think I know why!!!!! >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Bill Morgan >> To: editor@liberator.net ; plasma@worldnet.att.net >> Cc: DWise1@aol.com >> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 7:08 AM >> Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? >> >> >> I don't know about hype about exercising, I have always exercised. I >>have >> been busy watching the Olympics (really as back ground noise while doing >> other vital things). Do gymnasts hate their bodies? Oh the humanity! >> >> >> >From: "Mark" >> >To: "Bill Morgan" , >> >CC: >> >Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? >> >Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:16:24 -0500 >> > >> >Have you noticed all of this exorcism hype? First the Pope tries to >> >exorcise a woman but fails. Next a priest is trained as an exorcist. >>Then >> >the film The Exorcist will be re-released soon. Coincidence? Nah.... >> > >> >People love fiction. It's entertaining.... >> > >> >Mark >> >The Liberator >> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: Bill Morgan >> >To: ; >> >Cc: >> >Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:08 PM >> >Subject: What do dogs have bad dreams about? >> > >> > >> >We will have a 6 foot long submarine sandwich and chips and stuff. >>Please >> >bring a liter bottle of your choice. >> > >> > >> > >From: "Mark" >> > >To: >> > >CC: , >> > >Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer >>to >> > >you >> > >Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:52:56 -0500 >> > > >> > >If it's possible for fictional characters to love... >> > > ----- Original Message ----- >> > > From: .. >> > > To: Bill Morgan ; DWise1@aol.com >> > > Cc: editor@liberator.net >> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:50 AM >> > > Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now >>offer >> >to >> > >you >> > > >> > > >> > > Break bread and become friends!!!! It is amazing what a cup of pop >>and >> > >piece of pizza can accomplish! Jesus Loves You! >> > > Bill >> > > ----- Original Message ----- >> > > From: Bill Morgan >> > > To: plasma@worldnet.att.net ; DWise1@aol.com >> > > Cc: editor@liberator.net >> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 10:56 PM >> > > Subject: RE: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now >> >offer >> > >to you >> > > >> > > >> > > Bill, good point, I offered to meet Mr Wise for food and drink >>many >> > >times >> > > and have been rejected. You know how much I hate typing. >> > > >> > > Mr Wise, lets meet and eat! :) >> > > >> > > >> > > >From: "Bill Bequette" >> > > >To: >> > > >CC: , >> > > >Subject: RE: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now >> >offer >> > >to >> > > >you >> > > >Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:27:55 -0700 >> > > > >> > > >Sorry, >> > > >I didn't see the explanation below when I sent the other email. >> >Well >> > >if >> > > >Bill does not agree with your viewpoint or seems to have >>slandered >> > >your >> > > >name >> > > >it may be because discussions about religion are a very >>emotional >> > >topic and >> > > >even if you were correct you could not ask him to relinquish >>his >> > >"lifes >> > > >values". You may be asking him to relinquish everything that >>he >> > >believes >> > > >in >> > > >i.e. his entire personality and vice versa. I don't believe >>much >> >is >> > > >accomplished in discussing religion, or politics. Neither >>party >> >will >> > >ever >> > > >agree with the other in most cases. I am not refuting that I >> >believe >> > >in >> > > >God >> > > >by the above or that you or Bill are correct(I just don't have >>the >> > >time to >> > > >review all your emails) just that some issues are better left >>alone >> > >if the >> > > >goal is to convert the other based on the discussion at hand. >> >Maybe >> > >you >> > > >should all get together and have a pizza and chill a little. I >> >wish >> > >you >> > > >all >> > > >well. Take Care, Bill B. >> > > > >> > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > From: DWise1@aol.com [mailto:DWise1@aol.com] >> > > > > Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 2:56 PM >> > > > > To: plasma@worldnet.att.net >> > > > > Cc: dwise1@aol.com; editor@liberator.net; >>billyjack1@hotmail.com >> > > > > Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I >>now >> > >offer to >> > > > > you >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Bill B., I understand that Bill Morgan (Bill M.) is your >>friend, >> > > > > but I would hope that that friendship would not prevent you >>from >> > > > > seeking the truth. I am not asking you to side with me >>against >> > > > > your friend, but rather that you side with the cause of >> > > > > determining the truth of this matter. From my own >> >fundamentalist >> > > > > Christian training, I remember being taught that Christians >>at >> >to >> > > > > serve the God of Truth, which Bill has echoed in his >>published >> > > > > writings by telling proselytization trainees that they serve >> > > > > Truth. Unless fundamentalist Christian thought has changed >> > > > > radically in the past few decades (besides the heavy >> > > > > politization), I would expect you to also want to serve >>Truth. >> > > > > That is all that I ask, that you honor and apply those >>Christian >> > >values. >> > > > > >> > > > > In order to serve Truth, the facts must be examined. That >>is >> >why >> > > > > I had CC:'d all those messages to you, so that you could >>learn >> > > > > something about what the situation here really is. That is >>also >> > > > > why I told you where you could find copies of the >>correspondence >> > > > > between Bill and me, so you could see for yourself what had >>been >> > > > > said and what was going on. >> > > > > >> > > > > Bill misled you to believe that this was a disagreement over >> > > > > world-views and that I was closing my eyes to the facts. I >>am >> > > > > truly sorry to have to tell you this, but Bill lied to you. >> > > > > World views had not had a chance to enter into the >>discussion. >> > > > > And I have steadfastly insisted that we examine the facts >> >whereas >> > > > > Bill has steadfastly refused to and is willfully preventing >>our >> > > > > examination of the facts. >> > > > > >> > > > > No, what the disagreement is over is that Bill has >> > > > > libelled/slandered me and I am trying to resolve that >>matter. >> >He >> > > > > has made several false accusations against me, saying that I >>had >> > > > > said or that I believe various horrible things. I am sure >>that >> >I >> > > > > had never said such things to Bill or about Bill in print. >>I >> > > > > have repeatedly asked Bill to substantiate his accusations, >>at >> > > > > the very least he needs to tell me what I had said, as close >>as >> > > > > he can remember it. Bill steadfastly refuses. Until he >> >provides >> > > > > that information, we cannot know which messages to examine >>in >> > > > > order to arrive at the truth. >> > > > > >> > > > > In order to arrive at the truth in this matter, we need to >> > > > > examine the facts, ie, what does Bill think I had said and >>what >> > > > > had I actually written? I have repeatedly called for >> >examination >> > > > > of the facts and Bill has steadfastly ignored those >>requests. >> > > > > Since I find it impossible to believe that he could have >>missed >> > > > > over 20 very clear requests (about 27 now, if we include >> > > > > references to those requests), Bill must be withholding his >> > > > > information willfully. That would mean that Bill is >>willfully >> > > > > opposing the Truth. Is that how a Christian is supposed to >> > >behave? >> > > > > >> > > > > As I said, I am not asking you to side with me against Bill, >>but >> > > > > rather that you side with the Truth. I have just repeated >>to >> >you >> > > > > what I see the situation as being. You can read the actual >> > > > > transcript to see whether I am being truthful or Bill is. >>Or >> > > > > neither of us. >> > > > > >> > > > > In either case, we still need to resolve this matter. >> > > > > Unfortunately, Bill is being intransigent. We need help. >> > > > > >> > > > > The actual role that I would like you to take is to try to >> > > > > convince Bill to relinguish his information so that we can >> > > > > finally examine the facts. What does he think I said to >>insult >> > > > > his wife? What "very nasty names" does he think I called >>him? >> > > > > At the end of this message, I will repeat the list of >> >accusations >> > > > > Bill made against me; at least he confirmed that he had >>indeed >> > > > > made those accusations. >> > > > > >> > > > > If you are unsuccessful in that endeavor, then at least try >>to >> > > > > get Bill to explain to you why he refuses to divulge that >> > > > > information. Please remind him that if I had truly done the >> > > > > things that he had accused me of, then we would find them >>right >> > > > > there in the record. >> > > > > >> > > > > Then if he refuses to give you that explanation, please ask >>he >> > > > > why he is afraid to have the facts examined in this case. >> > > > > >> > > > > Personally, I believe that Bill Morgan sees this mess as one >>big >> > > > > "rabbit trail" that he wants to milk for all that he can. >>As >> > > > > long as we are mired in this mess, we cannot have a >>meaningful >> > > > > discussion. About three years of correspondence with Bill >>has >> > > > > taught me that he is very evasive and will do almost >>anything he >> > > > > can to avoid having a meaningful discussion. Even break one >>of >> > > > > the Ten Commandments by bearing false witness. >> > > > > >> > > > > A list of a few of the false accusations Bill Morgan has >>made >> > > > > against me and refuses to substantiate follows: >> > > > > >> > > > > 1. Having conducted "bigoted attacks on [him] and [his] >>wife" >> > > > > >> > > > > 2. Thinking he is "some evil wicked person out to destroy >> > >society". >> > > > > >> > > > > 3. Thinking he is "wacked for beleiving in God". >> > > > > >> > > > > 4. "[P]ersonally insulting [him] on the level of a name >>calling >> > > > > 2nd grader." >> > > > > >> > > > > 5. "[I]nsulting [his] wife and [him]. >> > > > > >> > > > > 6. That my wife and I had labelled him and his wife as evil. >> > > > > >> > > > > 7. Calling him "very nasty names." >> > > > > >> > > > > 8. That I had told him "what [my] wife thought of those who >> > > > > beleive in Gid". >> > > > > >> > > > > 9. That I would think he and his wife "are evil and wicked, >>the >> > > > > world's most sinister people". >> > > > > >> > > > > 10. That I refuse to meet him because of his beliefs. >> > > > > >> > > > > 11. That I sent electronically "many nasty words that were >>anti >> > > > > religious". >> > > > > >> > > > > Bill needs to either substantiate these accusations or else >> > > > > acknowledge that they are false and offer a most sincere >>apology >> > > > > to all parties for having made those accusations and >> >particularly >> > > > > for having prevented the timely resolution of this matter. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >_________________________________________________________________________ >> > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >> > >http://www.hotmail.com. >> > > >> > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile >>at >> > > http://profiles.msn.com. >> > > >> > >> >> >_________________________________________________________________________ >> >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >>http://www.hotmail.com. >> > >> >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >> >http://profiles.msn.com. >> > >> > >> > >> >> >>_________________________________________________________________________ >> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >>http://www.hotmail.com. >> >> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >> http://profiles.msn.com. >> > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb02.mx.aol.com (rly-yb02.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.2]) by air-yb05.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:25:00 -0400 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yb02.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:24:35 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA06192; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:24:27 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <009001c03b17$114cb420$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Bequette" , "Mark" , "Bill Morgan" Cc: References: <003f01c03b14$b13e2ac0$fdc1fea9@wb.we.mediaone.net> Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:26:20 -0500 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: 20-Oct-00 21:31:15 Pacific Daylight Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette), billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), editor@liberator.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com Bill Bequette , you wrote: "Bill see you in church Sunday. We can pray for the heathen." Main Entry: heathen Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural heathens or heathen Date: before 12th century 1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible 2 : an uncivilized or irreligious person According to #1 and current population numbers around the world, there are more 'heathens' than Bible-believers Main Entry: ir·re·li·gious Pronunciation: -'li-j&s Function: adjective Date: 15th century 1 : neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or practices 2 : indicating lack of religion Hmmm... Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ -----Original Message----- From: Bill Morgan To: editor@liberator.net ; billbeq@mediaone.net Cc: DWise1@AOL.com Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 7:14 PM Subject: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net >I have to admit I am a little teary eyed. > >Remember the end of the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy says to the scarecrow she >will miss him the most? Well Mark, you are that scarecrow...I will miss you >the most. I think with counselling we could reconcile. > >Dave, I am going to delete all of your future e mails. Mark's are fun. > >This will shock you all. Do I beleif faith in God is more important than >anything? Yes. Is it life or death to me that you beleive? No. I wish >you did, but if you don't thats fine, its your choice, your free will. Its >not any chaff my hide. > >Mark's humorous jabs give me joy and mirth and thus I am going to continue >to open some of them if they keep coming. > > >>From: "Mark" >>To: "Bill Morgan" , >>CC: >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:35:22 -0500 >> >>Bill Morgan , you wrote: >> >>"Guys, I wish you all the best but I am out of town on my brothers in laws >>lap top and have about 100 emails from you all. I will delete them and >>will >>do so in the future." >> >>Why let good ideas alter your stagnant point of view? ...just ignore them. >> >>= ) >> >>"You may call me at home at 714 898-8331 if you want to meet and discuss >>why >>you feel let down by God." >> >>How could the Christian interpretation of God let me down? I'm intrigued >>how people can swallow other's beliefs without question. It's fascinating. >> >>"I just dont have teh time to respond to the e-mails, although I do admit >>it >>was fun and that Dave and Mark are obviously >>intelligent, and Mrk has a synical wit that I greatly appreciate." >> >>There's absolutely nothing cynical about wit but thanks for recognizing my >>views for what they are...brilliant. Just kidding... >> >>"Mark, I hope you learn the difference between an allele and a mutation. >>You will be ridiculed by any biologist, or a nerd biologist (like me) when >>you try to bluff when you lack the knowledge of something basic." >> >>Dave, enlighten me, if you can. >> >>"Dave, you are a genius, a patriot and I assume a good family man, just >>learn to be more open minded and I wish we had never wasted so much time on >>what we thought you said about my wife. I am certain you did not mean to >>say what I assumed you said." >> >>You know what is said about people who ass-u-me, right? >> >>"Here is where we differ gentlemen: I have a little faith that >>intellignece >>greater than our created the human body and science backs it up. You have >>blind faith in thinking chemical arranged them selves by chance and made up >>a human body, oh, excuse my, over billions of years. Just basic knowledge >>of what an enzyeme is makes that childish, but any childish beliefe that >>will remove God from your life will do that wont it?" >> >>Why do you assume that the two views are seperate? >> >>"I tell you what. I will open one more e ail from you both, after this >>one, >>then we gotta have a legal separation." >> >>Bill, if we have to get a legal seperation, does this mean you think we >>were >>married? >> >>= ) >> >>Thinking for the two of us, >> >>Mark >>The Liberator >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> >> >From: "Mark" >> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" >> > >> >CC: >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:58:26 -0500 >> > >> >I didn't say he wasn't a religious man. However, I doubt he could have >> >followed any particular faith. His religion was science. >> > >> >Einstein got into a heated debate with Bohr when Bohr told his theories >>of >> >a >> >probabilistic universe. Einstein reported something to the effect of >>"God >> >doesn't roll dice." Later, Einstein accepted Bohr's theories. >> > >> >= ) >> > >> >Mark >> >The Liberator >> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: Bill Bequette >> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> >Cc: >> >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:53 PM >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> > >> >Well he believed in God from studying science and he was a Jew who follow >> >the Bible except he thought Jesus was just a good Rabbi. I don't see him >> >not >> >being religious? Though I disagree with him on Jesus just being a good >> >Rabbi. I would say we believed in the same God. >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Mark >> >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >> > >> >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:29 PM >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> > >> > >Bill, I hate to disappoint you but Einstein didn't believe in quite the >> >same >> > >God you believe in. He wasn't too keen on the whole faith issue. He >>was >> >a >> > >firm believer in science. Like ancient thinkers, Einstein too believed >> >by >> > >studying science, one learns about God since God created the Universe. >> >He >> > >felt a direct connection to God from studying science and mathematics >>-- >> >the >> > >language of God. It is my opinion that his quest for the unification >> >theory >> > >was as spiritual as it was scientific. >> > > >> > >Only simplistic religionists feel that science is somehow separate from >> >God. >> > > >> > >In my opinion, God is the Universe. By studying it, we study God. >> > > >> > >We can fall down and think that our brains are too simple to understand >> >the >> > >Universe and succumb to mythical stories to pacify ourselves or we can >> > >discover life's beauty, which MUST include science. >> > > >> > >Mark >> > >The Liberator >> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > > >> > > >> > >----- Original Message ----- >> > >From: Bill Bequette >> > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> > >Cc: >> > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:23 PM >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > > >> > > >> > >Well there are theories(String theory and others) put forth that >>multiple >> > >dimensions exist and that since time is a dimension that it may simply >> >have >> > >been a singularity due to a black hole etc. and at some point we were >>all >> > >created when the dimensions unfolded. At some point you have to have >> >faith >> > >such as most of the great minds such as Einstein who was Jewish and >>Isaac >> > >Newton did(Though he went off the deep end to a degree). When they >>were >> > >confronted with all the overwhelming evidence of how fantastic our >> >universe >> > >is they realized a God has to exist. I am surprised you don't! >> > > >> > >= ) >> > > >> > >-----Original Message----- >> > >From: Mark >> > >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >> > > >> > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:09 PM >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > > >> > > >> > >>What evidence do you have that God has always existed? What makes you >> > >think >> > >>he will always exist? >> > >> >> > >>If God is the creator of the Universe, why did he create it in such a >> >way >> > >to >> > >>suggest there was a mighty explosion of material? Did God create the >> > >>Universe in an explosion, like the theory called the Big Bang? If >>this >> >is >> > >>possible, then why is it necessary for religionists to argue with >> > >scientists >> > >>who speak of the Big Bang? >> > >> >> > >>Mark >> > >>The Liberator >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Bill Bequette >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:04 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>God encompasses all. God has and always will exist. >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Mark >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:41 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Bill, it's humorous how you run away from my questions and head to the >> >same >> > >>old question "How did life start?" >> > >> >> > >>Where did God come from? >> > >> >> > >>Mark >> > >>The Liberator >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Bill Bequette >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:45 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Any interaction will obviously in some way alter the brain chemistry. >> >God >> > >>made all men. Read the Bible! Have you ever read the Bible? How did >> >life >> > >>start? >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Mark >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:29 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Bill, are you saying that social interactions cannot affect brain >> > >chemistry? >> > >>Are you also saying that there is no relationship between the >>Christian >> >God >> > >>and a father figure? >> > >> >> > >>Mark >> > >>The Liberator >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Bill Bequette >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:19 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Old Sigmund is a dicredited, cocaine sniffing fraud from an earlier >>time >> >as >> > >>you show below i.e. he died in 1939. Read up on all the recent >> > >discoveries, >> > >>since 1939, about how the human brain works based on chemical >> >interactions. >> > >>You should thank our wonderful God! >> > >>= ) >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Mark >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:10 PM >> > >>Subject: Freud on the psychology of God >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) >> > >>Austrian psychiatrist >> > >>The psychoanalysis of individual human beings, however, teaches us >>with >> > >>quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in the >> > >>likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends on >>his >> > >>relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes along >> >with >> > >>that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an exalted >> > >>father. >> > >>-- Totem and Taboo, pt. 4, sct. 6 >> > >> >> > >>P.S. >> > >> >> > >>Bill, you utter meaningless phrases like only babbling Christians do >>so >> > >>well. I have faith in reason, hard work, and ethics. >> > >> >> > >>You, on the other hand, limit yourself to a single manmade text called >> >the >> > >>Bible. >> > >> >> > >>Which sounds more fruitful and positive to you? >> > >> >> > >>= ) >> > >> >> > >>Mark >> > >>The Liberator >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Bill Bequette >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:44 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>You either have faith or you do not. Some things are not explained >> >except >> > >>by faith. >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Mark >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:46 AM >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Bill, you think the Bible encompasses the past, present and future >> >better >> > >>than science? How do vague statements clarify the truth? >> > >> >> > >>The Bible does a good job doing one thing: maintaining ignorance. >> > >> >> > >>Why else would people like you insist upon Bible literalism such as >> >mankind >> > >>being descendants of Adam and Eve, Noah creating an ark and gathering >> >all >> > >>animals to fill it, Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, ... >> > >> >> > >>Do you realize that those same Bible myths you cherish were actually >> >stolen >> > >>from older myths? Research Osiris and the Ressurection. Research >> >Athena >> > >>and Immaculate Conception. As a matter of fact, the whole virgin >>birth >> > >>story is a common theme with many religions. They signify more of a >> >birth >> > >>of mankind than they do anything else you knothead. >> > >> >> > >>= ) >> > >> >> > >>You're killing me. >> > >> >> > >>People believe in prepackaged myths because it's easy to believe what >> > >people >> > >>tell you. It's much harder to discover things on your own; however, >> > >>discovery may be harder but it is much more rewarding. >> > >> >> > >>Mark >> > >>The Liberator >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Bill Bequette >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:56 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Because it encompasses the past, present and future better than just >> >your >> > >>present. >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Mark >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:14 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Give me some reasons to read that manmade text over any other. >> > >> >> > >>Why do you cling to the past? >> > >> >> > >>Mark >> > >>The Liberator >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Bill Bequette >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:06 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Read the Bible. >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Mark >> > >>To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:09 PM >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Bill, substantiate your claim that God provided the 'perfect' code. >> > >> >> > >>Mark >> > >>The Liberator >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >> >> > >>----- Original Message ----- >> > >>From: Bill Morgan >> > >>To: ; >> > >>Cc: >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:43 AM >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>Of course god creaed a perfect genetic code. >> > >> >> > >>I am really excited to hear what you say regarding why biologically >>you >> > >>should not marry a sister. >> > >> >> > >>Mark: do you know what an allele is? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>>From: "Mark" >> > >>>To: "Bill Morgan" , >> > >>>CC: >> > >>>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>planet? >> > >>>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:30:35 -0500 >> > >>> >> > >>>Bill Morgan , you wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>>"I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations increase >>over >> > >>>time, >> > >>>thus back then there were few if any." >> > >>> >> > >>>What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different from an >> > >>>inherited genetic trait. >> > >>> >> > >>>"God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" >> > >>> >> > >>>There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could God >> >create >> > >>>such a thing? >> > >>> >> > >>>Mark >> > >>>The Liberator >> > >>>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >From: "Mark" >> > >>> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" >> > >>> > >> > >>> >CC: >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >> >planet? >> > >>> >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 >> > >>> > >> > >>> >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating humankind in >> >light >> > >>>of >> > >>> >defects caused by incestuous relations? >> > >>> > >> > >>> >Mark >> > >>> >The Liberator >> > >>> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >>> > >> > >>> >----- Original Message ----- >> > >>> >From: Bill Bequette >> > >>> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >> >> > >>> >Cc: >> > >>> >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >> >planet? >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> >Mark, >> > >>> >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships result in >> > >birth >> > >>> >defects. That is God's answer. >> > >>> > >> > >>> >-----Original Message----- >> > >>> >From: Mark >> > >>> >To: Bill Morgan >> > >>> >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com >> > >>> > >> > >>> >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >> >planet? >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would not >> >allow >> > >>> > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of birth >> > >defects. >> > >>> >But >> > >>> > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be knowledgeable of >> > >>> >science? >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >Mark >> > >>> > >The Liberator >> > >>> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >> > >>> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> >> > >> >>>_________________________________________________________________________ >> > >>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >> >http://www.hotmail.com. >> > >>> >> > >>>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >> > >>>http://profiles.msn.com. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >>_________________________________________________________________________ >> > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >> >http://www.hotmail.com. >> > >> >> > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >> > >>http://profiles.msn.com. >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >>_________________________________________________________________________ >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. >> >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >>http://profiles.msn.com. >> >> >> > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (rly-yb05.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.5]) by air-yb03.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:31:15 -0400 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:30:41 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA06974; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:30:33 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <009701c03b17$eb1b5ee0$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" , Cc: References: <000a01c03b13$f4cd8160$fdc1fea9@wb.we.mediaone.net> Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:32:24 -0500 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by uucphost.mcs.net id XAA06974 ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: 20-Oct-00 21:35:41 Pacific Daylight Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark), billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), editor@liberator.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com Bill see you in church Sunday. We can pray for the heathen. -----Original Message----- From: Mark To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan ; editor@liberator.net Cc: DWise1@AOL.com Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net >Bill Bequette , you wrote: > >"Bill see you in church Sunday. We can pray for the heathen." > >Main Entry: heathen >Function: noun >Inflected Form(s): plural heathens or heathen >Date: before 12th century >1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge >the God of the Bible >2 : an uncivilized or irreligious person > >According to #1 and current population numbers around the world, there are >more 'heathens' than Bible-believers > >Main Entry: ir·re·li·gious >Pronunciation: -'li-j&s >Function: adjective >Date: 15th century >1 : neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or >practices professional purposes -- G. B. Shaw> >2 : indicating lack of religion > >Hmmm... > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Morgan >To: editor@liberator.net ; billbeq@mediaone.net > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 7:14 PM >Subject: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net > > >>I have to admit I am a little teary eyed. >> >>Remember the end of the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy says to the scarecrow she >>will miss him the most? Well Mark, you are that scarecrow...I will miss >you >>the most. I think with counselling we could reconcile. >> >>Dave, I am going to delete all of your future e mails. Mark's are fun. >> >>This will shock you all. Do I beleif faith in God is more important than >>anything? Yes. Is it life or death to me that you beleive? No. I wish >>you did, but if you don't thats fine, its your choice, your free will. Its >>not any chaff my hide. >> >>Mark's humorous jabs give me joy and mirth and thus I am going to continue >>to open some of them if they keep coming. >> >> >>>From: "Mark" >>>To: "Bill Morgan" , >>>CC: >>>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >>>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:35:22 -0500 >>> >>>Bill Morgan , you wrote: >>> >>>"Guys, I wish you all the best but I am out of town on my brothers in laws >>>lap top and have about 100 emails from you all. I will delete them and >>>will >>>do so in the future." >>> >>>Why let good ideas alter your stagnant point of view? ...just ignore >them. >>> >>>= ) >>> >>>"You may call me at home at 714 898-8331 if you want to meet and discuss >>>why >>>you feel let down by God." >>> >>>How could the Christian interpretation of God let me down? I'm intrigued >>>how people can swallow other's beliefs without question. It's >fascinating. >>> >>>"I just dont have teh time to respond to the e-mails, although I do admit >>>it >>>was fun and that Dave and Mark are obviously >>>intelligent, and Mrk has a synical wit that I greatly appreciate." >>> >>>There's absolutely nothing cynical about wit but thanks for recognizing my >>>views for what they are...brilliant. Just kidding... >>> >>>"Mark, I hope you learn the difference between an allele and a mutation. >>>You will be ridiculed by any biologist, or a nerd biologist (like me) when >>>you try to bluff when you lack the knowledge of something basic." >>> >>>Dave, enlighten me, if you can. >>> >>>"Dave, you are a genius, a patriot and I assume a good family man, just >>>learn to be more open minded and I wish we had never wasted so much time >on >>>what we thought you said about my wife. I am certain you did not mean to >>>say what I assumed you said." >>> >>>You know what is said about people who ass-u-me, right? >>> >>>"Here is where we differ gentlemen: I have a little faith that >>>intellignece >>>greater than our created the human body and science backs it up. You have >>>blind faith in thinking chemical arranged them selves by chance and made >up >>>a human body, oh, excuse my, over billions of years. Just basic knowledge >>>of what an enzyeme is makes that childish, but any childish beliefe that >>>will remove God from your life will do that wont it?" >>> >>>Why do you assume that the two views are seperate? >>> >>>"I tell you what. I will open one more e ail from you both, after this >>>one, >>>then we gotta have a legal separation." >>> >>>Bill, if we have to get a legal seperation, does this mean you think we >>>were >>>married? >>> >>>= ) >>> >>>Thinking for the two of us, >>> >>>Mark >>>The Liberator >>>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >>> >>> >From: "Mark" >>> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" >>> > >>> >CC: >>> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >>> >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:58:26 -0500 >>> > >>> >I didn't say he wasn't a religious man. However, I doubt he could have >>> >followed any particular faith. His religion was science. >>> > >>> >Einstein got into a heated debate with Bohr when Bohr told his theories >>>of >>> >a >>> >probabilistic universe. Einstein reported something to the effect of >>>"God >>> >doesn't roll dice." Later, Einstein accepted Bohr's theories. >>> > >>> >= ) >>> > >>> >Mark >>> >The Liberator >>> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >----- Original Message ----- >>> >From: Bill Bequette >>> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >>> >Cc: >>> >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:53 PM >>> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >>> > >>> > >>> >Well he believed in God from studying science and he was a Jew who >follow >>> >the Bible except he thought Jesus was just a good Rabbi. I don't see him >>> >not >>> >being religious? Though I disagree with him on Jesus just being a good >>> >Rabbi. I would say we believed in the same God. >>> > >>> >-----Original Message----- >>> >From: Mark >>> >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >>> > >>> >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >>> >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:29 PM >>> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >>> > >>> > >>> > >Bill, I hate to disappoint you but Einstein didn't believe in quite >the >>> >same >>> > >God you believe in. He wasn't too keen on the whole faith issue. He >>>was >>> >a >>> > >firm believer in science. Like ancient thinkers, Einstein too >believed >>> >by >>> > >studying science, one learns about God since God created the Universe. >>> >He >>> > >felt a direct connection to God from studying science and mathematics >>>-- >>> >the >>> > >language of God. It is my opinion that his quest for the unification >>> >theory >>> > >was as spiritual as it was scientific. >>> > > >>> > >Only simplistic religionists feel that science is somehow separate >from >>> >God. >>> > > >>> > >In my opinion, God is the Universe. By studying it, we study God. >>> > > >>> > >We can fall down and think that our brains are too simple to >understand >>> >the >>> > >Universe and succumb to mythical stories to pacify ourselves or we can >>> > >discover life's beauty, which MUST include science. >>> > > >>> > >Mark >>> > >The Liberator >>> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >----- Original Message ----- >>> > >From: Bill Bequette >>> > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >>> > >Cc: >>> > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:23 PM >>> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >Well there are theories(String theory and others) put forth that >>>multiple >>> > >dimensions exist and that since time is a dimension that it may simply >>> >have >>> > >been a singularity due to a black hole etc. and at some point we were >>>all >>> > >created when the dimensions unfolded. At some point you have to have >>> >faith >>> > >such as most of the great minds such as Einstein who was Jewish and >>>Isaac >>> > >Newton did(Though he went off the deep end to a degree). When they >>>were >>> > >confronted with all the overwhelming evidence of how fantastic our >>> >universe >>> > >is they realized a God has to exist. I am surprised you don't! >>> > > >>> > >= ) >>> > > >>> > >-----Original Message----- >>> > >From: Mark >>> > >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >>> > > >>> > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >>> > >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:09 PM >>> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>What evidence do you have that God has always existed? What makes >you >>> > >think >>> > >>he will always exist? >>> > >> >>> > >>If God is the creator of the Universe, why did he create it in such a >>> >way >>> > >to >>> > >>suggest there was a mighty explosion of material? Did God create the >>> > >>Universe in an explosion, like the theory called the Big Bang? If >>>this >>> >is >>> > >>possible, then why is it necessary for religionists to argue with >>> > >scientists >>> > >>who speak of the Big Bang? >>> > >> >>> > >>Mark >>> > >>The Liberator >>> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >>> > >> >>> > >>----- Original Message ----- >>> > >>From: Bill Bequette >>> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >>> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >>> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:04 PM >>> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>God encompasses all. God has and always will exist. >>> > >>----- Original Message ----- >>> > >>From: Mark >>> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >>> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >>> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:41 PM >>> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>Bill, it's humorous how you run away from my questions and head to >the >>> >same >>> > >>old question "How did life start?" >>> > >> >>> > >>Where did God come from? >>> > >> >>> > >>Mark >>> > >>The Liberator >>> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >>> > >> >>> > >>----- Original Message ----- >>> > >>From: Bill Bequette >>> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >>> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >>> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:45 PM >>> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>Any interaction will obviously in some way alter the brain chemistry. >>> >God >>> > >>made all men. Read the Bible! Have you ever read the Bible? How >did >>> >life >>> > >>start? >>> > >>----- Original Message ----- >>> > >>From: Mark >>> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >>> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >>> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:29 PM >>> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>Bill, are you saying that social interactions cannot affect brain >>> > >chemistry? >>> > >>Are you also saying that there is no relationship between the >>>Christian >>> >God >>> > >>and a father figure? >>> > >> >>> > >>Mark >>> > >>The Liberator >>> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >>> > >>----- Original Message ----- >>> > >>From: Bill Bequette >>> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >>> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >>> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:19 PM >>> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>Old Sigmund is a dicredited, cocaine sniffing fraud from an earlier >>>time >>> >as >>> > >>you show below i.e. he died in 1939. Read up on all the recent >>> > >discoveries, >>> > >>since 1939, about how the human brain works based on chemical >>> >interactions. >>> > >>You should thank our wonderful God! >>> > >>= ) >>> > >>----- Original Message ----- >>> > >>From: Mark >>> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >>> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >>> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:10 PM >>> > >>Subject: Freud on the psychology of God >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) >>> > >>Austrian psychiatrist >>> > >>The psychoanalysis of individual human beings, however, teaches us >>>with >>> > >>quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in >the >>> > >>likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends on >>>his >>> > >>relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes along >>> >with >>> > >>that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an >exalted >>> > >>father. >>> > >>-- Totem and Taboo, pt. 4, sct. 6 >>> > >> >>> > >>P.S. >>> > >> >>> > >>Bill, you utter meaningless phrases like only babbling Christians do >>>so >>> > >>well. I have faith in reason, hard work, and ethics. >>> > >> >>> > >>You, on the other hand, limit yourself to a single manmade text >called >>> >the >>> > >>Bible. >>> > >> >>> > >>Which sounds more fruitful and positive to you? >>> > >> >>> > >>= ) >>> > >> >>> > >>Mark >>> > >>The Liberator >>> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >>> > >> >>> > >>----- Original Message ----- >>> > >>From: Bill Bequette >>> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >>> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >>> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:44 PM >>> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>>planet? >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>You either have faith or you do not. Some things are not explained >>> >except >>> > >>by faith. >>> > >>----- Original Message ----- >>> > >>From: Mark >>> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >>> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >>> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:46 AM >>> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>>planet? >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>Bill, you think the Bible encompasses the past, present and future >>> >better >>> > >>than science? How do vague statements clarify the truth? >>> > >> >>> > >>The Bible does a good job doing one thing: maintaining ignorance. >>> > >> >>> > >>Why else would people like you insist upon Bible literalism such as >>> >mankind >>> > >>being descendants of Adam and Eve, Noah creating an ark and gathering >>> >all >>> > >>animals to fill it, Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, ... >>> > >> >>> > >>Do you realize that those same Bible myths you cherish were actually >>> >stolen >>> > >>from older myths? Research Osiris and the Ressurection. Research >>> >Athena >>> > >>and Immaculate Conception. As a matter of fact, the whole virgin >>>birth >>> > >>story is a common theme with many religions. They signify more of a >>> >birth >>> > >>of mankind than they do anything else you knothead. >>> > >> >>> > >>= ) >>> > >> >>> > >>You're killing me. >>> > >> >>> > >>People believe in prepackaged myths because it's easy to believe what >>> > >people >>> > >>tell you. It's much harder to discover things on your own; however, >>> > >>discovery may be harder but it is much more rewarding. >>> > >> >>> > >>Mark >>> > >>The Liberator >>> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>----- Original Message ----- >>> > >>From: Bill Bequette >>> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >>> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >>> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:56 PM >>> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>>planet? >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>Because it encompasses the past, present and future better than just >>> >your >>> > >>present. >>> > >>----- Original Message ----- >>> > >>From: Mark >>> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan >>> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >>> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:14 PM >>> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>>planet? >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>Give me some reasons to read that manmade text over any other. >>> > >> >>> > >>Why do you cling to the past? >>> > >> >>> > >>Mark >>> > >>The Liberator >>> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>----- Original Message ----- >>> > >>From: Bill Bequette >>> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >>> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >>> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:06 PM >>> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>>planet? >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>Read the Bible. >>> > >>----- Original Message ----- >>> > >>From: Mark >>> > >>To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net >>> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >>> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:09 PM >>> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>>planet? >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>Bill, substantiate your claim that God provided the 'perfect' code. >>> > >> >>> > >>Mark >>> > >>The Liberator >>> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >>> > >> >>> > >>----- Original Message ----- >>> > >>From: Bill Morgan >>> > >>To: ; >>> > >>Cc: >>> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:43 AM >>> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>>planet? >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>Of course god creaed a perfect genetic code. >>> > >> >>> > >>I am really excited to hear what you say regarding why biologically >>>you >>> > >>should not marry a sister. >>> > >> >>> > >>Mark: do you know what an allele is? >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >>>From: "Mark" >>> > >>>To: "Bill Morgan" , >>> > >>>CC: >>> > >>>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>>planet? >>> > >>>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:30:35 -0500 >>> > >>> >>> > >>>Bill Morgan , you wrote: >>> > >>> >>> > >>>"I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations increase >>>over >>> > >>>time, >>> > >>>thus back then there were few if any." >>> > >>> >>> > >>>What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different from an >>> > >>>inherited genetic trait. >>> > >>> >>> > >>>"God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" >>> > >>> >>> > >>>There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could God >>> >create >>> > >>>such a thing? >>> > >>> >>> > >>>Mark >>> > >>>The Liberator >>> > >>>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>> > >>>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >From: "Mark" >>> > >>> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >CC: >>> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>> >planet? >>> > >>> >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating humankind in >>> >light >>> > >>>of >>> > >>> >defects caused by incestuous relations? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >Mark >>> > >>> >The Liberator >>> > >>> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>> > >>> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >----- Original Message ----- >>> > >>> >From: Bill Bequette >>> > >>> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan >>> >>> > >>> >Cc: >>> > >>> >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM >>> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>> >planet? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >Mark, >>> > >>> >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships result >in >>> > >birth >>> > >>> >defects. That is God's answer. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >-----Original Message----- >>> > >>> >From: Mark >>> > >>> >To: Bill Morgan >>> > >>> >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM >>> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the >>> >planet? >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would not >>> >allow >>> > >>> > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of birth >>> > >defects. >>> > >>> >But >>> > >>> > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be knowledgeable >of >>> > >>> >science? >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >Mark >>> > >>> > >The Liberator >>> > >>> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>> > >>> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>>>________________________________________________________________________ _ >>> > >>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >>> >http://www.hotmail.com. >>> > >>> >>> > >>>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >>> > >>>http://profiles.msn.com. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > >>> >>>_________________________________________________________________________ >>> > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >>> >http://www.hotmail.com. >>> > >> >>> > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >>> > >>http://profiles.msn.com. >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>>_________________________________________________________________________ >>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. >>> >>>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >>>http://profiles.msn.com. >>> >>> >>> >> >>_________________________________________________________________________ >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. >> >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >>http://profiles.msn.com. >> > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (rly-yc03.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.35]) by air-yc02.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:35:41 -0400 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:35:13 -0400 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA18849; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006a01c03b19$3aa09ec0$fdc1fea9@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: "Mark" , "Bill Morgan" , Cc: Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:41:50 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net id VAA18849 ################################################ Subj: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? Date: 20-Oct-00 21:36:17 Pacific Daylight Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark), editor@liberator.net (Mark), billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) CC: DWise1@aol.com Bill see you in church Sunday. We can pray for the heathen. -----Original Message----- From: Mark To: Bill Bequette ; Mark ; Bill Morgan Cc: DWise1@aol.com Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 9:24 PM Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? >Bill Bequette , you wrote: > >"Dogs have bad dreams about the heathen." > >Huh? > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mark >To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net > >Cc: DWise1@aol.com >Date: Sunday, October 01, 2000 6:19 AM >Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? > > >>Bill Morgan , you wrote: >> >>"When you know the truth you are happy." >> >>Were you happy to learn that your personal savior is a character in a >story? >> >>= ) >> >>Mark >>The Liberator >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >> >> >>>From: "Media One Mail" >>>To: "Bill Morgan" , >>>CC: >>>Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? >>>Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:59:47 -0700 >>> >>>Bill have you ever noticed how unhappy some people are? Why is that? >Bill >>>your real happy most the time! I think I know why!!!!! >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Bill Morgan >>> To: editor@liberator.net ; plasma@worldnet.att.net >>> Cc: DWise1@aol.com >>> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 7:08 AM >>> Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? >>> >>> >>> I don't know about hype about exercising, I have always exercised. I >>>have >>> been busy watching the Olympics (really as back ground noise while >doing >>> other vital things). Do gymnasts hate their bodies? Oh the humanity! >>> >>> >>> >From: "Mark" >>> >To: "Bill Morgan" , >>> >CC: >>> >Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? >>> >Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:16:24 -0500 >>> > >>> >Have you noticed all of this exorcism hype? First the Pope tries to >>> >exorcise a woman but fails. Next a priest is trained as an exorcist. >>>Then >>> >the film The Exorcist will be re-released soon. Coincidence? Nah.... >>> > >>> >People love fiction. It's entertaining.... >>> > >>> >Mark >>> >The Liberator >>> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >>> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >>> > >>> > >>> >----- Original Message ----- >>> >From: Bill Morgan >>> >To: ; >>> >Cc: >>> >Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:08 PM >>> >Subject: What do dogs have bad dreams about? >>> > >>> > >>> >We will have a 6 foot long submarine sandwich and chips and stuff. >>>Please >>> >bring a liter bottle of your choice. >>> > >>> > >>> > >From: "Mark" >>> > >To: >>> > >CC: , >>> > >Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now >offer >>>to >>> > >you >>> > >Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 19:52:56 -0500 >>> > > >>> > >If it's possible for fictional characters to love... >>> > > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > > From: .. >>> > > To: Bill Morgan ; DWise1@aol.com >>> > > Cc: editor@liberator.net >>> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 10:50 AM >>> > > Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now >>>offer >>> >to >>> > >you >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Break bread and become friends!!!! It is amazing what a cup of >pop >>>and >>> > >piece of pizza can accomplish! Jesus Loves You! >>> > > Bill >>> > > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > > From: Bill Morgan >>> > > To: plasma@worldnet.att.net ; DWise1@aol.com >>> > > Cc: editor@liberator.net >>> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 10:56 PM >>> > > Subject: RE: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now >>> >offer >>> > >to you >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Bill, good point, I offered to meet Mr Wise for food and drink >>>many >>> > >times >>> > > and have been rejected. You know how much I hate typing. >>> > > >>> > > Mr Wise, lets meet and eat! :) >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >From: "Bill Bequette" >>> > > >To: >>> > > >CC: , >>> > > >Subject: RE: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I >now >>> >offer >>> > >to >>> > > >you >>> > > >Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 16:27:55 -0700 >>> > > > >>> > > >Sorry, >>> > > >I didn't see the explanation below when I sent the other >email. >>> >Well >>> > >if >>> > > >Bill does not agree with your viewpoint or seems to have >>>slandered >>> > >your >>> > > >name >>> > > >it may be because discussions about religion are a very >>>emotional >>> > >topic and >>> > > >even if you were correct you could not ask him to relinquish >>>his >>> > >"lifes >>> > > >values". You may be asking him to relinquish everything that >>>he >>> > >believes >>> > > >in >>> > > >i.e. his entire personality and vice versa. I don't believe >>>much >>> >is >>> > > >accomplished in discussing religion, or politics. Neither >>>party >>> >will >>> > >ever >>> > > >agree with the other in most cases. I am not refuting that I >>> >believe >>> > >in >>> > > >God >>> > > >by the above or that you or Bill are correct(I just don't have >>>the >>> > >time to >>> > > >review all your emails) just that some issues are better left >>>alone >>> > >if the >>> > > >goal is to convert the other based on the discussion at hand. >>> >Maybe >>> > >you >>> > > >should all get together and have a pizza and chill a little. >I >>> >wish >>> > >you >>> > > >all >>> > > >well. Take Care, Bill B. >>> > > > >>> > > > > -----Original Message----- >>> > > > > From: DWise1@aol.com [mailto:DWise1@aol.com] >>> > > > > Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2000 2:56 PM >>> > > > > To: plasma@worldnet.att.net >>> > > > > Cc: dwise1@aol.com; editor@liberator.net; >>>billyjack1@hotmail.com >>> > > > > Subject: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I >>>now >>> > >offer to >>> > > > > you >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Bill B., I understand that Bill Morgan (Bill M.) is your >>>friend, >>> > > > > but I would hope that that friendship would not prevent you >>>from >>> > > > > seeking the truth. I am not asking you to side with me >>>against >>> > > > > your friend, but rather that you side with the cause of >>> > > > > determining the truth of this matter. From my own >>> >fundamentalist >>> > > > > Christian training, I remember being taught that Christians >>>at >>> >to >>> > > > > serve the God of Truth, which Bill has echoed in his >>>published >>> > > > > writings by telling proselytization trainees that they >serve >>> > > > > Truth. Unless fundamentalist Christian thought has changed >>> > > > > radically in the past few decades (besides the heavy >>> > > > > politization), I would expect you to also want to serve >>>Truth. >>> > > > > That is all that I ask, that you honor and apply those >>>Christian >>> > >values. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > In order to serve Truth, the facts must be examined. That >>>is >>> >why >>> > > > > I had CC:'d all those messages to you, so that you could >>>learn >>> > > > > something about what the situation here really is. That is >>>also >>> > > > > why I told you where you could find copies of the >>>correspondence >>> > > > > between Bill and me, so you could see for yourself what had >>>been >>> > > > > said and what was going on. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Bill misled you to believe that this was a disagreement >over >>> > > > > world-views and that I was closing my eyes to the facts. I >>>am >>> > > > > truly sorry to have to tell you this, but Bill lied to you. >>> > > > > World views had not had a chance to enter into the >>>discussion. >>> > > > > And I have steadfastly insisted that we examine the facts >>> >whereas >>> > > > > Bill has steadfastly refused to and is willfully preventing >>>our >>> > > > > examination of the facts. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > No, what the disagreement is over is that Bill has >>> > > > > libelled/slandered me and I am trying to resolve that >>>matter. >>> >He >>> > > > > has made several false accusations against me, saying that >I >>>had >>> > > > > said or that I believe various horrible things. I am sure >>>that >>> >I >>> > > > > had never said such things to Bill or about Bill in print. >>>I >>> > > > > have repeatedly asked Bill to substantiate his accusations, >>>at >>> > > > > the very least he needs to tell me what I had said, as >close >>>as >>> > > > > he can remember it. Bill steadfastly refuses. Until he >>> >provides >>> > > > > that information, we cannot know which messages to examine >>>in >>> > > > > order to arrive at the truth. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > In order to arrive at the truth in this matter, we need to >>> > > > > examine the facts, ie, what does Bill think I had said and >>>what >>> > > > > had I actually written? I have repeatedly called for >>> >examination >>> > > > > of the facts and Bill has steadfastly ignored those >>>requests. >>> > > > > Since I find it impossible to believe that he could have >>>missed >>> > > > > over 20 very clear requests (about 27 now, if we include >>> > > > > references to those requests), Bill must be withholding his >>> > > > > information willfully. That would mean that Bill is >>>willfully >>> > > > > opposing the Truth. Is that how a Christian is supposed to >>> > >behave? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > As I said, I am not asking you to side with me against >Bill, >>>but >>> > > > > rather that you side with the Truth. I have just repeated >>>to >>> >you >>> > > > > what I see the situation as being. You can read the actual >>> > > > > transcript to see whether I am being truthful or Bill is. >>>Or >>> > > > > neither of us. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > In either case, we still need to resolve this matter. >>> > > > > Unfortunately, Bill is being intransigent. We need help. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > The actual role that I would like you to take is to try to >>> > > > > convince Bill to relinguish his information so that we can >>> > > > > finally examine the facts. What does he think I said to >>>insult >>> > > > > his wife? What "very nasty names" does he think I called >>>him? >>> > > > > At the end of this message, I will repeat the list of >>> >accusations >>> > > > > Bill made against me; at least he confirmed that he had >>>indeed >>> > > > > made those accusations. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > If you are unsuccessful in that endeavor, then at least try >>>to >>> > > > > get Bill to explain to you why he refuses to divulge that >>> > > > > information. Please remind him that if I had truly done >the >>> > > > > things that he had accused me of, then we would find them >>>right >>> > > > > there in the record. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Then if he refuses to give you that explanation, please ask >>>he >>> > > > > why he is afraid to have the facts examined in this case. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Personally, I believe that Bill Morgan sees this mess as >one >>>big >>> > > > > "rabbit trail" that he wants to milk for all that he can. >>>As >>> > > > > long as we are mired in this mess, we cannot have a >>>meaningful >>> > > > > discussion. About three years of correspondence with Bill >>>has >>> > > > > taught me that he is very evasive and will do almost >>>anything he >>> > > > > can to avoid having a meaningful discussion. Even break >one >>>of >>> > > > > the Ten Commandments by bearing false witness. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > A list of a few of the false accusations Bill Morgan has >>>made >>> > > > > against me and refuses to substantiate follows: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 1. Having conducted "bigoted attacks on [him] and [his] >>>wife" >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 2. Thinking he is "some evil wicked person out to destroy >>> > >society". >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 3. Thinking he is "wacked for beleiving in God". >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 4. "[P]ersonally insulting [him] on the level of a name >>>calling >>> > > > > 2nd grader." >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 5. "[I]nsulting [his] wife and [him]. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 6. That my wife and I had labelled him and his wife as >evil. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 7. Calling him "very nasty names." >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 8. That I had told him "what [my] wife thought of those who >>> > > > > beleive in Gid". >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 9. That I would think he and his wife "are evil and wicked, >>>the >>> > > > > world's most sinister people". >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 10. That I refuse to meet him because of his beliefs. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 11. That I sent electronically "many nasty words that were >>>anti >>> > > > > religious". >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Bill needs to either substantiate these accusations or else >>> > > > > acknowledge that they are false and offer a most sincere >>>apology >>> > > > > to all parties for having made those accusations and >>> >particularly >>> > > > > for having prevented the timely resolution of this matter. >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >>_________________________________________________________________________ >>> > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >>> > >http://www.hotmail.com. >>> > > >>> > > Share information about yourself, create your own public >profile >>>at >>> > > http://profiles.msn.com. >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> >>_________________________________________________________________________ >>> >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >>>http://www.hotmail.com. >>> > >>> >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >>> >http://profiles.msn.com. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>>_________________________________________________________________________ >>> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >>>http://www.hotmail.com. >>> >>> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >>> http://profiles.msn.com. >>> >> >>_________________________________________________________________________ >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. >> >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >>http://profiles.msn.com. >> >> >> > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-za03.mx.aol.com (rly-za03.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.99]) by air-za05.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:36:16 -0400 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-za03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Sat, 21 Oct 2000 00:35:43 2000 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA18990; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:35:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006f01c03b19$49b08420$fdc1fea9@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: "Mark" , "Mark" , "Bill Morgan" Cc: Subject: Re: What do dogs have bad dreams about? Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:42:15 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: 23-Oct-00 13:45:47 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: spambuster@gigagod.com, billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com To answer Mark's bible question let me answer with authority: "Enter through the narrow gate for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads tolife, and only a few find it. Matthew 7:13 yes Mark, most people are on the path to destruction. you and Jesus agree on that one. >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" >, >CC: >Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net >Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:32:24 -0500 > >Bill Bequette , you wrote: > >"Bill see you in church Sunday. We can pray for the heathen." > >Main Entry: heathen >Function: noun >Inflected Form(s): plural heathens or heathen >Date: before 12th century >1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge >the God of the Bible >2 : an uncivilized or irreligious person > >According to #1 and current population numbers around the world, there are >more 'heathens' than Bible-believers > >Main Entry: ir·re·li·gious >Pronunciation: -'li-j&s >Function: adjective >Date: 15th century >1 : neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or >practices professional purposes -- G. B. Shaw> >2 : indicating lack of religion > >Hmmm... > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Morgan >To: editor@liberator.net ; billbeq@mediaone.net > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 7:14 PM >Subject: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net > > > >I have to admit I am a little teary eyed. > > > >Remember the end of the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy says to the scarecrow >she > >will miss him the most? Well Mark, you are that scarecrow...I will miss >you > >the most. I think with counselling we could reconcile. > > > >Dave, I am going to delete all of your future e mails. Mark's are fun. > > > >This will shock you all. Do I beleif faith in God is more important than > >anything? Yes. Is it life or death to me that you beleive? No. I wish > >you did, but if you don't thats fine, its your choice, your free will. >Its > >not any chaff my hide. > > > >Mark's humorous jabs give me joy and mirth and thus I am going to >continue > >to open some of them if they keep coming. > > > > > >>From: "Mark" > >>To: "Bill Morgan" , > >>CC: > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:35:22 -0500 > >> > >>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >> > >>"Guys, I wish you all the best but I am out of town on my brothers in >laws > >>lap top and have about 100 emails from you all. I will delete them and > >>will > >>do so in the future." > >> > >>Why let good ideas alter your stagnant point of view? ...just ignore >them. > >> > >>= ) > >> > >>"You may call me at home at 714 898-8331 if you want to meet and discuss > >>why > >>you feel let down by God." > >> > >>How could the Christian interpretation of God let me down? I'm >intrigued > >>how people can swallow other's beliefs without question. It's >fascinating. > >> > >>"I just dont have teh time to respond to the e-mails, although I do >admit > >>it > >>was fun and that Dave and Mark are obviously > >>intelligent, and Mrk has a synical wit that I greatly appreciate." > >> > >>There's absolutely nothing cynical about wit but thanks for recognizing >my > >>views for what they are...brilliant. Just kidding... > >> > >>"Mark, I hope you learn the difference between an allele and a >mutation. > >>You will be ridiculed by any biologist, or a nerd biologist (like me) >when > >>you try to bluff when you lack the knowledge of something basic." > >> > >>Dave, enlighten me, if you can. > >> > >>"Dave, you are a genius, a patriot and I assume a good family man, just > >>learn to be more open minded and I wish we had never wasted so much time >on > >>what we thought you said about my wife. I am certain you did not mean >to > >>say what I assumed you said." > >> > >>You know what is said about people who ass-u-me, right? > >> > >>"Here is where we differ gentlemen: I have a little faith that > >>intellignece > >>greater than our created the human body and science backs it up. You >have > >>blind faith in thinking chemical arranged them selves by chance and made >up > >>a human body, oh, excuse my, over billions of years. Just basic >knowledge > >>of what an enzyeme is makes that childish, but any childish beliefe that > >>will remove God from your life will do that wont it?" > >> > >>Why do you assume that the two views are seperate? > >> > >>"I tell you what. I will open one more e ail from you both, after this > >>one, > >>then we gotta have a legal separation." > >> > >>Bill, if we have to get a legal seperation, does this mean you think we > >>were > >>married? > >> > >>= ) > >> > >>Thinking for the two of us, > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> >From: "Mark" > >> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > >> > > >> >CC: > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:58:26 -0500 > >> > > >> >I didn't say he wasn't a religious man. However, I doubt he could >have > >> >followed any particular faith. His religion was science. > >> > > >> >Einstein got into a heated debate with Bohr when Bohr told his >theories > >>of > >> >a > >> >probabilistic universe. Einstein reported something to the effect of > >>"God > >> >doesn't roll dice." Later, Einstein accepted Bohr's theories. > >> > > >> >= ) > >> > > >> >Mark > >> >The Liberator > >> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >----- Original Message ----- > >> >From: Bill Bequette > >> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> >Cc: > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:53 PM > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > > >> > > >> >Well he believed in God from studying science and he was a Jew who >follow > >> >the Bible except he thought Jesus was just a good Rabbi. I don't see >him > >> >not > >> >being religious? Though I disagree with him on Jesus just being a >good > >> >Rabbi. I would say we believed in the same God. > >> > > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: Mark > >> >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >> > > >> >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:29 PM > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > > >> > > >> > >Bill, I hate to disappoint you but Einstein didn't believe in quite >the > >> >same > >> > >God you believe in. He wasn't too keen on the whole faith issue. >He > >>was > >> >a > >> > >firm believer in science. Like ancient thinkers, Einstein too >believed > >> >by > >> > >studying science, one learns about God since God created the >Universe. > >> >He > >> > >felt a direct connection to God from studying science and >mathematics > >>-- > >> >the > >> > >language of God. It is my opinion that his quest for the >unification > >> >theory > >> > >was as spiritual as it was scientific. > >> > > > >> > >Only simplistic religionists feel that science is somehow separate >from > >> >God. > >> > > > >> > >In my opinion, God is the Universe. By studying it, we study God. > >> > > > >> > >We can fall down and think that our brains are too simple to >understand > >> >the > >> > >Universe and succumb to mythical stories to pacify ourselves or we >can > >> > >discover life's beauty, which MUST include science. > >> > > > >> > >Mark > >> > >The Liberator > >> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >----- Original Message ----- > >> > >From: Bill Bequette > >> > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >Cc: > >> > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:23 PM > >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >Well there are theories(String theory and others) put forth that > >>multiple > >> > >dimensions exist and that since time is a dimension that it may >simply > >> >have > >> > >been a singularity due to a black hole etc. and at some point we >were > >>all > >> > >created when the dimensions unfolded. At some point you have to >have > >> >faith > >> > >such as most of the great minds such as Einstein who was Jewish and > >>Isaac > >> > >Newton did(Though he went off the deep end to a degree). When they > >>were > >> > >confronted with all the overwhelming evidence of how fantastic our > >> >universe > >> > >is they realized a God has to exist. I am surprised you don't! > >> > > > >> > >= ) > >> > > > >> > >-----Original Message----- > >> > >From: Mark > >> > >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >> > > > >> > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:09 PM > >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >>What evidence do you have that God has always existed? What makes >you > >> > >think > >> > >>he will always exist? > >> > >> > >> > >>If God is the creator of the Universe, why did he create it in such >a > >> >way > >> > >to > >> > >>suggest there was a mighty explosion of material? Did God create >the > >> > >>Universe in an explosion, like the theory called the Big Bang? If > >>this > >> >is > >> > >>possible, then why is it necessary for religionists to argue with > >> > >scientists > >> > >>who speak of the Big Bang? > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark > >> > >>The Liberator > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:04 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>God encompasses all. God has and always will exist. > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Mark > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:41 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Bill, it's humorous how you run away from my questions and head to >the > >> >same > >> > >>old question "How did life start?" > >> > >> > >> > >>Where did God come from? > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark > >> > >>The Liberator > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:45 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Any interaction will obviously in some way alter the brain >chemistry. > >> >God > >> > >>made all men. Read the Bible! Have you ever read the Bible? How >did > >> >life > >> > >>start? > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Mark > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:29 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Bill, are you saying that social interactions cannot affect brain > >> > >chemistry? > >> > >>Are you also saying that there is no relationship between the > >>Christian > >> >God > >> > >>and a father figure? > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark > >> > >>The Liberator > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:19 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Old Sigmund is a dicredited, cocaine sniffing fraud from an earlier > >>time > >> >as > >> > >>you show below i.e. he died in 1939. Read up on all the recent > >> > >discoveries, > >> > >>since 1939, about how the human brain works based on chemical > >> >interactions. > >> > >>You should thank our wonderful God! > >> > >>= ) > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Mark > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:10 PM > >> > >>Subject: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) > >> > >>Austrian psychiatrist > >> > >>The psychoanalysis of individual human beings, however, teaches us > >>with > >> > >>quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in >the > >> > >>likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends >on > >>his > >> > >>relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes >along > >> >with > >> > >>that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an >exalted > >> > >>father. > >> > >>-- Totem and Taboo, pt. 4, sct. 6 > >> > >> > >> > >>P.S. > >> > >> > >> > >>Bill, you utter meaningless phrases like only babbling Christians >do > >>so > >> > >>well. I have faith in reason, hard work, and ethics. > >> > >> > >> > >>You, on the other hand, limit yourself to a single manmade text >called > >> >the > >> > >>Bible. > >> > >> > >> > >>Which sounds more fruitful and positive to you? > >> > >> > >> > >>= ) > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark > >> > >>The Liberator > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:44 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>You either have faith or you do not. Some things are not explained > >> >except > >> > >>by faith. > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Mark > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:46 AM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Bill, you think the Bible encompasses the past, present and future > >> >better > >> > >>than science? How do vague statements clarify the truth? > >> > >> > >> > >>The Bible does a good job doing one thing: maintaining ignorance. > >> > >> > >> > >>Why else would people like you insist upon Bible literalism such as > >> >mankind > >> > >>being descendants of Adam and Eve, Noah creating an ark and >gathering > >> >all > >> > >>animals to fill it, Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, ... > >> > >> > >> > >>Do you realize that those same Bible myths you cherish were >actually > >> >stolen > >> > >>from older myths? Research Osiris and the Ressurection. Research > >> >Athena > >> > >>and Immaculate Conception. As a matter of fact, the whole virgin > >>birth > >> > >>story is a common theme with many religions. They signify more of >a > >> >birth > >> > >>of mankind than they do anything else you knothead. > >> > >> > >> > >>= ) > >> > >> > >> > >>You're killing me. > >> > >> > >> > >>People believe in prepackaged myths because it's easy to believe >what > >> > >people > >> > >>tell you. It's much harder to discover things on your own; >however, > >> > >>discovery may be harder but it is much more rewarding. > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark > >> > >>The Liberator > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:56 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Because it encompasses the past, present and future better than >just > >> >your > >> > >>present. > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Mark > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:14 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Give me some reasons to read that manmade text over any other. > >> > >> > >> > >>Why do you cling to the past? > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark > >> > >>The Liberator > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:06 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Read the Bible. > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Mark > >> > >>To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:09 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Bill, substantiate your claim that God provided the 'perfect' code. > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark > >> > >>The Liberator > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Bill Morgan > >> > >>To: ; > >> > >>Cc: > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:43 AM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Of course god creaed a perfect genetic code. > >> > >> > >> > >>I am really excited to hear what you say regarding why biologically > >>you > >> > >>should not marry a sister. > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark: do you know what an allele is? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>From: "Mark" > >> > >>>To: "Bill Morgan" , > >> > >>>CC: > >> > >>>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >>>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:30:35 -0500 > >> > >>> > >> > >>>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>>"I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations increase > >>over > >> > >>>time, > >> > >>>thus back then there were few if any." > >> > >>> > >> > >>>What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different from >an > >> > >>>inherited genetic trait. > >> > >>> > >> > >>>"God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" > >> > >>> > >> > >>>There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could God > >> >create > >> > >>>such a thing? > >> > >>> > >> > >>>Mark > >> > >>>The Liberator > >> > >>>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> >From: "Mark" > >> > >>> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >CC: > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >> >planet? > >> > >>> >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating humankind >in > >> >light > >> > >>>of > >> > >>> >defects caused by incestuous relations? > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >Mark > >> > >>> >The Liberator > >> > >>> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>> >From: Bill Bequette > >> > >>> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> > >> > >>> >Cc: > >> > >>> >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >> >planet? > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >Mark, > >> > >>> >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships result >in > >> > >birth > >> > >>> >defects. That is God's answer. > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >-----Original Message----- > >> > >>> >From: Mark > >> > >>> >To: Bill Morgan > >> > >>> >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >> >planet? > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would not > >> >allow > >> > >>> > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of birth > >> > >defects. > >> > >>> >But > >> > >>> > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be knowledgeable >of > >> > >>> >science? > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > >Mark > >> > >>> > >The Liberator > >> > >>> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> > >>>_________________________________________________________________________ > >> > >>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > >> >http://www.hotmail.com. > >> > >>> > >> > >>>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile >at > >> > >>>http://profiles.msn.com. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > >> > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > >> >http://www.hotmail.com. > >> > >> > >> > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > >> > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >http://www.hotmail.com. > >> > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > >> > >> > >> > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yh02.mx.aol.com (rly-yh02.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.34]) by air-yh05.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:45:46 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f79.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.79]) by rly-yh02.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 17:45:03 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:44:56 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:44:56 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: spambuster@gigagod.com, billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net Cc: DWise1@AOL.com Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:44:56 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Oct 2000 21:44:56.0969 (UTC) FILETIME=[7C549790:01C03D3A] ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: 23-Oct-00 18:27:16 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com Bill Morgan , you wrote: "To answer Mark's bible question let me answer with authority: 'Enter through the narrow gate for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads tolife, and only a few find it.' Matthew 7:13 It's funny how people swallow and regurgitate these words without thought -- religious parrots. If only they lived them instead of pointing fingers. "yes Mark, most people are on the path to destruction. you and Jesus agree on that one." What you failed to recognize Bill is this... If you believe your God would punish someone just because he/she did not worship the God as described in the Bible, while he/she did his/her best to be a decent person then either, (1) the Christian God of mercy, kindness and love does not exist and does not deserve to be worshipped, or (2) the Christian God as described in the Bible by Bible literalists is flawed and needs to be reinvented. It's your slanted view so now you have to deal with it. = ) Logic is such a powerful tool. If you believe in a devine entity, surely it was intended for us to use our brains. Why deny it? Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" >, >CC: >Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net >Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:32:24 -0500 > >Bill Bequette , you wrote: > >"Bill see you in church Sunday. We can pray for the heathen." > >Main Entry: heathen >Function: noun >Inflected Form(s): plural heathens or heathen >Date: before 12th century >1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge >the God of the Bible >2 : an uncivilized or irreligious person > >According to #1 and current population numbers around the world, there are >more 'heathens' than Bible-believers > >Main Entry: ir·re·li·gious >Pronunciation: -'li-j&s >Function: adjective >Date: 15th century >1 : neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or >practices professional purposes -- G. B. Shaw> >2 : indicating lack of religion > >Hmmm... > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Morgan >To: editor@liberator.net ; billbeq@mediaone.net > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com >Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 7:14 PM >Subject: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net > > > >I have to admit I am a little teary eyed. > > > >Remember the end of the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy says to the scarecrow >she > >will miss him the most? Well Mark, you are that scarecrow...I will miss >you > >the most. I think with counselling we could reconcile. > > > >Dave, I am going to delete all of your future e mails. Mark's are fun. > > > >This will shock you all. Do I beleif faith in God is more important than > >anything? Yes. Is it life or death to me that you beleive? No. I wish > >you did, but if you don't thats fine, its your choice, your free will. >Its > >not any chaff my hide. > > > >Mark's humorous jabs give me joy and mirth and thus I am going to >continue > >to open some of them if they keep coming. > > > > > >>From: "Mark" > >>To: "Bill Morgan" , > >>CC: > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:35:22 -0500 > >> > >>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >> > >>"Guys, I wish you all the best but I am out of town on my brothers in >laws > >>lap top and have about 100 emails from you all. I will delete them and > >>will > >>do so in the future." > >> > >>Why let good ideas alter your stagnant point of view? ...just ignore >them. > >> > >>= ) > >> > >>"You may call me at home at 714 898-8331 if you want to meet and discuss > >>why > >>you feel let down by God." > >> > >>How could the Christian interpretation of God let me down? I'm >intrigued > >>how people can swallow other's beliefs without question. It's >fascinating. > >> > >>"I just dont have teh time to respond to the e-mails, although I do >admit > >>it > >>was fun and that Dave and Mark are obviously > >>intelligent, and Mrk has a synical wit that I greatly appreciate." > >> > >>There's absolutely nothing cynical about wit but thanks for recognizing >my > >>views for what they are...brilliant. Just kidding... > >> > >>"Mark, I hope you learn the difference between an allele and a >mutation. > >>You will be ridiculed by any biologist, or a nerd biologist (like me) >when > >>you try to bluff when you lack the knowledge of something basic." > >> > >>Dave, enlighten me, if you can. > >> > >>"Dave, you are a genius, a patriot and I assume a good family man, just > >>learn to be more open minded and I wish we had never wasted so much time >on > >>what we thought you said about my wife. I am certain you did not mean >to > >>say what I assumed you said." > >> > >>You know what is said about people who ass-u-me, right? > >> > >>"Here is where we differ gentlemen: I have a little faith that > >>intellignece > >>greater than our created the human body and science backs it up. You >have > >>blind faith in thinking chemical arranged them selves by chance and made >up > >>a human body, oh, excuse my, over billions of years. Just basic >knowledge > >>of what an enzyeme is makes that childish, but any childish beliefe that > >>will remove God from your life will do that wont it?" > >> > >>Why do you assume that the two views are seperate? > >> > >>"I tell you what. I will open one more e ail from you both, after this > >>one, > >>then we gotta have a legal separation." > >> > >>Bill, if we have to get a legal seperation, does this mean you think we > >>were > >>married? > >> > >>= ) > >> > >>Thinking for the two of us, > >> > >>Mark > >>The Liberator > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> >From: "Mark" > >> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > >> > > >> >CC: > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:58:26 -0500 > >> > > >> >I didn't say he wasn't a religious man. However, I doubt he could >have > >> >followed any particular faith. His religion was science. > >> > > >> >Einstein got into a heated debate with Bohr when Bohr told his >theories > >>of > >> >a > >> >probabilistic universe. Einstein reported something to the effect of > >>"God > >> >doesn't roll dice." Later, Einstein accepted Bohr's theories. > >> > > >> >= ) > >> > > >> >Mark > >> >The Liberator > >> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >----- Original Message ----- > >> >From: Bill Bequette > >> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> >Cc: > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:53 PM > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > > >> > > >> >Well he believed in God from studying science and he was a Jew who >follow > >> >the Bible except he thought Jesus was just a good Rabbi. I don't see >him > >> >not > >> >being religious? Though I disagree with him on Jesus just being a >good > >> >Rabbi. I would say we believed in the same God. > >> > > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: Mark > >> >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >> > > >> >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:29 PM > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > > >> > > >> > >Bill, I hate to disappoint you but Einstein didn't believe in quite >the > >> >same > >> > >God you believe in. He wasn't too keen on the whole faith issue. >He > >>was > >> >a > >> > >firm believer in science. Like ancient thinkers, Einstein too >believed > >> >by > >> > >studying science, one learns about God since God created the >Universe. > >> >He > >> > >felt a direct connection to God from studying science and >mathematics > >>-- > >> >the > >> > >language of God. It is my opinion that his quest for the >unification > >> >theory > >> > >was as spiritual as it was scientific. > >> > > > >> > >Only simplistic religionists feel that science is somehow separate >from > >> >God. > >> > > > >> > >In my opinion, God is the Universe. By studying it, we study God. > >> > > > >> > >We can fall down and think that our brains are too simple to >understand > >> >the > >> > >Universe and succumb to mythical stories to pacify ourselves or we >can > >> > >discover life's beauty, which MUST include science. > >> > > > >> > >Mark > >> > >The Liberator > >> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >----- Original Message ----- > >> > >From: Bill Bequette > >> > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >Cc: > >> > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:23 PM > >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >Well there are theories(String theory and others) put forth that > >>multiple > >> > >dimensions exist and that since time is a dimension that it may >simply > >> >have > >> > >been a singularity due to a black hole etc. and at some point we >were > >>all > >> > >created when the dimensions unfolded. At some point you have to >have > >> >faith > >> > >such as most of the great minds such as Einstein who was Jewish and > >>Isaac > >> > >Newton did(Though he went off the deep end to a degree). When they > >>were > >> > >confronted with all the overwhelming evidence of how fantastic our > >> >universe > >> > >is they realized a God has to exist. I am surprised you don't! > >> > > > >> > >= ) > >> > > > >> > >-----Original Message----- > >> > >From: Mark > >> > >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >> > > > >> > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:09 PM > >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >>What evidence do you have that God has always existed? What makes >you > >> > >think > >> > >>he will always exist? > >> > >> > >> > >>If God is the creator of the Universe, why did he create it in such >a > >> >way > >> > >to > >> > >>suggest there was a mighty explosion of material? Did God create >the > >> > >>Universe in an explosion, like the theory called the Big Bang? If > >>this > >> >is > >> > >>possible, then why is it necessary for religionists to argue with > >> > >scientists > >> > >>who speak of the Big Bang? > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark > >> > >>The Liberator > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:04 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>God encompasses all. God has and always will exist. > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Mark > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:41 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Bill, it's humorous how you run away from my questions and head to >the > >> >same > >> > >>old question "How did life start?" > >> > >> > >> > >>Where did God come from? > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark > >> > >>The Liberator > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:45 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Any interaction will obviously in some way alter the brain >chemistry. > >> >God > >> > >>made all men. Read the Bible! Have you ever read the Bible? How >did > >> >life > >> > >>start? > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Mark > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:29 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Bill, are you saying that social interactions cannot affect brain > >> > >chemistry? > >> > >>Are you also saying that there is no relationship between the > >>Christian > >> >God > >> > >>and a father figure? > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark > >> > >>The Liberator > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:19 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Old Sigmund is a dicredited, cocaine sniffing fraud from an earlier > >>time > >> >as > >> > >>you show below i.e. he died in 1939. Read up on all the recent > >> > >discoveries, > >> > >>since 1939, about how the human brain works based on chemical > >> >interactions. > >> > >>You should thank our wonderful God! > >> > >>= ) > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Mark > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:10 PM > >> > >>Subject: Freud on the psychology of God > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) > >> > >>Austrian psychiatrist > >> > >>The psychoanalysis of individual human beings, however, teaches us > >>with > >> > >>quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in >the > >> > >>likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends >on > >>his > >> > >>relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes >along > >> >with > >> > >>that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an >exalted > >> > >>father. > >> > >>-- Totem and Taboo, pt. 4, sct. 6 > >> > >> > >> > >>P.S. > >> > >> > >> > >>Bill, you utter meaningless phrases like only babbling Christians >do > >>so > >> > >>well. I have faith in reason, hard work, and ethics. > >> > >> > >> > >>You, on the other hand, limit yourself to a single manmade text >called > >> >the > >> > >>Bible. > >> > >> > >> > >>Which sounds more fruitful and positive to you? > >> > >> > >> > >>= ) > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark > >> > >>The Liberator > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:44 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>You either have faith or you do not. Some things are not explained > >> >except > >> > >>by faith. > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Mark > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:46 AM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Bill, you think the Bible encompasses the past, present and future > >> >better > >> > >>than science? How do vague statements clarify the truth? > >> > >> > >> > >>The Bible does a good job doing one thing: maintaining ignorance. > >> > >> > >> > >>Why else would people like you insist upon Bible literalism such as > >> >mankind > >> > >>being descendants of Adam and Eve, Noah creating an ark and >gathering > >> >all > >> > >>animals to fill it, Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, ... > >> > >> > >> > >>Do you realize that those same Bible myths you cherish were >actually > >> >stolen > >> > >>from older myths? Research Osiris and the Ressurection. Research > >> >Athena > >> > >>and Immaculate Conception. As a matter of fact, the whole virgin > >>birth > >> > >>story is a common theme with many religions. They signify more of >a > >> >birth > >> > >>of mankind than they do anything else you knothead. > >> > >> > >> > >>= ) > >> > >> > >> > >>You're killing me. > >> > >> > >> > >>People believe in prepackaged myths because it's easy to believe >what > >> > >people > >> > >>tell you. It's much harder to discover things on your own; >however, > >> > >>discovery may be harder but it is much more rewarding. > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark > >> > >>The Liberator > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:56 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Because it encompasses the past, present and future better than >just > >> >your > >> > >>present. > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Mark > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:14 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Give me some reasons to read that manmade text over any other. > >> > >> > >> > >>Why do you cling to the past? > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark > >> > >>The Liberator > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:06 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Read the Bible. > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Mark > >> > >>To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:09 PM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Bill, substantiate your claim that God provided the 'perfect' code. > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark > >> > >>The Liberator > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>From: Bill Morgan > >> > >>To: ; > >> > >>Cc: > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:43 AM > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Of course god creaed a perfect genetic code. > >> > >> > >> > >>I am really excited to hear what you say regarding why biologically > >>you > >> > >>should not marry a sister. > >> > >> > >> > >>Mark: do you know what an allele is? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>From: "Mark" > >> > >>>To: "Bill Morgan" , > >> > >>>CC: > >> > >>>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >>planet? > >> > >>>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:30:35 -0500 > >> > >>> > >> > >>>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>>"I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations increase > >>over > >> > >>>time, > >> > >>>thus back then there were few if any." > >> > >>> > >> > >>>What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different from >an > >> > >>>inherited genetic trait. > >> > >>> > >> > >>>"God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" > >> > >>> > >> > >>>There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could God > >> >create > >> > >>>such a thing? > >> > >>> > >> > >>>Mark > >> > >>>The Liberator > >> > >>>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> >From: "Mark" > >> > >>> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >CC: > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >> >planet? > >> > >>> >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating humankind >in > >> >light > >> > >>>of > >> > >>> >defects caused by incestuous relations? > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >Mark > >> > >>> >The Liberator > >> > >>> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>> >From: Bill Bequette > >> > >>> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > >> > >> > >>> >Cc: > >> > >>> >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >> >planet? > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >Mark, > >> > >>> >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships result >in > >> > >birth > >> > >>> >defects. That is God's answer. > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >-----Original Message----- > >> > >>> >From: Mark > >> > >>> >To: Bill Morgan > >> > >>> >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > >> >planet? > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would not > >> >allow > >> > >>> > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of birth > >> > >defects. > >> > >>> >But > >> > >>> > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be knowledgeable >of > >> > >>> >science? > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > >Mark > >> > >>> > >The Liberator > >> > >>> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >> > > >> > >>>_________________________________________________________________________ > >> > >>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > >> >http://www.hotmail.com. > >> > >>> > >> > >>>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile >at > >> > >>>http://profiles.msn.com. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > >> > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > >> >http://www.hotmail.com. > >> > >> > >> > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > >> > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >http://www.hotmail.com. > >> > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > >> > >> > >> > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-st04.mail.aol.com (rly-st04.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.19]) by air-yd05.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:27:16 -0400 Received: from rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (rly-zd01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.225]) by rly-st04.mail.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id WAA22543 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:24:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:23:54 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA28347; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:23:35 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <000c01c03d61$ae4121c0$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:25:28 -0500 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by uucphost.mcs.net id VAA28347 ################################################ Subj: Re: Some good info for you Bill Date: 23-Oct-00 18:59:17 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), DWise1@aol.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, spamblock@gigagod.com Bill Morgan , you wrote: "In your Chirstian walk you will find many different types of athesits." The word is 'atheists'. "You will find the 'whistling past the graveyard' variety like Mark, who often are humorous, and falsely knowledgable (remember how he avoided my origin of life question....just a chicken little....but typical)." I certainly see a lot of humor within Christianity. If you get past the bleeding icons and the imaginative tales, it's quite entertaining, especially when all of these under-educated people swallow it hook, line and sinker. Why don't more people question what they are told? It's too hard to take the path of enlightenment. It's easier to hide within the comfort of other sheep, until the ravenous tiger comes to feed. "Another type of atheist is Dave. A dude who just has a deep hatred for God." I don't get that feeling from Dave. I get the feeling he hates those who hide behind the front of Christianity pretending to be people they will never be nor aspire to be. "These people have often had a horrible event occur in their life and it naturally hurt them deeply. They choose to deal with this pain by hating God." Prove to us that Dave hates God. It's an unfounded accusation that hurts your entire argument. "It is like a dog barking at the moon. Fruitless." Who is to say the dog does not enjoy it and therefore benefit from the experience? "I have had trajety in my life, so have you Bill, so have our chums Dave and Mark. Life is how we deal with the speed bumps we hit. I am glad I am not obsessed at being mopey faced at God every time it rains on my birthday." Rather, you should be mopey-faced because your Christian God is not merciful, kind nor compassionate. If the Christian God had any of those traits, he would not sentence a being to an eternity in Hell to live a life of torment, as the myth goes. "My hope for you Bill is that you face problems like a man and face life head on instead of haivng the attitude that God is your room service clerk who must cater to your every whim or you will check out of the hotel." The Christian God isn't a clerk. He and Jesus could more aptly be described as the village idiots who beg to be insulted. It's even more comical when people get offended at such humor, as they take this myth so personally that they feel hurt from such insults. When these people say it's like poking fun of someone they love, I say 'Don't let the comical fairytale get in the way of the true meaning. If you get offended, then you are ignorant of life and religion.' "But Bill, as rambunctious as these atheists get, we must remember to pray for them because they are acting out of fear, not knowledge." Yet it is people like you who claim that others should worship God out of fear. How ironic. On one hand you perpetuate a God of terror and the other a God of love. You sell a God of mercy but overlook a God of hate, as described in the Bible. Break free of this religious tyranny and embrace spirituality. I would argue that Christians do not do such a thing out of fear, a fear that is propagated out of convenience by religion. Freedom is liberating but it is scary to those who have no practice. "They won't answer the sceicne questions. They know God exists, they are just hoping they will be eternal and not face him.....not a very good bet huh?" On what grounds do you base God is eternal and is seperate from the Universe? I would think that my view is much more spiritually uplifting: God is the Universe. One can never be free from God. How is my view one of fear? "keep reading that good book and keep praying and growing!" Praying over the same things isn't growth, in my opinion. Have faith in your fellow man and read the words of other thinkers. You would be surprised how your fellow man can be inspirational. How is this a view of fear? In fact quite the opposite. You believe that your fellow man has little to offer in the way of wisdom. How is that healthy? Bill, you need to think outside the box. I realize Christianity prevents you from doing so, but not thinking creatively is disabling you from experiencing an intense sense of spirituality -- the integration of all things, thoughts and knowledge. = ) Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , >CC: , >Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e >mail >Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:53:54 -0500 > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"The issue has been resolved." > >Which issue? > >"You refused to have dinner with us and I took your reasoning to be due to >my wife's and mine faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." > >If you would like to believe in flaming rabbits that fly ferociously, be my >guest but don't expect me to believe it with you. > >"For the hundredth time I don't save my e mails." > >You can do as you please with them. > >"For the third time I understand you meant us no ill will what so ever and >I >harbor no feeling what so ever that you insulted us. I used to think that, >but am convinced you do not. The issue is resolved from my end, and I >shant >pursure it further." > >Ahh...I don't give a rat's ass about the whole thing. In fact, I find the >insults to be very entertaining. > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >From: DWise1@aol.com > >To: > >CC: , , > >Subject: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail > >Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:02:20 EDT > > > >In response to: > > > >Subj: Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail > >Date: 10-Oct-00 15:37:06 Pacific Daylight Time > >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) > >To: DWise1@aol.com > >CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net > > > >The matter is resolved thanks! > > > >%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > > > >>The matter is resolved thanks!<< > > > >THE HELL IT IS, BILL M! THAT IS A DAMNABLE LIE! > > > >This matter can never be resolved until you substantiate your accusations > >against me with enough information that we can identify the offending > >messages and compare them against what you "remember" that I had written. > > > > >>You insulted my wife's faith in Christ and gave that as your reaosn >for > >not > >going to Denny's.<< > > > >REPEAT THE WORDS OF THE INSULT! OR SHOW ME THE MESSAGE! And don't lie >to > >us > >and claim that you don't have it, because we all know that you do! > > > >If you truly believe that I had "insulted [your] wife's faith in Christ >and > >gave that as [my] reaosn for not going to Denny's", then tell me WHAT >WORDS > >you "remember" that I had written so that I can find the actual message > >that > >you think you are talking >about. > > > >Stop simply repeating your accusations and SUBSTANTIATE THEM! Repeat >what > >you think you remember my wording to have been! Tell me as many as you >can > >remember of those "very nasty names" you accuse me of having called you! > > > >Bill M, was one of those "very nasty names" "*ssh*l*" (synonym for >"anus")? > >Yes or no. > > > > > >This is the THIRTY-SIXTH TIME that I am asking you for this information! > >You > >cannot escape the truth, so stop trying to run away from it! > > > > > >These are the answers that you need to answer regarding your accusations. > >I > >cannot and will not accept the mere repeating of the accusations. We >must > >be > >able to use your answer to identify the actual messages in question. > > > >You MUST give the actual insults and actual "very nasty names" to the >very > >best of your ability to remember. > > > >You MUST describe in detail the "bigoted attacks on [you] and [your] >wife" > >that I am supposed to have conducted. > > > >You MUST describe in detail my alleged statement that I thought you are > >"some > >evil wicked person out to destroy society". > > > >You MUST describe in detail my alleged statement that I thought you are > >"wacked for beleiving in God". > > > >You MUST describe in detail the insults I allegedly used in "[P]ersonally > >insulting [you] on the level of a name calling 2nd grader." > > > >You MUST describe in detail the words I allegedly used in "[I]nsulting > >[your] > >wife and [you]." > > > >You MUST describe in detail what words were used when my wife and I had > >allegedly labelled you and your wife as evil. > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-st10.mail.aol.com (rly-st10.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.4]) by air-yd01.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:59:17 -0400 Received: from rly-za04.mx.aol.com (rly-za04.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.100]) by rly-st10.mail.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id WAA15163 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:52:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-za04.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:51:36 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA31148; Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:51:27 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <001501c03d65$93108ae0$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , Cc: , References: Subject: Re: Some good info for you Bill Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:53:21 -0500 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: 26-Oct-00 11:58:59 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: spambuster@gigagod.com, billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com Notice, I never call you names, my logic does not need to. Your point is excellent. It is basically God is not kind or merciful if he punishes decent people. Mark, a serious yes or no answer would be great here: Mark, are you a decent person? Yes or no? >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > >CC: >Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net >Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:25:28 -0500 > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"To answer Mark's bible question let me answer with authority: 'Enter >through the narrow gate for wide is the gate and broad is the road that >leads to destruction and many enter through it. But small is the gate and >narrow is the road that leads tolife, and only a few find it.' Matthew >7:13 > >It's funny how people swallow and regurgitate these words without thought >-- >religious parrots. If only they lived them instead of pointing fingers. > >"yes Mark, most people are on the path to destruction. you and Jesus agree >on that one." > >What you failed to recognize Bill is this... If you believe your God would >punish someone just because he/she did not worship the God as described in >the Bible, while he/she did his/her best to be a decent person then either, >(1) the Christian God of mercy, kindness and love does not exist and does >not deserve to be worshipped, or (2) the Christian God as described in the >Bible by Bible literalists is flawed and needs to be reinvented. > >It's your slanted view so now you have to deal with it. > >= ) > >Logic is such a powerful tool. If you believe in a devine entity, surely >it >was intended for us to use our brains. Why deny it? > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >From: "Mark" > >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > >, > >CC: > >Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net > >Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:32:24 -0500 > > > >Bill Bequette , you wrote: > > > >"Bill see you in church Sunday. We can pray for the heathen." > > > >Main Entry: heathen > >Function: noun > >Inflected Form(s): plural heathens or heathen > >Date: before 12th century > >1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge > >the God of the Bible > >2 : an uncivilized or irreligious person > > > >According to #1 and current population numbers around the world, there >are > >more 'heathens' than Bible-believers > > > >Main Entry: ir·re·li·gious > >Pronunciation: -'li-j&s > >Function: adjective > >Date: 15th century > >1 : neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or > >practices >professional purposes -- G. B. Shaw> > >2 : indicating lack of religion > > > >Hmmm... > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Bill Morgan > >To: editor@liberator.net ; billbeq@mediaone.net > > > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 7:14 PM > >Subject: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net > > > > > > >I have to admit I am a little teary eyed. > > > > > >Remember the end of the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy says to the scarecrow > >she > > >will miss him the most? Well Mark, you are that scarecrow...I will >miss > >you > > >the most. I think with counselling we could reconcile. > > > > > >Dave, I am going to delete all of your future e mails. Mark's are fun. > > > > > >This will shock you all. Do I beleif faith in God is more important >than > > >anything? Yes. Is it life or death to me that you beleive? No. I >wish > > >you did, but if you don't thats fine, its your choice, your free will. > >Its > > >not any chaff my hide. > > > > > >Mark's humorous jabs give me joy and mirth and thus I am going to > >continue > > >to open some of them if they keep coming. > > > > > > > > >>From: "Mark" > > >>To: "Bill Morgan" , > > >>CC: > > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:35:22 -0500 > > >> > > >>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > >> > > >>"Guys, I wish you all the best but I am out of town on my brothers in > >laws > > >>lap top and have about 100 emails from you all. I will delete them >and > > >>will > > >>do so in the future." > > >> > > >>Why let good ideas alter your stagnant point of view? ...just ignore > >them. > > >> > > >>= ) > > >> > > >>"You may call me at home at 714 898-8331 if you want to meet and >discuss > > >>why > > >>you feel let down by God." > > >> > > >>How could the Christian interpretation of God let me down? I'm > >intrigued > > >>how people can swallow other's beliefs without question. It's > >fascinating. > > >> > > >>"I just dont have teh time to respond to the e-mails, although I do > >admit > > >>it > > >>was fun and that Dave and Mark are obviously > > >>intelligent, and Mrk has a synical wit that I greatly appreciate." > > >> > > >>There's absolutely nothing cynical about wit but thanks for >recognizing > >my > > >>views for what they are...brilliant. Just kidding... > > >> > > >>"Mark, I hope you learn the difference between an allele and a > >mutation. > > >>You will be ridiculed by any biologist, or a nerd biologist (like me) > >when > > >>you try to bluff when you lack the knowledge of something basic." > > >> > > >>Dave, enlighten me, if you can. > > >> > > >>"Dave, you are a genius, a patriot and I assume a good family man, >just > > >>learn to be more open minded and I wish we had never wasted so much >time > >on > > >>what we thought you said about my wife. I am certain you did not mean > >to > > >>say what I assumed you said." > > >> > > >>You know what is said about people who ass-u-me, right? > > >> > > >>"Here is where we differ gentlemen: I have a little faith that > > >>intellignece > > >>greater than our created the human body and science backs it up. You > >have > > >>blind faith in thinking chemical arranged them selves by chance and >made > >up > > >>a human body, oh, excuse my, over billions of years. Just basic > >knowledge > > >>of what an enzyeme is makes that childish, but any childish beliefe >that > > >>will remove God from your life will do that wont it?" > > >> > > >>Why do you assume that the two views are seperate? > > >> > > >>"I tell you what. I will open one more e ail from you both, after >this > > >>one, > > >>then we gotta have a legal separation." > > >> > > >>Bill, if we have to get a legal seperation, does this mean you think >we > > >>were > > >>married? > > >> > > >>= ) > > >> > > >>Thinking for the two of us, > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > >> >From: "Mark" > > >> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > > >> > > > >> >CC: > > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:58:26 -0500 > > >> > > > >> >I didn't say he wasn't a religious man. However, I doubt he could > >have > > >> >followed any particular faith. His religion was science. > > >> > > > >> >Einstein got into a heated debate with Bohr when Bohr told his > >theories > > >>of > > >> >a > > >> >probabilistic universe. Einstein reported something to the effect >of > > >>"God > > >> >doesn't roll dice." Later, Einstein accepted Bohr's theories. > > >> > > > >> >= ) > > >> > > > >> >Mark > > >> >The Liberator > > >> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >----- Original Message ----- > > >> >From: Bill Bequette > > >> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> >Cc: > > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:53 PM > > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >Well he believed in God from studying science and he was a Jew who > >follow > > >> >the Bible except he thought Jesus was just a good Rabbi. I don't see > >him > > >> >not > > >> >being religious? Though I disagree with him on Jesus just being a > >good > > >> >Rabbi. I would say we believed in the same God. > > >> > > > >> >-----Original Message----- > > >> >From: Mark > > >> >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >> > > > >> >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:29 PM > > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >Bill, I hate to disappoint you but Einstein didn't believe in >quite > >the > > >> >same > > >> > >God you believe in. He wasn't too keen on the whole faith issue. > >He > > >>was > > >> >a > > >> > >firm believer in science. Like ancient thinkers, Einstein too > >believed > > >> >by > > >> > >studying science, one learns about God since God created the > >Universe. > > >> >He > > >> > >felt a direct connection to God from studying science and > >mathematics > > >>-- > > >> >the > > >> > >language of God. It is my opinion that his quest for the > >unification > > >> >theory > > >> > >was as spiritual as it was scientific. > > >> > > > > >> > >Only simplistic religionists feel that science is somehow separate > >from > > >> >God. > > >> > > > > >> > >In my opinion, God is the Universe. By studying it, we study God. > > >> > > > > >> > >We can fall down and think that our brains are too simple to > >understand > > >> >the > > >> > >Universe and succumb to mythical stories to pacify ourselves or we > >can > > >> > >discover life's beauty, which MUST include science. > > >> > > > > >> > >Mark > > >> > >The Liberator > > >> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > > >> > >Cc: > > >> > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:23 PM > > >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >Well there are theories(String theory and others) put forth that > > >>multiple > > >> > >dimensions exist and that since time is a dimension that it may > >simply > > >> >have > > >> > >been a singularity due to a black hole etc. and at some point we > >were > > >>all > > >> > >created when the dimensions unfolded. At some point you have to > >have > > >> >faith > > >> > >such as most of the great minds such as Einstein who was Jewish >and > > >>Isaac > > >> > >Newton did(Though he went off the deep end to a degree). When >they > > >>were > > >> > >confronted with all the overwhelming evidence of how fantastic our > > >> >universe > > >> > >is they realized a God has to exist. I am surprised you don't! > > >> > > > > >> > >= ) > > >> > > > > >> > >-----Original Message----- > > >> > >From: Mark > > >> > >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >> > > > > >> > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:09 PM > > >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >>What evidence do you have that God has always existed? What >makes > >you > > >> > >think > > >> > >>he will always exist? > > >> > >> > > >> > >>If God is the creator of the Universe, why did he create it in >such > >a > > >> >way > > >> > >to > > >> > >>suggest there was a mighty explosion of material? Did God create > >the > > >> > >>Universe in an explosion, like the theory called the Big Bang? >If > > >>this > > >> >is > > >> > >>possible, then why is it necessary for religionists to argue with > > >> > >scientists > > >> > >>who speak of the Big Bang? > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark > > >> > >>The Liberator > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >> > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:04 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>God encompasses all. God has and always will exist. > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Mark > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:41 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Bill, it's humorous how you run away from my questions and head >to > >the > > >> >same > > >> > >>old question "How did life start?" > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Where did God come from? > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark > > >> > >>The Liberator > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >> > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:45 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Any interaction will obviously in some way alter the brain > >chemistry. > > >> >God > > >> > >>made all men. Read the Bible! Have you ever read the Bible? >How > >did > > >> >life > > >> > >>start? > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Mark > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:29 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Bill, are you saying that social interactions cannot affect brain > > >> > >chemistry? > > >> > >>Are you also saying that there is no relationship between the > > >>Christian > > >> >God > > >> > >>and a father figure? > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark > > >> > >>The Liberator > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:19 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Old Sigmund is a dicredited, cocaine sniffing fraud from an >earlier > > >>time > > >> >as > > >> > >>you show below i.e. he died in 1939. Read up on all the recent > > >> > >discoveries, > > >> > >>since 1939, about how the human brain works based on chemical > > >> >interactions. > > >> > >>You should thank our wonderful God! > > >> > >>= ) > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Mark > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:10 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) > > >> > >>Austrian psychiatrist > > >> > >>The psychoanalysis of individual human beings, however, teaches >us > > >>with > > >> > >>quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed >in > >the > > >> > >>likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends > >on > > >>his > > >> > >>relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes > >along > > >> >with > > >> > >>that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an > >exalted > > >> > >>father. > > >> > >>-- Totem and Taboo, pt. 4, sct. 6 > > >> > >> > > >> > >>P.S. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Bill, you utter meaningless phrases like only babbling Christians > >do > > >>so > > >> > >>well. I have faith in reason, hard work, and ethics. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>You, on the other hand, limit yourself to a single manmade text > >called > > >> >the > > >> > >>Bible. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Which sounds more fruitful and positive to you? > > >> > >> > > >> > >>= ) > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark > > >> > >>The Liberator > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >> > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:44 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>You either have faith or you do not. Some things are not >explained > > >> >except > > >> > >>by faith. > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Mark > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:46 AM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Bill, you think the Bible encompasses the past, present and >future > > >> >better > > >> > >>than science? How do vague statements clarify the truth? > > >> > >> > > >> > >>The Bible does a good job doing one thing: maintaining ignorance. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Why else would people like you insist upon Bible literalism such >as > > >> >mankind > > >> > >>being descendants of Adam and Eve, Noah creating an ark and > >gathering > > >> >all > > >> > >>animals to fill it, Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, ... > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Do you realize that those same Bible myths you cherish were > >actually > > >> >stolen > > >> > >>from older myths? Research Osiris and the Ressurection. >Research > > >> >Athena > > >> > >>and Immaculate Conception. As a matter of fact, the whole virgin > > >>birth > > >> > >>story is a common theme with many religions. They signify more >of > >a > > >> >birth > > >> > >>of mankind than they do anything else you knothead. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>= ) > > >> > >> > > >> > >>You're killing me. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>People believe in prepackaged myths because it's easy to believe > >what > > >> > >people > > >> > >>tell you. It's much harder to discover things on your own; > >however, > > >> > >>discovery may be harder but it is much more rewarding. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark > > >> > >>The Liberator > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:56 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Because it encompasses the past, present and future better than > >just > > >> >your > > >> > >>present. > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Mark > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:14 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Give me some reasons to read that manmade text over any other. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Why do you cling to the past? > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark > > >> > >>The Liberator > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:06 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Read the Bible. > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Mark > > >> > >>To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:09 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Bill, substantiate your claim that God provided the 'perfect' >code. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark > > >> > >>The Liberator > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >> > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Bill Morgan > > >> > >>To: ; > > >> > >>Cc: > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:43 AM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Of course god creaed a perfect genetic code. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>I am really excited to hear what you say regarding why >biologically > > >>you > > >> > >>should not marry a sister. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark: do you know what an allele is? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>>From: "Mark" > > >> > >>>To: "Bill Morgan" , > > > >> > >>>CC: > > >> > >>>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >>>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:30:35 -0500 > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>>"I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations >increase > > >>over > > >> > >>>time, > > >> > >>>thus back then there were few if any." > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>>What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different >from > >an > > >> > >>>inherited genetic trait. > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>>"God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>>There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could >God > > >> >create > > >> > >>>such a thing? > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>>Mark > > >> > >>>The Liberator > > >> > >>>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >From: "Mark" > > >> > >>> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill >Morgan" > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >CC: > > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate >the > > >> >planet? > > >> > >>> >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating >humankind > >in > > >> >light > > >> > >>>of > > >> > >>> >defects caused by incestuous relations? > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >Mark > > >> > >>> >The Liberator > > >> > >>> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>> >From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >>> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > > >> > >>> >Cc: > > >> > >>> >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM > > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate >the > > >> >planet? > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >Mark, > > >> > >>> >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships >result > >in > > >> > >birth > > >> > >>> >defects. That is God's answer. > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >-----Original Message----- > > >> > >>> >From: Mark > > >> > >>> >To: Bill Morgan > > >> > >>> >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; >DWise1@aol.com > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM > > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate >the > > >> >planet? > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would >not > > >> >allow > > >> > >>> > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of >birth > > >> > >defects. > > >> > >>> >But > > >> > >>> > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be >knowledgeable > >of > > >> > >>> >science? > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > >Mark > > >> > >>> > >The Liberator > > >> > >>> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>_________________________________________________________________________ > > >> > >>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > > >> >http://www.hotmail.com. > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile > >at > > >> > >>>http://profiles.msn.com. > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > > >> > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > > >> >http://www.hotmail.com. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile >at > > >> > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > >> > > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ > > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (rly-yg02.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.2]) by air-yg02.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:58:59 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f102.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.102]) by rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:58:29 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:58:28 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:58:27 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: spambuster@gigagod.com, billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net Cc: DWise1@AOL.com Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:58:27 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Oct 2000 19:58:28.0111 (UTC) FILETIME=[1B8379F0:01C03F87] ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: 26-Oct-00 14:22:44 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com Bill Morgan , you wrote: "Notice, I never call you names, my logic does not need to." Yes, but if your argument can be reduced to quoting passages from the Bible instead of interpreting those passages, you would be acting as one of many religious parrots and you would also be wasting your 'breath'. "Your point is excellent. It is basically God is not kind or merciful if he punishes decent people." Punishment is one thing, 'Bill'. A lifetime of torment -- as the myth goes -- is yet another. "Mark, a serious yes or no answer would be great here: Mark, are you a decent person? Yes or no?" Yes. But the Christian faith does not completely base its philosophy on being decent. It bases its philosophy on following the life of Jesus as described by others within the Bible. Christians also believe that accepting Christ as a personal savior is necessary to enter Heaven. I must tell you that if this is actually an accurate interpretation of Christianity, then I want no part in the Christian Heaven. How can I follow a character in story and then accept him as my savior? Now, back to my comment from my last letter, which you dodged... 'What you failed to recognize Bill is this... If you believe your God would punish someone just because he/she did not worship the God as described in the Bible, while he/she did his/her best to be a decent person then either, (1) the Christian God of mercy, kindness and love does not exist and does not deserve to be worshipped, or (2) the Christian God as described in the Bible by Bible literalists is flawed and needs to be reinvented.' Which is right, option (1) or option (2)? Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > >CC: >Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net >Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:25:28 -0500 > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"To answer Mark's bible question let me answer with authority: 'Enter >through the narrow gate for wide is the gate and broad is the road that >leads to destruction and many enter through it. But small is the gate and >narrow is the road that leads tolife, and only a few find it.' Matthew >7:13 > >It's funny how people swallow and regurgitate these words without thought >-- >religious parrots. If only they lived them instead of pointing fingers. > >"yes Mark, most people are on the path to destruction. you and Jesus agree >on that one." > >What you failed to recognize Bill is this... If you believe your God would >punish someone just because he/she did not worship the God as described in >the Bible, while he/she did his/her best to be a decent person then either, >(1) the Christian God of mercy, kindness and love does not exist and does >not deserve to be worshipped, or (2) the Christian God as described in the >Bible by Bible literalists is flawed and needs to be reinvented. > >It's your slanted view so now you have to deal with it. > >= ) > >Logic is such a powerful tool. If you believe in a devine entity, surely >it >was intended for us to use our brains. Why deny it? > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >From: "Mark" > >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > >, > >CC: > >Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net > >Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:32:24 -0500 > > > >Bill Bequette , you wrote: > > > >"Bill see you in church Sunday. We can pray for the heathen." > > > >Main Entry: heathen > >Function: noun > >Inflected Form(s): plural heathens or heathen > >Date: before 12th century > >1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge > >the God of the Bible > >2 : an uncivilized or irreligious person > > > >According to #1 and current population numbers around the world, there >are > >more 'heathens' than Bible-believers > > > >Main Entry: ir·re·li·gious > >Pronunciation: -'li-j&s > >Function: adjective > >Date: 15th century > >1 : neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or > >practices >professional purposes -- G. B. Shaw> > >2 : indicating lack of religion > > > >Hmmm... > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Bill Morgan > >To: editor@liberator.net ; billbeq@mediaone.net > > > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > >Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 7:14 PM > >Subject: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net > > > > > > >I have to admit I am a little teary eyed. > > > > > >Remember the end of the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy says to the scarecrow > >she > > >will miss him the most? Well Mark, you are that scarecrow...I will >miss > >you > > >the most. I think with counselling we could reconcile. > > > > > >Dave, I am going to delete all of your future e mails. Mark's are fun. > > > > > >This will shock you all. Do I beleif faith in God is more important >than > > >anything? Yes. Is it life or death to me that you beleive? No. I >wish > > >you did, but if you don't thats fine, its your choice, your free will. > >Its > > >not any chaff my hide. > > > > > >Mark's humorous jabs give me joy and mirth and thus I am going to > >continue > > >to open some of them if they keep coming. > > > > > > > > >>From: "Mark" > > >>To: "Bill Morgan" , > > >>CC: > > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:35:22 -0500 > > >> > > >>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > >> > > >>"Guys, I wish you all the best but I am out of town on my brothers in > >laws > > >>lap top and have about 100 emails from you all. I will delete them >and > > >>will > > >>do so in the future." > > >> > > >>Why let good ideas alter your stagnant point of view? ...just ignore > >them. > > >> > > >>= ) > > >> > > >>"You may call me at home at 714 898-8331 if you want to meet and >discuss > > >>why > > >>you feel let down by God." > > >> > > >>How could the Christian interpretation of God let me down? I'm > >intrigued > > >>how people can swallow other's beliefs without question. It's > >fascinating. > > >> > > >>"I just dont have teh time to respond to the e-mails, although I do > >admit > > >>it > > >>was fun and that Dave and Mark are obviously > > >>intelligent, and Mrk has a synical wit that I greatly appreciate." > > >> > > >>There's absolutely nothing cynical about wit but thanks for >recognizing > >my > > >>views for what they are...brilliant. Just kidding... > > >> > > >>"Mark, I hope you learn the difference between an allele and a > >mutation. > > >>You will be ridiculed by any biologist, or a nerd biologist (like me) > >when > > >>you try to bluff when you lack the knowledge of something basic." > > >> > > >>Dave, enlighten me, if you can. > > >> > > >>"Dave, you are a genius, a patriot and I assume a good family man, >just > > >>learn to be more open minded and I wish we had never wasted so much >time > >on > > >>what we thought you said about my wife. I am certain you did not mean > >to > > >>say what I assumed you said." > > >> > > >>You know what is said about people who ass-u-me, right? > > >> > > >>"Here is where we differ gentlemen: I have a little faith that > > >>intellignece > > >>greater than our created the human body and science backs it up. You > >have > > >>blind faith in thinking chemical arranged them selves by chance and >made > >up > > >>a human body, oh, excuse my, over billions of years. Just basic > >knowledge > > >>of what an enzyeme is makes that childish, but any childish beliefe >that > > >>will remove God from your life will do that wont it?" > > >> > > >>Why do you assume that the two views are seperate? > > >> > > >>"I tell you what. I will open one more e ail from you both, after >this > > >>one, > > >>then we gotta have a legal separation." > > >> > > >>Bill, if we have to get a legal seperation, does this mean you think >we > > >>were > > >>married? > > >> > > >>= ) > > >> > > >>Thinking for the two of us, > > >> > > >>Mark > > >>The Liberator > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > >> >From: "Mark" > > >> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > > >> > > > >> >CC: > > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:58:26 -0500 > > >> > > > >> >I didn't say he wasn't a religious man. However, I doubt he could > >have > > >> >followed any particular faith. His religion was science. > > >> > > > >> >Einstein got into a heated debate with Bohr when Bohr told his > >theories > > >>of > > >> >a > > >> >probabilistic universe. Einstein reported something to the effect >of > > >>"God > > >> >doesn't roll dice." Later, Einstein accepted Bohr's theories. > > >> > > > >> >= ) > > >> > > > >> >Mark > > >> >The Liberator > > >> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >----- Original Message ----- > > >> >From: Bill Bequette > > >> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> >Cc: > > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:53 PM > > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >Well he believed in God from studying science and he was a Jew who > >follow > > >> >the Bible except he thought Jesus was just a good Rabbi. I don't see > >him > > >> >not > > >> >being religious? Though I disagree with him on Jesus just being a > >good > > >> >Rabbi. I would say we believed in the same God. > > >> > > > >> >-----Original Message----- > > >> >From: Mark > > >> >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >> > > > >> >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:29 PM > > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >Bill, I hate to disappoint you but Einstein didn't believe in >quite > >the > > >> >same > > >> > >God you believe in. He wasn't too keen on the whole faith issue. > >He > > >>was > > >> >a > > >> > >firm believer in science. Like ancient thinkers, Einstein too > >believed > > >> >by > > >> > >studying science, one learns about God since God created the > >Universe. > > >> >He > > >> > >felt a direct connection to God from studying science and > >mathematics > > >>-- > > >> >the > > >> > >language of God. It is my opinion that his quest for the > >unification > > >> >theory > > >> > >was as spiritual as it was scientific. > > >> > > > > >> > >Only simplistic religionists feel that science is somehow separate > >from > > >> >God. > > >> > > > > >> > >In my opinion, God is the Universe. By studying it, we study God. > > >> > > > > >> > >We can fall down and think that our brains are too simple to > >understand > > >> >the > > >> > >Universe and succumb to mythical stories to pacify ourselves or we > >can > > >> > >discover life's beauty, which MUST include science. > > >> > > > > >> > >Mark > > >> > >The Liberator > > >> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > > >> > >Cc: > > >> > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:23 PM > > >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >Well there are theories(String theory and others) put forth that > > >>multiple > > >> > >dimensions exist and that since time is a dimension that it may > >simply > > >> >have > > >> > >been a singularity due to a black hole etc. and at some point we > >were > > >>all > > >> > >created when the dimensions unfolded. At some point you have to > >have > > >> >faith > > >> > >such as most of the great minds such as Einstein who was Jewish >and > > >>Isaac > > >> > >Newton did(Though he went off the deep end to a degree). When >they > > >>were > > >> > >confronted with all the overwhelming evidence of how fantastic our > > >> >universe > > >> > >is they realized a God has to exist. I am surprised you don't! > > >> > > > > >> > >= ) > > >> > > > > >> > >-----Original Message----- > > >> > >From: Mark > > >> > >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >> > > > > >> > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:09 PM > > >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >>What evidence do you have that God has always existed? What >makes > >you > > >> > >think > > >> > >>he will always exist? > > >> > >> > > >> > >>If God is the creator of the Universe, why did he create it in >such > >a > > >> >way > > >> > >to > > >> > >>suggest there was a mighty explosion of material? Did God create > >the > > >> > >>Universe in an explosion, like the theory called the Big Bang? >If > > >>this > > >> >is > > >> > >>possible, then why is it necessary for religionists to argue with > > >> > >scientists > > >> > >>who speak of the Big Bang? > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark > > >> > >>The Liberator > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >> > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:04 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>God encompasses all. God has and always will exist. > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Mark > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:41 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Bill, it's humorous how you run away from my questions and head >to > >the > > >> >same > > >> > >>old question "How did life start?" > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Where did God come from? > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark > > >> > >>The Liberator > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >> > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:45 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Any interaction will obviously in some way alter the brain > >chemistry. > > >> >God > > >> > >>made all men. Read the Bible! Have you ever read the Bible? >How > >did > > >> >life > > >> > >>start? > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Mark > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:29 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Bill, are you saying that social interactions cannot affect brain > > >> > >chemistry? > > >> > >>Are you also saying that there is no relationship between the > > >>Christian > > >> >God > > >> > >>and a father figure? > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark > > >> > >>The Liberator > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:19 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Old Sigmund is a dicredited, cocaine sniffing fraud from an >earlier > > >>time > > >> >as > > >> > >>you show below i.e. he died in 1939. Read up on all the recent > > >> > >discoveries, > > >> > >>since 1939, about how the human brain works based on chemical > > >> >interactions. > > >> > >>You should thank our wonderful God! > > >> > >>= ) > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Mark > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:10 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Freud on the psychology of God > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) > > >> > >>Austrian psychiatrist > > >> > >>The psychoanalysis of individual human beings, however, teaches >us > > >>with > > >> > >>quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed >in > >the > > >> > >>likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends > >on > > >>his > > >> > >>relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes > >along > > >> >with > > >> > >>that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an > >exalted > > >> > >>father. > > >> > >>-- Totem and Taboo, pt. 4, sct. 6 > > >> > >> > > >> > >>P.S. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Bill, you utter meaningless phrases like only babbling Christians > >do > > >>so > > >> > >>well. I have faith in reason, hard work, and ethics. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>You, on the other hand, limit yourself to a single manmade text > >called > > >> >the > > >> > >>Bible. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Which sounds more fruitful and positive to you? > > >> > >> > > >> > >>= ) > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark > > >> > >>The Liberator > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >> > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:44 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>You either have faith or you do not. Some things are not >explained > > >> >except > > >> > >>by faith. > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Mark > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:46 AM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Bill, you think the Bible encompasses the past, present and >future > > >> >better > > >> > >>than science? How do vague statements clarify the truth? > > >> > >> > > >> > >>The Bible does a good job doing one thing: maintaining ignorance. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Why else would people like you insist upon Bible literalism such >as > > >> >mankind > > >> > >>being descendants of Adam and Eve, Noah creating an ark and > >gathering > > >> >all > > >> > >>animals to fill it, Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, ... > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Do you realize that those same Bible myths you cherish were > >actually > > >> >stolen > > >> > >>from older myths? Research Osiris and the Ressurection. >Research > > >> >Athena > > >> > >>and Immaculate Conception. As a matter of fact, the whole virgin > > >>birth > > >> > >>story is a common theme with many religions. They signify more >of > >a > > >> >birth > > >> > >>of mankind than they do anything else you knothead. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>= ) > > >> > >> > > >> > >>You're killing me. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>People believe in prepackaged myths because it's easy to believe > >what > > >> > >people > > >> > >>tell you. It's much harder to discover things on your own; > >however, > > >> > >>discovery may be harder but it is much more rewarding. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark > > >> > >>The Liberator > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:56 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Because it encompasses the past, present and future better than > >just > > >> >your > > >> > >>present. > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Mark > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:14 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Give me some reasons to read that manmade text over any other. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Why do you cling to the past? > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark > > >> > >>The Liberator > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:06 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Read the Bible. > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Mark > > >> > >>To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:09 PM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Bill, substantiate your claim that God provided the 'perfect' >code. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark > > >> > >>The Liberator > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >> > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>From: Bill Morgan > > >> > >>To: ; > > >> > >>Cc: > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:43 AM > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Of course god creaed a perfect genetic code. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>I am really excited to hear what you say regarding why >biologically > > >>you > > >> > >>should not marry a sister. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Mark: do you know what an allele is? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >>>From: "Mark" > > >> > >>>To: "Bill Morgan" , > > > >> > >>>CC: > > >> > >>>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > >>planet? > > >> > >>>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:30:35 -0500 > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>>"I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations >increase > > >>over > > >> > >>>time, > > >> > >>>thus back then there were few if any." > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>>What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different >from > >an > > >> > >>>inherited genetic trait. > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>>"God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>>There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could >God > > >> >create > > >> > >>>such a thing? > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>>Mark > > >> > >>>The Liberator > > >> > >>>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> >From: "Mark" > > >> > >>> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill >Morgan" > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >CC: > > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate >the > > >> >planet? > > >> > >>> >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating >humankind > >in > > >> >light > > >> > >>>of > > >> > >>> >defects caused by incestuous relations? > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >Mark > > >> > >>> >The Liberator > > >> > >>> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >----- Original Message ----- > > >> > >>> >From: Bill Bequette > > >> > >>> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > >> > > >> > >>> >Cc: > > >> > >>> >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM > > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate >the > > >> >planet? > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >Mark, > > >> > >>> >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships >result > >in > > >> > >birth > > >> > >>> >defects. That is God's answer. > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >-----Original Message----- > > >> > >>> >From: Mark > > >> > >>> >To: Bill Morgan > > >> > >>> >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; >DWise1@aol.com > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM > > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate >the > > >> >planet? > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would >not > > >> >allow > > >> > >>> > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of >birth > > >> > >defects. > > >> > >>> >But > > >> > >>> > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be >knowledgeable > >of > > >> > >>> >science? > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > >Mark > > >> > >>> > >The Liberator > > >> > >>> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >> > >>> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>_________________________________________________________________________ > > >> > >>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > > >> >http://www.hotmail.com. > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile > >at > > >> > >>>http://profiles.msn.com. > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > > >> > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > > >> >http://www.hotmail.com. > > >> > >> > > >> > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile >at > > >> > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > >> > > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ > > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (rly-yd05.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.5]) by air-yd02.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:22:44 -0400 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:22:16 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA16079; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:21:38 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <004a01c03f9b$623512a0$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:23:34 -0500 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by uucphost.mcs.net id RAA16079 ################################################ Subj: Decent Descent Date: 26-Oct-00 14:45:34 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: spambuster@gigagod.com, billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com Just hang on Mark, I will gladly answer your question, but stick to the topic. What is your neighbor thinks you are not a decent person. Does that make you an "undecent" person? >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , >CC: >Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net >Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:23:34 -0500 > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"Notice, I never call you names, my logic does not need to." > >Yes, but if your argument can be reduced to quoting passages from the Bible >instead of interpreting those passages, you would be acting as one of many >religious parrots and you would also be wasting your 'breath'. > >"Your point is excellent. It is basically God is not kind or merciful if >he >punishes decent people." > >Punishment is one thing, 'Bill'. A lifetime of torment -- as the myth >goes -- is yet another. > >"Mark, a serious yes or no answer would be great here: Mark, are you a >decent person? Yes or no?" > >Yes. But the Christian faith does not completely base its philosophy on >being decent. It bases its philosophy on following the life of Jesus as >described by others within the Bible. Christians also believe that >accepting Christ as a personal savior is necessary to enter Heaven. I must >tell you that if this is actually an accurate interpretation of >Christianity, then I want no part in the Christian Heaven. How can I >follow >a character in story and then accept him as my savior? > >Now, back to my comment from my last letter, which you dodged... 'What you >failed to recognize Bill is this... If you believe your God would punish >someone just because he/she did not worship the God as described in the >Bible, while he/she did his/her best to be a decent person then either, (1) >the Christian God of mercy, kindness and love does not exist and does not >deserve to be worshipped, or (2) the Christian God as described in the >Bible >by Bible literalists is flawed and needs to be reinvented.' > >Which is right, option (1) or option (2)? > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >From: "Mark" > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > >CC: > >Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net > >Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:25:28 -0500 > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > >"To answer Mark's bible question let me answer with authority: 'Enter > >through the narrow gate for wide is the gate and broad is the road that > >leads to destruction and many enter through it. But small is the gate >and > >narrow is the road that leads tolife, and only a few find it.' Matthew > >7:13 > > > >It's funny how people swallow and regurgitate these words without thought > >-- > >religious parrots. If only they lived them instead of pointing fingers. > > > >"yes Mark, most people are on the path to destruction. you and Jesus >agree > >on that one." > > > >What you failed to recognize Bill is this... If you believe your God >would > >punish someone just because he/she did not worship the God as described >in > >the Bible, while he/she did his/her best to be a decent person then >either, > >(1) the Christian God of mercy, kindness and love does not exist and does > >not deserve to be worshipped, or (2) the Christian God as described in >the > >Bible by Bible literalists is flawed and needs to be reinvented. > > > >It's your slanted view so now you have to deal with it. > > > >= ) > > > >Logic is such a powerful tool. If you believe in a devine entity, surely > >it > >was intended for us to use our brains. Why deny it? > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > >From: "Mark" > > >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > > >, > > >CC: > > >Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net > > >Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:32:24 -0500 > > > > > >Bill Bequette , you wrote: > > > > > >"Bill see you in church Sunday. We can pray for the heathen." > > > > > >Main Entry: heathen > > >Function: noun > > >Inflected Form(s): plural heathens or heathen > > >Date: before 12th century > > >1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not >acknowledge > > >the God of the Bible > > >2 : an uncivilized or irreligious person > > > > > >According to #1 and current population numbers around the world, there > >are > > >more 'heathens' than Bible-believers > > > > > >Main Entry: ir·re·li·gious > > >Pronunciation: -'li-j&s > > >Function: adjective > > >Date: 15th century > > >1 : neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or > > >practices > >professional purposes -- G. B. Shaw> > > >2 : indicating lack of religion > > > > > >Hmmm... > > > > > >Mark > > >The Liberator > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Bill Morgan > > >To: editor@liberator.net ; billbeq@mediaone.net > > > > > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 7:14 PM > > >Subject: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net > > > > > > > > > >I have to admit I am a little teary eyed. > > > > > > > >Remember the end of the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy says to the >scarecrow > > >she > > > >will miss him the most? Well Mark, you are that scarecrow...I will > >miss > > >you > > > >the most. I think with counselling we could reconcile. > > > > > > > >Dave, I am going to delete all of your future e mails. Mark's are >fun. > > > > > > > >This will shock you all. Do I beleif faith in God is more important > >than > > > >anything? Yes. Is it life or death to me that you beleive? No. I > >wish > > > >you did, but if you don't thats fine, its your choice, your free >will. > > >Its > > > >not any chaff my hide. > > > > > > > >Mark's humorous jabs give me joy and mirth and thus I am going to > > >continue > > > >to open some of them if they keep coming. > > > > > > > > > > > >>From: "Mark" > > > >>To: "Bill Morgan" , > > > >>CC: > > > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:35:22 -0500 > > > >> > > > >>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > >> > > > >>"Guys, I wish you all the best but I am out of town on my brothers >in > > >laws > > > >>lap top and have about 100 emails from you all. I will delete them > >and > > > >>will > > > >>do so in the future." > > > >> > > > >>Why let good ideas alter your stagnant point of view? ...just >ignore > > >them. > > > >> > > > >>= ) > > > >> > > > >>"You may call me at home at 714 898-8331 if you want to meet and > >discuss > > > >>why > > > >>you feel let down by God." > > > >> > > > >>How could the Christian interpretation of God let me down? I'm > > >intrigued > > > >>how people can swallow other's beliefs without question. It's > > >fascinating. > > > >> > > > >>"I just dont have teh time to respond to the e-mails, although I do > > >admit > > > >>it > > > >>was fun and that Dave and Mark are obviously > > > >>intelligent, and Mrk has a synical wit that I greatly appreciate." > > > >> > > > >>There's absolutely nothing cynical about wit but thanks for > >recognizing > > >my > > > >>views for what they are...brilliant. Just kidding... > > > >> > > > >>"Mark, I hope you learn the difference between an allele and a > > >mutation. > > > >>You will be ridiculed by any biologist, or a nerd biologist (like >me) > > >when > > > >>you try to bluff when you lack the knowledge of something basic." > > > >> > > > >>Dave, enlighten me, if you can. > > > >> > > > >>"Dave, you are a genius, a patriot and I assume a good family man, > >just > > > >>learn to be more open minded and I wish we had never wasted so much > >time > > >on > > > >>what we thought you said about my wife. I am certain you did not >mean > > >to > > > >>say what I assumed you said." > > > >> > > > >>You know what is said about people who ass-u-me, right? > > > >> > > > >>"Here is where we differ gentlemen: I have a little faith that > > > >>intellignece > > > >>greater than our created the human body and science backs it up. >You > > >have > > > >>blind faith in thinking chemical arranged them selves by chance and > >made > > >up > > > >>a human body, oh, excuse my, over billions of years. Just basic > > >knowledge > > > >>of what an enzyeme is makes that childish, but any childish beliefe > >that > > > >>will remove God from your life will do that wont it?" > > > >> > > > >>Why do you assume that the two views are seperate? > > > >> > > > >>"I tell you what. I will open one more e ail from you both, after > >this > > > >>one, > > > >>then we gotta have a legal separation." > > > >> > > > >>Bill, if we have to get a legal seperation, does this mean you think > >we > > > >>were > > > >>married? > > > >> > > > >>= ) > > > >> > > > >>Thinking for the two of us, > > > >> > > > >>Mark > > > >>The Liberator > > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > > > >> >From: "Mark" > > > >> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > > > >> > > > > >> >CC: > > > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:58:26 -0500 > > > >> > > > > >> >I didn't say he wasn't a religious man. However, I doubt he could > > >have > > > >> >followed any particular faith. His religion was science. > > > >> > > > > >> >Einstein got into a heated debate with Bohr when Bohr told his > > >theories > > > >>of > > > >> >a > > > >> >probabilistic universe. Einstein reported something to the effect > >of > > > >>"God > > > >> >doesn't roll dice." Later, Einstein accepted Bohr's theories. > > > >> > > > > >> >= ) > > > >> > > > > >> >Mark > > > >> >The Liberator > > > >> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >----- Original Message ----- > > > >> >From: Bill Bequette > > > >> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > > > >> >Cc: > > > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:53 PM > > > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >Well he believed in God from studying science and he was a Jew who > > >follow > > > >> >the Bible except he thought Jesus was just a good Rabbi. I don't >see > > >him > > > >> >not > > > >> >being religious? Though I disagree with him on Jesus just being a > > >good > > > >> >Rabbi. I would say we believed in the same God. > > > >> > > > > >> >-----Original Message----- > > > >> >From: Mark > > > >> >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > > > > >> >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:29 PM > > > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >Bill, I hate to disappoint you but Einstein didn't believe in > >quite > > >the > > > >> >same > > > >> > >God you believe in. He wasn't too keen on the whole faith >issue. > > >He > > > >>was > > > >> >a > > > >> > >firm believer in science. Like ancient thinkers, Einstein too > > >believed > > > >> >by > > > >> > >studying science, one learns about God since God created the > > >Universe. > > > >> >He > > > >> > >felt a direct connection to God from studying science and > > >mathematics > > > >>-- > > > >> >the > > > >> > >language of God. It is my opinion that his quest for the > > >unification > > > >> >theory > > > >> > >was as spiritual as it was scientific. > > > >> > > > > > >> > >Only simplistic religionists feel that science is somehow >separate > > >from > > > >> >God. > > > >> > > > > > >> > >In my opinion, God is the Universe. By studying it, we study >God. > > > >> > > > > > >> > >We can fall down and think that our brains are too simple to > > >understand > > > >> >the > > > >> > >Universe and succumb to mythical stories to pacify ourselves or >we > > >can > > > >> > >discover life's beauty, which MUST include science. > > > >> > > > > > >> > >Mark > > > >> > >The Liberator > > > >> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > > > > >> > >Cc: > > > >> > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:23 PM > > > >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >Well there are theories(String theory and others) put forth that > > > >>multiple > > > >> > >dimensions exist and that since time is a dimension that it may > > >simply > > > >> >have > > > >> > >been a singularity due to a black hole etc. and at some point we > > >were > > > >>all > > > >> > >created when the dimensions unfolded. At some point you have to > > >have > > > >> >faith > > > >> > >such as most of the great minds such as Einstein who was Jewish > >and > > > >>Isaac > > > >> > >Newton did(Though he went off the deep end to a degree). When > >they > > > >>were > > > >> > >confronted with all the overwhelming evidence of how fantastic >our > > > >> >universe > > > >> > >is they realized a God has to exist. I am surprised you don't! > > > >> > > > > > >> > >= ) > > > >> > > > > > >> > >-----Original Message----- > > > >> > >From: Mark > > > >> > >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > > > > > >> > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:09 PM > > > >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >>What evidence do you have that God has always existed? What > >makes > > >you > > > >> > >think > > > >> > >>he will always exist? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>If God is the creator of the Universe, why did he create it in > >such > > >a > > > >> >way > > > >> > >to > > > >> > >>suggest there was a mighty explosion of material? Did God >create > > >the > > > >> > >>Universe in an explosion, like the theory called the Big Bang? > >If > > > >>this > > > >> >is > > > >> > >>possible, then why is it necessary for religionists to argue >with > > > >> > >scientists > > > >> > >>who speak of the Big Bang? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark > > > >> > >>The Liberator > > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:04 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>God encompasses all. God has and always will exist. > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Mark > > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:41 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Bill, it's humorous how you run away from my questions and head > >to > > >the > > > >> >same > > > >> > >>old question "How did life start?" > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Where did God come from? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark > > > >> > >>The Liberator > > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:45 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Any interaction will obviously in some way alter the brain > > >chemistry. > > > >> >God > > > >> > >>made all men. Read the Bible! Have you ever read the Bible? > >How > > >did > > > >> >life > > > >> > >>start? > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Mark > > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:29 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Bill, are you saying that social interactions cannot affect >brain > > > >> > >chemistry? > > > >> > >>Are you also saying that there is no relationship between the > > > >>Christian > > > >> >God > > > >> > >>and a father figure? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark > > > >> > >>The Liberator > > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:19 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Old Sigmund is a dicredited, cocaine sniffing fraud from an > >earlier > > > >>time > > > >> >as > > > >> > >>you show below i.e. he died in 1939. Read up on all the recent > > > >> > >discoveries, > > > >> > >>since 1939, about how the human brain works based on chemical > > > >> >interactions. > > > >> > >>You should thank our wonderful God! > > > >> > >>= ) > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Mark > > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:10 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) > > > >> > >>Austrian psychiatrist > > > >> > >>The psychoanalysis of individual human beings, however, teaches > >us > > > >>with > > > >> > >>quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed > >in > > >the > > > >> > >>likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God >depends > > >on > > > >>his > > > >> > >>relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes > > >along > > > >> >with > > > >> > >>that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an > > >exalted > > > >> > >>father. > > > >> > >>-- Totem and Taboo, pt. 4, sct. 6 > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>P.S. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Bill, you utter meaningless phrases like only babbling >Christians > > >do > > > >>so > > > >> > >>well. I have faith in reason, hard work, and ethics. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>You, on the other hand, limit yourself to a single manmade text > > >called > > > >> >the > > > >> > >>Bible. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Which sounds more fruitful and positive to you? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>= ) > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark > > > >> > >>The Liberator > > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:44 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>You either have faith or you do not. Some things are not > >explained > > > >> >except > > > >> > >>by faith. > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Mark > > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:46 AM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Bill, you think the Bible encompasses the past, present and > >future > > > >> >better > > > >> > >>than science? How do vague statements clarify the truth? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>The Bible does a good job doing one thing: maintaining >ignorance. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Why else would people like you insist upon Bible literalism >such > >as > > > >> >mankind > > > >> > >>being descendants of Adam and Eve, Noah creating an ark and > > >gathering > > > >> >all > > > >> > >>animals to fill it, Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, >... > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Do you realize that those same Bible myths you cherish were > > >actually > > > >> >stolen > > > >> > >>from older myths? Research Osiris and the Ressurection. > >Research > > > >> >Athena > > > >> > >>and Immaculate Conception. As a matter of fact, the whole >virgin > > > >>birth > > > >> > >>story is a common theme with many religions. They signify more > >of > > >a > > > >> >birth > > > >> > >>of mankind than they do anything else you knothead. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>= ) > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>You're killing me. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>People believe in prepackaged myths because it's easy to >believe > > >what > > > >> > >people > > > >> > >>tell you. It's much harder to discover things on your own; > > >however, > > > >> > >>discovery may be harder but it is much more rewarding. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark > > > >> > >>The Liberator > > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:56 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Because it encompasses the past, present and future better than > > >just > > > >> >your > > > >> > >>present. > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Mark > > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:14 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Give me some reasons to read that manmade text over any other. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Why do you cling to the past? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark > > > >> > >>The Liberator > > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:06 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Read the Bible. > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Mark > > > >> > >>To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:09 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Bill, substantiate your claim that God provided the 'perfect' > >code. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark > > > >> > >>The Liberator > > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>To: ; > > > >> > >>Cc: > > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:43 AM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Of course god creaed a perfect genetic code. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>I am really excited to hear what you say regarding why > >biologically > > > >>you > > > >> > >>should not marry a sister. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark: do you know what an allele is? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>>From: "Mark" > > > >> > >>>To: "Bill Morgan" , > > > > > >> > >>>CC: > > > >> > >>>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate >the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >>>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:30:35 -0500 > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>>"I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations > >increase > > > >>over > > > >> > >>>time, > > > >> > >>>thus back then there were few if any." > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>>What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different > >from > > >an > > > >> > >>>inherited genetic trait. > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>>"God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>>There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could > >God > > > >> >create > > > >> > >>>such a thing? > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>>Mark > > > >> > >>>The Liberator > > > >> > >>>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >From: "Mark" > > > >> > >>> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill > >Morgan" > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> >CC: > > > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate > >the > > > >> >planet? > > > >> > >>> >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating > >humankind > > >in > > > >> >light > > > >> > >>>of > > > >> > >>> >defects caused by incestuous relations? > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> >Mark > > > >> > >>> >The Liberator > > > >> > >>> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> >----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>> >From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >>> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > > > >> > >>> >Cc: > > > >> > >>> >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM > > > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate > >the > > > >> >planet? > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> >Mark, > > > >> > >>> >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships > >result > > >in > > > >> > >birth > > > >> > >>> >defects. That is God's answer. > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> >-----Original Message----- > > > >> > >>> >From: Mark > > > >> > >>> >To: Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>> >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; > >DWise1@aol.com > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM > > > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate > >the > > > >> >planet? > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would > >not > > > >> >allow > > > >> > >>> > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of > >birth > > > >> > >defects. > > > >> > >>> >But > > > >> > >>> > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be > >knowledgeable > > >of > > > >> > >>> >science? > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > >Mark > > > >> > >>> > >The Liberator > > > >> > >>> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >>>_________________________________________________________________________ > > > >> > >>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > > > >> >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>>Share information about yourself, create your own public >profile > > >at > > > >> > >>>http://profiles.msn.com. > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > > > >> > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > > > >> >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public >profile > >at > > > >> > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > > > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > >> > > > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ > > > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > > >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zb03.mx.aol.com (rly-zb03.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.3]) by air-zb04.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:45:34 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f8.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.8]) by rly-zb03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:45:04 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:45:03 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 22:45:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: spambuster@gigagod.com, billbeq@mediaone.net Cc: DWise1@AOL.com Subject: Decent Descent Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 22:45:03 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Oct 2000 22:45:03.0370 (UTC) FILETIME=[6126F6A0:01C03F9E] ################################################ Subj: Re: Decent Descent Date: 26-Oct-00 15:54:35 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1@AOL.com , you wrote: "Just hang on Mark, I will gladly answer your question..." I'll hold you to that statement. "...but stick to the topic." I never abandoned the topic. You believe that God is loving and merciful yet he sentences souls to an ETERNITY in Hell -- as the myth goes. You also believe that people can be made to worship God using this fear-tactic. This is all part of this topic and you seem unwilling to address these points. "What is your neighbor thinks you are not a decent person. Does that make you an 'undecent' person?" Main Entry: de·cent Pronunciation: 'dE-s&nt Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin decent-, decens, present participle of decEre to be fitting; akin to Latin decus honor, dignus worthy, Greek dokein to seem, seem good Date: 1539 1 archaic a : APPROPRIATE b : well-formed : HANDSOME 2 a : conforming to standards of propriety, good taste, or morality b : modestly clothed 3 : free from immodesty or obscenity 4 : fairly good but not excellent : ADEQUATE, SATISFACTORY 5 : marked by moral integrity, kindness, and goodwill synonym see CHASTE - de·cent·ly adverb It would seem that the issue of being a decent person rests in a grey territory. Do you believe that there is a standard of decency? Do you feel a need for such a standard? Does religion play a part in defining decency? If so, how do neighborhoods which are multi-cultural handle decency conflicts? If you're trying to lead me down a primrose path, you'll discover that there are no primrose paths. In the process of cleaning paths to make them perfect, we dirty up other areas. Here's a question for you: Is logic a component of religion and religious study? Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , >CC: >Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net >Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:23:34 -0500 > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"Notice, I never call you names, my logic does not need to." > >Yes, but if your argument can be reduced to quoting passages from the Bible >instead of interpreting those passages, you would be acting as one of many >religious parrots and you would also be wasting your 'breath'. > >"Your point is excellent. It is basically God is not kind or merciful if >he >punishes decent people." > >Punishment is one thing, 'Bill'. A lifetime of torment -- as the myth >goes -- is yet another. > >"Mark, a serious yes or no answer would be great here: Mark, are you a >decent person? Yes or no?" > >Yes. But the Christian faith does not completely base its philosophy on >being decent. It bases its philosophy on following the life of Jesus as >described by others within the Bible. Christians also believe that >accepting Christ as a personal savior is necessary to enter Heaven. I must >tell you that if this is actually an accurate interpretation of >Christianity, then I want no part in the Christian Heaven. How can I >follow >a character in story and then accept him as my savior? > >Now, back to my comment from my last letter, which you dodged... 'What you >failed to recognize Bill is this... If you believe your God would punish >someone just because he/she did not worship the God as described in the >Bible, while he/she did his/her best to be a decent person then either, (1) >the Christian God of mercy, kindness and love does not exist and does not >deserve to be worshipped, or (2) the Christian God as described in the >Bible >by Bible literalists is flawed and needs to be reinvented.' > >Which is right, option (1) or option (2)? > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >From: "Mark" > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > >CC: > >Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net > >Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 21:25:28 -0500 > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > >"To answer Mark's bible question let me answer with authority: 'Enter > >through the narrow gate for wide is the gate and broad is the road that > >leads to destruction and many enter through it. But small is the gate >and > >narrow is the road that leads tolife, and only a few find it.' Matthew > >7:13 > > > >It's funny how people swallow and regurgitate these words without thought > >-- > >religious parrots. If only they lived them instead of pointing fingers. > > > >"yes Mark, most people are on the path to destruction. you and Jesus >agree > >on that one." > > > >What you failed to recognize Bill is this... If you believe your God >would > >punish someone just because he/she did not worship the God as described >in > >the Bible, while he/she did his/her best to be a decent person then >either, > >(1) the Christian God of mercy, kindness and love does not exist and does > >not deserve to be worshipped, or (2) the Christian God as described in >the > >Bible by Bible literalists is flawed and needs to be reinvented. > > > >It's your slanted view so now you have to deal with it. > > > >= ) > > > >Logic is such a powerful tool. If you believe in a devine entity, surely > >it > >was intended for us to use our brains. Why deny it? > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > >From: "Mark" > > >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > > >, > > >CC: > > >Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net > > >Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:32:24 -0500 > > > > > >Bill Bequette , you wrote: > > > > > >"Bill see you in church Sunday. We can pray for the heathen." > > > > > >Main Entry: heathen > > >Function: noun > > >Inflected Form(s): plural heathens or heathen > > >Date: before 12th century > > >1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not >acknowledge > > >the God of the Bible > > >2 : an uncivilized or irreligious person > > > > > >According to #1 and current population numbers around the world, there > >are > > >more 'heathens' than Bible-believers > > > > > >Main Entry: ir·re·li·gious > > >Pronunciation: -'li-j&s > > >Function: adjective > > >Date: 15th century > > >1 : neglectful of religion : lacking religious emotions, doctrines, or > > >practices > >professional purposes -- G. B. Shaw> > > >2 : indicating lack of religion > > > > > >Hmmm... > > > > > >Mark > > >The Liberator > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Bill Morgan > > >To: editor@liberator.net ; billbeq@mediaone.net > > > > > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > >Date: Friday, October 20, 2000 7:14 PM > > >Subject: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net > > > > > > > > > >I have to admit I am a little teary eyed. > > > > > > > >Remember the end of the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy says to the >scarecrow > > >she > > > >will miss him the most? Well Mark, you are that scarecrow...I will > >miss > > >you > > > >the most. I think with counselling we could reconcile. > > > > > > > >Dave, I am going to delete all of your future e mails. Mark's are >fun. > > > > > > > >This will shock you all. Do I beleif faith in God is more important > >than > > > >anything? Yes. Is it life or death to me that you beleive? No. I > >wish > > > >you did, but if you don't thats fine, its your choice, your free >will. > > >Its > > > >not any chaff my hide. > > > > > > > >Mark's humorous jabs give me joy and mirth and thus I am going to > > >continue > > > >to open some of them if they keep coming. > > > > > > > > > > > >>From: "Mark" > > > >>To: "Bill Morgan" , > > > >>CC: > > > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >>Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:35:22 -0500 > > > >> > > > >>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > >> > > > >>"Guys, I wish you all the best but I am out of town on my brothers >in > > >laws > > > >>lap top and have about 100 emails from you all. I will delete them > >and > > > >>will > > > >>do so in the future." > > > >> > > > >>Why let good ideas alter your stagnant point of view? ...just >ignore > > >them. > > > >> > > > >>= ) > > > >> > > > >>"You may call me at home at 714 898-8331 if you want to meet and > >discuss > > > >>why > > > >>you feel let down by God." > > > >> > > > >>How could the Christian interpretation of God let me down? I'm > > >intrigued > > > >>how people can swallow other's beliefs without question. It's > > >fascinating. > > > >> > > > >>"I just dont have teh time to respond to the e-mails, although I do > > >admit > > > >>it > > > >>was fun and that Dave and Mark are obviously > > > >>intelligent, and Mrk has a synical wit that I greatly appreciate." > > > >> > > > >>There's absolutely nothing cynical about wit but thanks for > >recognizing > > >my > > > >>views for what they are...brilliant. Just kidding... > > > >> > > > >>"Mark, I hope you learn the difference between an allele and a > > >mutation. > > > >>You will be ridiculed by any biologist, or a nerd biologist (like >me) > > >when > > > >>you try to bluff when you lack the knowledge of something basic." > > > >> > > > >>Dave, enlighten me, if you can. > > > >> > > > >>"Dave, you are a genius, a patriot and I assume a good family man, > >just > > > >>learn to be more open minded and I wish we had never wasted so much > >time > > >on > > > >>what we thought you said about my wife. I am certain you did not >mean > > >to > > > >>say what I assumed you said." > > > >> > > > >>You know what is said about people who ass-u-me, right? > > > >> > > > >>"Here is where we differ gentlemen: I have a little faith that > > > >>intellignece > > > >>greater than our created the human body and science backs it up. >You > > >have > > > >>blind faith in thinking chemical arranged them selves by chance and > >made > > >up > > > >>a human body, oh, excuse my, over billions of years. Just basic > > >knowledge > > > >>of what an enzyeme is makes that childish, but any childish beliefe > >that > > > >>will remove God from your life will do that wont it?" > > > >> > > > >>Why do you assume that the two views are seperate? > > > >> > > > >>"I tell you what. I will open one more e ail from you both, after > >this > > > >>one, > > > >>then we gotta have a legal separation." > > > >> > > > >>Bill, if we have to get a legal seperation, does this mean you think > >we > > > >>were > > > >>married? > > > >> > > > >>= ) > > > >> > > > >>Thinking for the two of us, > > > >> > > > >>Mark > > > >>The Liberator > > > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > > > >> >From: "Mark" > > > >> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" > > > >> > > > > >> >CC: > > > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 23:58:26 -0500 > > > >> > > > > >> >I didn't say he wasn't a religious man. However, I doubt he could > > >have > > > >> >followed any particular faith. His religion was science. > > > >> > > > > >> >Einstein got into a heated debate with Bohr when Bohr told his > > >theories > > > >>of > > > >> >a > > > >> >probabilistic universe. Einstein reported something to the effect > >of > > > >>"God > > > >> >doesn't roll dice." Later, Einstein accepted Bohr's theories. > > > >> > > > > >> >= ) > > > >> > > > > >> >Mark > > > >> >The Liberator > > > >> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >----- Original Message ----- > > > >> >From: Bill Bequette > > > >> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > > > >> >Cc: > > > >> >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:53 PM > > > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> >Well he believed in God from studying science and he was a Jew who > > >follow > > > >> >the Bible except he thought Jesus was just a good Rabbi. I don't >see > > >him > > > >> >not > > > >> >being religious? Though I disagree with him on Jesus just being a > > >good > > > >> >Rabbi. I would say we believed in the same God. > > > >> > > > > >> >-----Original Message----- > > > >> >From: Mark > > > >> >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > > > > >> >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:29 PM > > > >> >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >Bill, I hate to disappoint you but Einstein didn't believe in > >quite > > >the > > > >> >same > > > >> > >God you believe in. He wasn't too keen on the whole faith >issue. > > >He > > > >>was > > > >> >a > > > >> > >firm believer in science. Like ancient thinkers, Einstein too > > >believed > > > >> >by > > > >> > >studying science, one learns about God since God created the > > >Universe. > > > >> >He > > > >> > >felt a direct connection to God from studying science and > > >mathematics > > > >>-- > > > >> >the > > > >> > >language of God. It is my opinion that his quest for the > > >unification > > > >> >theory > > > >> > >was as spiritual as it was scientific. > > > >> > > > > > >> > >Only simplistic religionists feel that science is somehow >separate > > >from > > > >> >God. > > > >> > > > > > >> > >In my opinion, God is the Universe. By studying it, we study >God. > > > >> > > > > > >> > >We can fall down and think that our brains are too simple to > > >understand > > > >> >the > > > >> > >Universe and succumb to mythical stories to pacify ourselves or >we > > >can > > > >> > >discover life's beauty, which MUST include science. > > > >> > > > > > >> > >Mark > > > >> > >The Liberator > > > >> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > > > > >> > >Cc: > > > >> > >Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:23 PM > > > >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >Well there are theories(String theory and others) put forth that > > > >>multiple > > > >> > >dimensions exist and that since time is a dimension that it may > > >simply > > > >> >have > > > >> > >been a singularity due to a black hole etc. and at some point we > > >were > > > >>all > > > >> > >created when the dimensions unfolded. At some point you have to > > >have > > > >> >faith > > > >> > >such as most of the great minds such as Einstein who was Jewish > >and > > > >>Isaac > > > >> > >Newton did(Though he went off the deep end to a degree). When > >they > > > >>were > > > >> > >confronted with all the overwhelming evidence of how fantastic >our > > > >> >universe > > > >> > >is they realized a God has to exist. I am surprised you don't! > > > >> > > > > > >> > >= ) > > > >> > > > > > >> > >-----Original Message----- > > > >> > >From: Mark > > > >> > >To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > > > > > >> > >Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >Date: Thursday, October 12, 2000 7:09 PM > > > >> > >Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > >>What evidence do you have that God has always existed? What > >makes > > >you > > > >> > >think > > > >> > >>he will always exist? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>If God is the creator of the Universe, why did he create it in > >such > > >a > > > >> >way > > > >> > >to > > > >> > >>suggest there was a mighty explosion of material? Did God >create > > >the > > > >> > >>Universe in an explosion, like the theory called the Big Bang? > >If > > > >>this > > > >> >is > > > >> > >>possible, then why is it necessary for religionists to argue >with > > > >> > >scientists > > > >> > >>who speak of the Big Bang? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark > > > >> > >>The Liberator > > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 4:04 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>God encompasses all. God has and always will exist. > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Mark > > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:41 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Bill, it's humorous how you run away from my questions and head > >to > > >the > > > >> >same > > > >> > >>old question "How did life start?" > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Where did God come from? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark > > > >> > >>The Liberator > > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:45 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Any interaction will obviously in some way alter the brain > > >chemistry. > > > >> >God > > > >> > >>made all men. Read the Bible! Have you ever read the Bible? > >How > > >did > > > >> >life > > > >> > >>start? > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Mark > > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:29 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Bill, are you saying that social interactions cannot affect >brain > > > >> > >chemistry? > > > >> > >>Are you also saying that there is no relationship between the > > > >>Christian > > > >> >God > > > >> > >>and a father figure? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark > > > >> > >>The Liberator > > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 2:19 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Old Sigmund is a dicredited, cocaine sniffing fraud from an > >earlier > > > >>time > > > >> >as > > > >> > >>you show below i.e. he died in 1939. Read up on all the recent > > > >> > >discoveries, > > > >> > >>since 1939, about how the human brain works based on chemical > > > >> >interactions. > > > >> > >>You should thank our wonderful God! > > > >> > >>= ) > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Mark > > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 12:10 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Freud on the psychology of God > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) > > > >> > >>Austrian psychiatrist > > > >> > >>The psychoanalysis of individual human beings, however, teaches > >us > > > >>with > > > >> > >>quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed > >in > > >the > > > >> > >>likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God >depends > > >on > > > >>his > > > >> > >>relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes > > >along > > > >> >with > > > >> > >>that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an > > >exalted > > > >> > >>father. > > > >> > >>-- Totem and Taboo, pt. 4, sct. 6 > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>P.S. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Bill, you utter meaningless phrases like only babbling >Christians > > >do > > > >>so > > > >> > >>well. I have faith in reason, hard work, and ethics. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>You, on the other hand, limit yourself to a single manmade text > > >called > > > >> >the > > > >> > >>Bible. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Which sounds more fruitful and positive to you? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>= ) > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark > > > >> > >>The Liberator > > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 1:44 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>You either have faith or you do not. Some things are not > >explained > > > >> >except > > > >> > >>by faith. > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Mark > > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:46 AM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Bill, you think the Bible encompasses the past, present and > >future > > > >> >better > > > >> > >>than science? How do vague statements clarify the truth? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>The Bible does a good job doing one thing: maintaining >ignorance. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Why else would people like you insist upon Bible literalism >such > >as > > > >> >mankind > > > >> > >>being descendants of Adam and Eve, Noah creating an ark and > > >gathering > > > >> >all > > > >> > >>animals to fill it, Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, >... > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Do you realize that those same Bible myths you cherish were > > >actually > > > >> >stolen > > > >> > >>from older myths? Research Osiris and the Ressurection. > >Research > > > >> >Athena > > > >> > >>and Immaculate Conception. As a matter of fact, the whole >virgin > > > >>birth > > > >> > >>story is a common theme with many religions. They signify more > >of > > >a > > > >> >birth > > > >> > >>of mankind than they do anything else you knothead. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>= ) > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>You're killing me. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>People believe in prepackaged myths because it's easy to >believe > > >what > > > >> > >people > > > >> > >>tell you. It's much harder to discover things on your own; > > >however, > > > >> > >>discovery may be harder but it is much more rewarding. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark > > > >> > >>The Liberator > > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:56 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Because it encompasses the past, present and future better than > > >just > > > >> >your > > > >> > >>present. > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Mark > > > >> > >>To: Bill Bequette ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:14 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Give me some reasons to read that manmade text over any other. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Why do you cling to the past? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark > > > >> > >>The Liberator > > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >>To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 4:06 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Read the Bible. > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Mark > > > >> > >>To: Bill Morgan ; billbeq@mediaone.net > > > >> > >>Cc: DWise1@AOL.com > > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:09 PM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Bill, substantiate your claim that God provided the 'perfect' > >code. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark > > > >> > >>The Liberator > > > >> > >>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>From: Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>To: ; > > > >> > >>Cc: > > > >> > >>Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 9:43 AM > > > >> > >>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Of course god creaed a perfect genetic code. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>I am really excited to hear what you say regarding why > >biologically > > > >>you > > > >> > >>should not marry a sister. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Mark: do you know what an allele is? > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>>From: "Mark" > > > >> > >>>To: "Bill Morgan" , > > > > > >> > >>>CC: > > > >> > >>>Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate >the > > > >>planet? > > > >> > >>>Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:30:35 -0500 > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>>Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>>"I answered that already didn't you read it....mutations > >increase > > > >>over > > > >> > >>>time, > > > >> > >>>thus back then there were few if any." > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>>What you fail to acknowledge is that a mutation is different > >from > > >an > > > >> > >>>inherited genetic trait. > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>>"God made a nice clean defect free genetic code!" > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>>There is no such thing as a perfect genetic code so how could > >God > > > >> >create > > > >> > >>>such a thing? > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>>Mark > > > >> > >>>The Liberator > > > >> > >>>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>>Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >From: "Mark" > > > >> > >>> >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill > >Morgan" > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> >CC: > > > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate > >the > > > >> >planet? > > > >> > >>> >Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 23:34:44 -0500 > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> >Bill, then how do you explain Adam and Eve populating > >humankind > > >in > > > >> >light > > > >> > >>>of > > > >> > >>> >defects caused by incestuous relations? > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> >Mark > > > >> > >>> >The Liberator > > > >> > >>> >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>> >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> >----- Original Message ----- > > > >> > >>> >From: Bill Bequette > > > >> > >>> >To: Mark ; Bill Morgan > > > >> > > > >> > >>> >Cc: > > > >> > >>> >Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2000 11:22 PM > > > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate > >the > > > >> >planet? > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> >Mark, > > > >> > >>> >You answered your own question. Incestuous relationships > >result > > >in > > > >> > >birth > > > >> > >>> >defects. That is God's answer. > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> >-----Original Message----- > > > >> > >>> >From: Mark > > > >> > >>> >To: Bill Morgan > > > >> > >>> >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; > >DWise1@aol.com > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> >Date: Saturday, October 07, 2000 4:41 PM > > > >> > >>> >Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate > >the > > > >> >planet? > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > >"Please answer the question Mark: is incest wrong?" > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > >If the Christian God knew anything about science, it would > >not > > > >> >allow > > > >> > >>> > >incestuous relations due to the increased probability of > >birth > > > >> > >defects. > > > >> > >>> >But > > > >> > >>> > >why should we maintain that a mythical entity be > >knowledgeable > > >of > > > >> > >>> >science? > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > >Mark > > > >> > >>> > >The Liberator > > > >> > >>> > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >> > >>> > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >>>_________________________________________________________________________ > > > >> > >>>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > > > >> >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>>Share information about yourself, create your own public >profile > > >at > > > >> > >>>http://profiles.msn.com. > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > > > >> > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > > > >> >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public >profile > >at > > > >> > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > > > >> > >> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >>_________________________________________________________________________ > > > >>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > >> > > > >>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > > >>http://profiles.msn.com. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ > > > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at > >http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > > > > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > > > >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at > >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at >http://profiles.msn.com. > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3]) by air-yd02.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:54:35 -0400 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:53:56 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA33376; Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:53:45 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <007c01c03fa8$40bf2c20$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Decent Descent Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 18:55:39 -0500 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by uucphost.mcs.net id SAA33376 ################################################ Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal Date: 27-Oct-00 13:29:13 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack321@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Excellent E mail! I do like Kent Hovind, but some of his claims make my eye balls roll. But I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Anyone who writes a glot or speaks a lot has made mistakes. They should belly up tot he bar and confess these mistakes. But here is an encouraging letter I got regarding Kent Hovind: "thank you so much for letting us know about Ken Hovind! We bought his tape series. We can't thank you enough. WE appreciate all your emails and newsletter. We live in Corona and find it hard to make the meetings...but will sure try!!Lynn And Rick" Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , , >Subject: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal >Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 20:31:45 EDT > >Yes, I am familiar with Kent Hovind. Many Christians and creationists >consider his scientific competence to be questionable. One creationist >associated with a major creationist organization told me off the record >that they are very concerned about Hovind's claims and the detrimental >effects that they can have on > >Another Christian friend used to be a certifiable YEC addict until he >watched a Kent Hovind video. In his own words: > >"One day, being psyched-up for a new fix, I popped in a video I had >received from a young man at Church. The tape was a series of debates >(about eight), between a famous "young earther" and various evolutionists. >After viewing them, I found my jaw on the floor. I truly expected these >evolutionists to roll over and die after being presented with this >battering of "facts" - they didn't! I was truely numbed and frankly, pretty >upset with the manners of this "young earther." I had to come to some >serious conclusions that day. > >-- Scientists have answers for each point raised, e.g. shrinking sun, >polystrate fossils etc., they were NOT surprised at all! > >-- Creation Science is not science. I watched as this creationist fellow >was repeatedly being cornered, relying on miracle after miracle to answer >their questions. Yes, God can and does perform miracles, but these were >miracles that were not even in the Bible - that's not science! > >-- I have been a hypocrite! My favorite reasoning with skeptics is to >challenge them to examine both sides of an issue before reaching their >conclusions. "How can we dialogue fairly if we only have one point of >view?" I would ask. But I have NEVER given an evolutionist nor an old >earth creationist the opportunity to present their case! > >I talked to my pastor (a young-earther), about my new discoveries. He >warned me as so many other "creationists" have, that to continue on this >path was dangerous and would only lead to me falling away from the faith. >... Since then, I have corresponded with several Christians who have >traveled the same path as I have. One thing that is always agreed upon is >the damage young-earth creationism can do to souls; how many believers they >have seen fall away. We have been taught that the Bible demands a young >earth interpretation and when the facts of nature become inescapable - our >faith becomes shattered! My pastor was wrong, the opposite was the case. If >"R" had been offered the truth from the beginning, he would never have >experienced the turmoil he went through. When "R" could no longer deny that >the universe was billions of years old, the only option left for him was to >deny the Bible. How many others have been disheartened in like manner?" > > >I have also visited Hovind's site, where he claims to have researched his >material thoroughly. However, it is obvious that that is not true. In >particular in his article that the universe is not billions of years old, I >observed that ALL of his cited sources were by other creationists and that >he had not tried to verify THEIR sources (we should talk some time about >how creationist claims circulate among creationists and are accepted >uncritically, judged only by how convincing they sound). I know that, >because he uses Ackermann's "It's a Young Earth After All" as a source for >his moon dust argument. In turn, Ackermann had relied almost entirely on a >reference to a "1976" NASA document "written well into the space age." >I've read that "1976" NASA document. It was "Meteor Orbits and Dust", a >1967 printing of papers presented at a 1965 conference. The actual claim >that Ackermann uses was written by Harold Slusher, who misrepresented the >date of the document and took values out of it to plug into a formula > of his own making. That formula inflated its results by a factor of >10,000 by incorporating extra factors that the document and the rules of >math clearly say would not apply. You can read about it on my Moon Dust >page, http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/moondust.html . If Hovind had >actually done his research as he should have, back to the primary source, >then he would have known that he was basing his moon dust claim on a hoax. > >He also fell for the Oņate Man hoax. In Philadelphia on 7 May 1999, he >told the packed audience at Calvary Chapel about a recent fossil find that >scientists were trying to cover up: the fossilized remains of a human in >the jaws of an allosaurus reported at www.darwindisproved.com ! That >"find" was a hoax created by members of New Mexicans for Science & Reason >(NMSR). You can read all about it at >http://www.darwindisproved.com/april_fool.html and the original at >http://www.darwindisproved.com/Archive.html . > >Here is what Hovind has to say about it in a phone conversation with >Stephen Meyers, as related by Meyers [see >http://hometown.aol.com/ibss3/hovind.html]: >"He said that someone told him that morning about www.darwindisproved.com >so he put it in his presentation, later that day he discovered it was a >hoax and removed it (I would think you would want to check out a web site >before recommending it to a large audience)." > >Of course, his having removed that claim from his presentation does not >help most of the Philadelphia audience who still have not heard that it was >a hoax, so the damage has been done. But even worse is that he had simply >accepted HEARSAY at face value, did not make even the slightest attempt to >verify it, and presented it to the public authoritatively as a solid fact >As I had discovered on his website, HOVIND DOES NOT DO HIS HOMEWORK. He in >fact does NOT research his claims. > >The subject of Hovind's PhD always comes up. Patriot University is now >nothing more than a diploma mill, but Hovind says that it was accredited >when he got his degree. However, there are several glaring irregularities >about his thesis, not the least of which being that Hovind is constantly >rewriting it and a complete copy is nowhere to be found (a doctoral >candidate publishes the final form of his thesis, a copy of which is kept >by the school). The complete story on this can be found at "The >Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read: A Review of Kent >Hovind's Thesis" by Karen Bartelt, Ph.D., at >http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm >. > >Bill M, I think I know why you admire Kent Hovind so much. He also refuses >to engage in a written debate! Read about it at >http://www.nmsr.org/HOVIND.HTM . Bill M will especially admire how Hovind >dances about in all directions to avoid the issues. > >Dr. Karen E. Bartelt also reports "On the Till-Hovind Debate" at >http://www.holysmoke.org/hovind2.htm . This tells you something about >Hovind's presentation style -- too rapid-fire for anybody to actually think >about what he is saying. That must be why he doesn't want to engage in a >written debate; he doesn't want his audience to be able to think about and >test his claims. This page also includes Hovind's claim about the 11-foot >human skeleton. I forget if he uses it here, but one of Hovind's tactics >is the "Christian Death Threat": the last thing he says is that his >opponent is going to Hell. > >Which is a natural lead-in to Ed Babinski's "Cretinism or Evilution? No. 3: >Men Over Ten Feel Tall" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part2.html. > Here, Babinski (a former fundamentalist and YEC) tried his best to >research Hovind and Baugh's claim of a skeleton found in an Italian mine. >What is more disturbing than the absolute lack of any evidence for this >claim, is that none of the creationists Babinski was trying to work with >had any desire or interest in verifying their claim, even though Babinski >was doing all the work for them. Supports my current thesis that >creationists only care about how convincing a creationist claim sounds; >they really do not care whether it's actually true. > >Have you heard the Hovind claim about an ancient 90-foot plum tree that had >been found in Siberia, frozen in place and bearing fruit? Ed Babinski >checked that one out too, as he reports in "A Frozen Ninety Foot Tall Plum >Tree with Ripe Fruit and Green Leaves Found North of the Arctic Circle?" at >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part3.html . As I read this and saw >the German explorer's name, von Toll ("toll" = "crazy"), I thought that was >part of the fabrication, but, no, that name was about the only part that >was true. Another creationist had gotten the real story from a second- or >third-generation source and fabricated the plum-tree story from it. Hovind >got the story from that creationist (or from the n-th creationist to have >passed it on) and didn't bother to check it out. This is yet another >example of Kent Hovind not actually doing the research that he boasts about >doing (guess that means he's lying about researching his claims). > >Here are a few more sites for more information about Hovind and his claims: > >"How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's >List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims" by Dave Matson, April 21, >1994 >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html >An excellent review of Hovind's claims and critiques thereof. Contains the >best and most thorough coverage of Slusher's moon-dust claim that I have >seen anywhere. Hovind "critiques" Matson at his site, but if he had >actually read it then he would know that his moon-dust claim is based on a >hoax [see above]. > >The Wild, Wild World of Kent Hovind. >http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/hovind/wild_hovind.html > >No Answers in Genesis! >http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/ >This is the parent site of a number of the pages listed here and contains >several links to creationist topics, including others about Hovind. > >CSE: Specific Responses to Claims Made By Kent Hovind and the Creation >Science Evangelism Web Pages >http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~hjlecken/hovind.html > >"Dr." Kent Hovind >http://www.geocities.com/odonate/hovind.htm > >"Kent Hovind is a Kwazy Kweationist" >http://www.skepticfriends.org/letter31.html > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (rly-yg03.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.3]) by air-yg04.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:29:13 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f72.law6.hotmail.com [216.32.241.72]) by rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:28:49 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:28:48 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw6fd.law6.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:28:48 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:28:48 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Oct 2000 21:28:48.0947 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4FF2830:01C0405C] ################################################ Subj: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 30-Oct-00 17:14:29 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net >>For the hundredth time I don't save my e mails.<< What is wrong with you, Bill? Why don't you ever listen? How many times to I have to tell you? Why do you insist on acting like an idiot? Read the following very carefully. Try to understand what the words say. If you do not understand what it says, then ask for assistence: 1) You don't need a copy of the email to answer the question. We need for you to tell us what you think you remember I had written. Obviously, that is not the same as what was actually written, so the actual messages would not help you in answering the question. The purpose of the question is to get your version so that the message that it might have been loosely based on could be identified and that the two could then be compared to determine whether your accusation is legitimate or not. 2) You already HAVE a complete copy of the messages in question and have had it for NEARLY TEN WEEKS! SINCE 21 AUGUST! I have informed you of the location of the transcript, http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html , SEVEN TIMES. SEVEN TIMES!! From 21 August 2000 to 17 October 2000. Here are the messages YET AGAIN!! Bill B, if Bill M denies this fact yet again, you will know for a fact that he is lying. Bill B, are Christians supposed to lie? ### BEGIN FIRST MESSAGE ### Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 21-Aug-00 18:09:46 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 BCC: editor@liberator.netealpurcell@juno.com In the meantime, I have gone the extra mile. I have provided the transcript. The ENTIRE transcript, from 1996 to the present (though not including this message). It is on my web page "Transcripts of the E-Mail Correspondence Between Bill Morgan and DWise1" which I just created today at http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html . Simply point your web browser there and download the files that contain the transcipt. They are of no special format, just plain old text files. Since I had encoded their date in the file extension instead of using the .TXT extension, you may need to tell your viewer program to list "All Files" when you open one. For that reason, I would recommend that you download them into their own separate directory/folder. ### END FIRST MESSAGE ### ### BEGIN SECOND MESSAGE ### Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 22-Aug-00 07:42:12 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net, ealpurcell@juno.com I'm having to re-send this, because the addresses for our witnesses got messed up and they did not receive it. I can't really feel too bad about this duplication, since you had sent your "call for trial" twice. ### Retransmission follows ### In the meantime, I have gone the extra mile. I have provided the transcript. The ENTIRE transcript, from 1996 to the present (though not including this message). It is on my web page "Transcripts of the E-Mail Correspondence Between Bill Morgan and DWise1" which I just created today at http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html . Simply point your web browser there and download the files that contain the transcipt. They are of no special format, just plain old text files. Since I had encoded their date in the file extension instead of using the .TXT extension, you may need to tell your viewer program to list "All Files" when you open one. For that reason, I would recommend that you download them into their own separate directory/folder. ### END SECOND MESSAGE ### ### BEGIN THIRD MESSAGE ### Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 02-Sep-00 12:37:46 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net, ealpurcell@juno.com BILL. DO NOT SKIM THIS MESSAGE! READ IT! >>@@@@@ for the third time I told the court I do not save teh emails (do I have to say it 5 more toimes until it sinks in).<< IMMATERIAL! You know full well that that has NEVER been an issue in these proceedings! Cease this line of "rabbit trailing" at once! The information that we need is your MEMORY! What you "REMEMBER" that I had said. You know, that big blank space on your "From the Mind of Bill Morgan" stationary. YOU are the only one who has access to it! For the -- what is it now? -- SEVENTEENTH time, we need that information in order to resolve this matter! With that information, we can then find the messages that you think you remember and we can read what they ACTUALLY say. Without that information, we have no idea what you are talking about. What part of that do you not understand, Bill? Do I need to say it SEVENTEEN MORE TIMES until it sinks in? >>Mr. Wise saves all my emails, so I request the court subpeona him to present it.<< We know that, Bill. That is why I made THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT OF OUR CORRESPONDENCE available to you . More than TEN DAYS AGO!!! Which I informed you of, TWICE!! READ YOUR EMAIL, BILL!! Otherwise, you make yourself look like a complete idiot. Since I am sure that you did not save any pertinent information, here is the URL --- AGAIN! : TRANSCRIPTS OF THE E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN BILL MORGAN AND DWISE1 http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html BILL. DO NOT SKIM THIS MESSAGE! READ IT! ### END THIRD MESSAGE ### ### BEGIN FOURTH MESSAGE ### Subj: Re: Fwd: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 14-Sep-00 11:40:13 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net CC: plasma@worldnet.att.net The entire transcript of our corresondence is available for download at http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html in both straight text and ZIPped format. I put that page up in order to fulfill Bill's request to make the "offending messages" available for the "court". ### END FOURTH MESSAGE ### ### BEGIN FIFTH MESSAGE ### Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 14-Sep-00 11:41:17 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net CC: plasma@worldnet.att.net Bill, YOU are the one who keeps refusing to examine the facts. YOU accused me. *I* said that we need to examine the facts, examine what was actually written, but first we need to know what you think I had written. YOU have consistently refused to provide that information which we need to examine the facts. *I* have asked for that information over TWENTY TIMES and YOU have steadfastly ignored those requests. YOU have single-handedly prevented examination of the facts. Anybody can read the record, MORGN00B.TXT and MORGN00C.TXT at http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html, and see that that is the case. The record clearly shows which one of us has the closed mind. ### END FIFTH MESSAGE ### ### BEGIN SIXTH MESSAGE ### Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 14-Sep-00 11:42:33 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net CC: plasma@worldnet.att.net I'll try to fill you in briefly. Hopefully CC:'ing you in my other replies has helped to show you something of the situation. I have kept a record of all the messages in my correspondence with Bill which you can access and read for yourself. You will find the complete record at http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html . The first correspondence was from 1996 to 1998 and the second correspondence started on 06 July 2000. Shortly after our first correspondence had ended due to Bill's sudden disappearance, I started converting the record into a set of web pages about what had happened. The main page is at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/index.html . I would recommend that you read it in order to get a better feel for how Bill has been conducting himself on-line. I do not expect you to believe my word against Bill's, but the facts, the record of our correspondence, should speak for themselves. ### END SIXTH MESSAGE ### ### BEGIN SEVENTH MESSAGE ### Subj: Re: Read my lips: I don't save my emails Date: 17-Oct-00 12:56:15 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1 .. >>I dont save my e mails.<< That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this matter AND YOU KNOW IT! Stop acting like such an idiotic jerk! Stop playing your damnable "rabbit trail" games! That lame excuse will buy you absolutely no weasel room! 1) You don't need a copy of the email to answer the question. We need for you to tell us what you think you remember I had written. Obviously, that is not the same as what was actually written, so the actual messages would not help you in answering the question. The purpose of the question is to get your version so that the message that it might have been loosely based on could be identified and that the two could then be compared to determine whether your accusation is legitimate or not. 2) You already HAVE a complete copy of the messages in question and have had it for EIGHT WEEKS! SINCE 19 AUGUST! You had requested a specific message and my reply, which I did provide on 19 August 2000. In the same message, I wrote: "In the meantime, I have gone the extra mile. I have provided the transcript. The ENTIRE transcript, from 1996 to the present (though not including this message). It is on my web page "Transcripts of the E-Mail Correspondence Between Bill Morgan and DWise1" which I just created today at http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html . Simply point your web browser there and download the files that contain the transcipt. They are of no special format, just plain old text files. Since I had encoded their date in the file extension instead of using the .TXT extension, you may need to tell your viewer program to list "All Files" when you open one. For that reason, I would recommend that you download them into their own separate directory/folder." Then because I had messed up the CC: portion of the message, I sent it again on 21 August. So you received that message TWICE! In addition, I have reminded you a number of times of my having given you the complete transcript of our correspondence, including when I made it available to Bill B. If you could not be bothered to go pick it up, then that is not my problem. The problem would be that you are still ACTING LIKE AN IDIOT! ### END SEVENTH MESSAGE ### You will note that I had incorrectly remembered the first message as having gone out on 19 August 2000. In fact, it went out on 21 August. I am not sure why, except that I had completed the first set of files on 19 August but had to wait until the following Monday, 21 August, to actually upload them. Still, a factual error of two days is trival compared with the NEARLY TEN WEEKS that you have had free and complete access to ALL THE MESSAGES BETWEEN US. OK, Bill M, for the THIRTY-SEVENTH TIME, substantiate your accusations against me. Tell us what you think I had written. You know the requirements; we've had to go over them so many times, thanks to your obstinance. Here's a simple one with a yes-or-no answer. I think this is the third time I've asked it: Was "*ssh*l*" (synonym for "anus" ) one of the "very nasty names" you accuse me of having called you? Yes or no. That should be an easy one to answer. ################################################ Subj: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 30-Oct-00 17:15:19 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net Why do you hate the truth so much, Bill Morgan? Why do you fear it so much? Why are you going to such extremes to keep us from examining the facts? Is this part of your Christian witness to us that Christians fear and hate the truth? Bill M., that is what your actions are telling us. >>The issue has been resolved.<< No, it has NOT been resolved. Your accusations against me still stand. This issue can never be resolved unless we either determine the truth about your accusations against me or you COMPLETELY AND EXPLICITLY retract EACH AND EVERY ONE of those accusations, IN WRITING, stating that the alleged actions of which you accuse me had never really happened. YOU HAVE SLANDERED ME AND I DEMAND RESOLUTION! For the THIRTY-EIGHT TIME, substantiate your accusations against me! Tell us what you think I had written with enough details to enable us to identify the messages in question. So that you cannot claim to not know what the accusations are or what answers we need, here they are YET AGAIN! The accusations: 1. Having conducted "bigoted attacks on [you] and [your] wife" 2. Thinking you are "some evil wicked person out to destroy society". 3. Thinking you are "wacked for beleiving in God". 4. "[P]ersonally insulting [you] on the level of a name calling 2nd grader." 5. "[I]nsulting [your] wife and [you]. 6. That my wife and I had labelled you and your wife as evil. 7. Calling you "very nasty names." 8. That I had told you "what [my] wife thought of those who beleive in Gid". 9. That I would think your and your wife "are evil and wicked, the world's most sinister people". 10. That I refuse to meet you because of your beliefs. 11. That I sent electronically "many nasty words that were anti religious". 12. That I "trashed [your] wife for being Christian and said [I] did not want dinner because of [your] faith." 13. That I "[stretch my imagination] as [I] twist the bible into what ever [I] please." You CANNOT simply repeat the accusation! You MUST provide enough information to enable us to identify the message in question. You MUST give the actual insults and actual "very nasty names" to the very best of your ability to remember. SPECIFIC NAMES! For example, was one of them "*ssh*l*" (synonym for "anus")? -- yes or no? You MUST describe in detail the "bigoted attacks on [you] and [your] wife" >that I am supposed to have conducted. You MUST describe in detail my alleged statement that I thought you are "some evil wicked person out to destroy society". You MUST describe in detail my alleged statement that I thought you are "wacked for beleiving in God". You MUST describe in detail the insults I allegedly used in "[P]ersonally insulting [you] on the level of a name calling 2nd grader." You MUST describe in detail the words I allegedly used in "[I]nsulting [your] wife and [you]." You MUST describe in detail what words you think my wife and I used to label you and your wife as evil. You MUST describe in detail what words you think I used in telling you "what [my] wife thought of those who beleive in Gid". THEY MUST SPECIFICALLY REFER TO "THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD" (ie, the statement must have been applied to ALL believers in JHWH, not just a certain small subset thereof). You MUST describe in detail what words you think I used in telling you that I would think your and your wife "are evil and wicked, the world's most sinister people". You MUST describe in detail what words you think I used in telling you that I refuse to meet you because of your beliefs. You MUST describe in detail the "many nasty words that were anti religious" and that you accuse me of having sent electronically. GIVE US SPECIFIC WORDS! You MUST describe in detail what words you think I used when you think that I had "trashed [your] wife for being Christian and said [I] did not want dinner because of [your] faith." You MUST describe in detail the SPECIFIC instances in which you believe that I had "twist[ed] the bible into what ever [I] please." SPECIFIC INSTANCES! WHEN AND WHERE AND WHAT! ################################################ Subj: Re: Some good info for you Bill Date: 30-Oct-00 17:18:11 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net >>Another type of atheist is Dave. A dude who just has a deep hatred for God.<< What? So now your delusions include seeing yourself as God? Bill M, why don't you ever listen? Don't you realize how pain and trouble it causes when you don't listen? And then when your responses have nothing to do with what's going on, you just end up acting like a total idiot. What is wrong with you? Don't you get it, Bill M? It is YOU that I hate. I hate you for your obstinate obstructiveness. I hate you for never listening to what's going on. I hate you for your slanderous accusations and your willfull obstruction of our trying to resolve the mess that you have created thereby. I hate you for having stereotyped me as some imaginary monster and for insisting on fighting a battle which does not exist anywhere except in your overactive imagination. I hate you for accusing me of things that never even happened. Bill M, God has nothing to do with it. When are you going to wake up from your fantasy world? >>These people have often had a horrible event occur in their life and it naturally hurt them deeply. They choose to deal with this pain by hating God.<< There are many atheists who are fiercely anti-religious because they believe that they had been betrayed or lied to by their religions or religious leaders. I am not one of them. As a matter of fact, I am trying to keep even more of those anti-religious atheists from being created by creation science. As a young teenager, I started reading the Bible and found it truly incredible. Having realized that I could not believe it, I left Christianity quite amiably. Many of my friends have been and are Christians and we get along quite well. I am even sympathetic to fundamentalist Christians who are put through crises of faith quite unnecessarily by the false claims of creation science and I try to help them as much as I can. I am currently corresponding with one now who is deeply troubled by his fellow fundamentalists' disregard for and disinterest in the truth. Bill M, I am a religious man and I find your blatant disregard for the truth ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: 30-Oct-00 17:19:38 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net >>This will shock you all. Do I beleif faith in God is more important than anything? Yes.<< Even more important than Truth? So you would willfully lie for the sake of your religious cause and for its advancement? ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: 30-Oct-00 17:33:22 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net Next -----Original Message----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com ; editor@liberator.net Date: Monday, October 30, 2000 5:20 PM Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net >>>This will shock you all. Do I beleif faith in God is more important than >anything? Yes.<< > >Even more important than Truth? So you would willfully lie for the sake of >your religious cause and for its advancement? > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xa01.mx.aol.com (rly-xa01.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.70]) by air-xa05.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:33:22 -0400 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-xa01.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:33:05 -0400 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA17568; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:33:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <010001c042da$7227f960$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:32:34 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: Some good info for you Bill Date: 30-Oct-00 17:33:44 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net Next -----Original Message----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com ; editor@liberator.net Date: Monday, October 30, 2000 5:18 PM Subject: Re: Some good info for you Bill >>>Another type of atheist is Dave. A dude who just has a deep hatred for >God.<< > >What? So now your delusions include seeing yourself as God? > >Bill M, why don't you ever listen? Don't you realize how pain and trouble it >causes when you don't listen? And then when your responses have nothing to >do with what's going on, you just end up acting like a total idiot. What is >wrong with you? > >Don't you get it, Bill M? It is YOU that I hate. I hate you for your >obstinate obstructiveness. I hate you for never listening to what's going >on. I hate you for your slanderous accusations and your willfull obstruction >of our trying to resolve the mess that you have created thereby. I hate you >for having stereotyped me as some imaginary monster and for insisting on >fighting a battle which does not exist anywhere except in your overactive >imagination. I hate you for accusing me of things that never even happened. > >Bill M, God has nothing to do with it. When are you going to wake up from >your fantasy world? > > >>>These people have often had a horrible event occur in their life and it >naturally hurt them deeply. They choose to deal with this pain by hating >God.<< > >There are many atheists who are fiercely anti-religious because they believe >that they had been betrayed or lied to by their religions or religious >leaders. I am not one of them. As a matter of fact, I am trying to keep >even more of those anti-religious atheists from being created by creation >science. > >As a young teenager, I started reading the Bible and found it truly >incredible. Having realized that I could not believe it, I left Christianity >quite amiably. Many of my friends have been and are Christians and we get >along quite well. I am even sympathetic to fundamentalist Christians who are >put through crises of faith quite unnecessarily by the false claims of >creation science and I try to help them as much as I can. I am currently >corresponding with one now who is deeply troubled by his fellow >fundamentalists' disregard for and disinterest in the truth. > >Bill M, I am a religious man and I find your blatant disregard for the truth > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (rly-zb05.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.5]) by air-zb04.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:33:44 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:33:13 -0400 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA17710; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:33:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <010501c042da$76836440$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: Some good info for you Bill Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:32:42 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 30-Oct-00 17:33:47 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net Next -----Original Message----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com ; editor@liberator.net Date: Monday, October 30, 2000 5:16 PM Subject: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail >Why do you hate the truth so much, Bill Morgan? Why do you fear it so much? >Why are you going to such extremes to keep us from examining the facts? Is >this part of your Christian witness to us that Christians fear and hate the >truth? Bill M., that is what your actions are telling us. > >>>The issue has been resolved.<< > >No, it has NOT been resolved. Your accusations against me still stand. This >issue can never be resolved unless we either determine the truth about your >accusations against me or you COMPLETELY AND EXPLICITLY retract EACH AND >EVERY ONE of those accusations, IN WRITING, stating that the alleged actions >of which you accuse me had never really happened. > >YOU HAVE SLANDERED ME AND I DEMAND RESOLUTION! > >For the THIRTY-EIGHT TIME, substantiate your accusations against me! Tell us >what you think I had written with enough details to enable us to identify the >messages in question. > >So that you cannot claim to not know what the accusations are or what answers >we need, here they are YET AGAIN! > >The accusations: >1. Having conducted "bigoted attacks on [you] and [your] wife" > >2. Thinking you are "some evil wicked person out to destroy society". > >3. Thinking you are "wacked for beleiving in God". > >4. "[P]ersonally insulting [you] on the level of a name calling 2nd grader." > >5. "[I]nsulting [your] wife and [you]. > >6. That my wife and I had labelled you and your wife as evil. > >7. Calling you "very nasty names." > >8. That I had told you "what [my] wife thought of those who beleive in Gid". > >9. That I would think your and your wife "are evil and wicked, the world's >most sinister people". > >10. That I refuse to meet you because of your beliefs. > >11. That I sent electronically "many nasty words that were anti religious". > >12. That I "trashed [your] wife for being Christian and said [I] did not want >dinner because of [your] faith." > >13. That I "[stretch my imagination] as [I] twist the bible into what ever >[I] please." > > >You CANNOT simply repeat the accusation! You MUST provide enough information >to enable us to identify the message in question. > >You MUST give the actual insults and actual "very nasty names" to the very >best of your ability to remember. SPECIFIC NAMES! For example, was one of >them "*ssh*l*" (synonym for "anus")? -- yes or no? > >You MUST describe in detail the "bigoted attacks on [you] and [your] wife" >>that I am supposed to have conducted. > >You MUST describe in detail my alleged statement that I thought you are "some >evil wicked person out to destroy society". > >You MUST describe in detail my alleged statement that I thought you are >"wacked for beleiving in God". > >You MUST describe in detail the insults I allegedly used in "[P]ersonally >insulting [you] on the level of a name calling 2nd grader." > >You MUST describe in detail the words I allegedly used in "[I]nsulting [your] >wife and [you]." > >You MUST describe in detail what words you think my wife and I used to label >you and your wife as evil. > >You MUST describe in detail what words you think I used in telling you "what >[my] wife thought of those who beleive in Gid". THEY MUST SPECIFICALLY REFER >TO "THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD" (ie, the statement must have been applied to >ALL believers in JHWH, not just a certain small subset thereof). > >You MUST describe in detail what words you think I used in telling you that I >would think your and your wife "are evil and wicked, the world's most >sinister people". > >You MUST describe in detail what words you think I used in telling you that I >refuse to meet you because of your beliefs. > >You MUST describe in detail the "many nasty words that were anti religious" >and that you accuse me of having sent electronically. GIVE US SPECIFIC WORDS! > >You MUST describe in detail what words you think I used when you think that I >had "trashed [your] wife for being Christian and said [I] did not want dinner >because of [your] faith." > >You MUST describe in detail the SPECIFIC instances in which you believe that >I had "twist[ed] the bible into what ever [I] please." SPECIFIC INSTANCES! >WHEN AND WHERE AND WHAT! > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (rly-zb05.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.5]) by air-zb05.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:33:47 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:33:23 -0400 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA17893; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:33:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <010a01c042da$7cb34100$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:32:52 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 30-Oct-00 17:34:11 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net Next -----Original Message----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com ; editor@liberator.net Date: Monday, October 30, 2000 5:15 PM Subject: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail >>>For the hundredth time I don't save my e mails.<< > >What is wrong with you, Bill? Why don't you ever listen? How many times to >I have to tell you? Why do you insist on acting like an idiot? > >Read the following very carefully. Try to understand what the words say. If >you do not understand what it says, then ask for assistence: > >1) You don't need a copy of the email to answer the question. > >We need for you to tell us what you think you remember I had written. >Obviously, that is not the same as what was actually written, so the actual >messages would not help you in answering the question. The purpose of the >question is to get your version so that the message that it might have been >loosely based on could be identified and that the two could then be compared >to determine whether your accusation is legitimate or not. > >2) You already HAVE a complete copy of the messages in question and have had >it for NEARLY TEN WEEKS! SINCE 21 AUGUST! > >I have informed you of the location of the transcript, >http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html , SEVEN TIMES. SEVEN >TIMES!! From 21 August 2000 to 17 October 2000. > >Here are the messages YET AGAIN!! Bill B, if Bill M denies this fact yet >again, you will know for a fact that he is lying. Bill B, are Christians >supposed to lie? > >### BEGIN FIRST MESSAGE ### > > Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you > Date: 21-Aug-00 18:09:46 Pacific Daylight Time > From: DWise1 > To: billyjack1@hotmail.com > CC: DWise1 > BCC: editor@liberator.netealpurcell@juno.com > >In the meantime, I have gone the extra mile. I have provided the transcript. > The ENTIRE transcript, from 1996 to the present (though not including this >message). It is on my web page "Transcripts of the E-Mail Correspondence >Between Bill Morgan and DWise1" which I just created today at >http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html . Simply point your web >browser there and download the files that contain the transcipt. They are of >no special format, just plain old text files. Since I had encoded their date >in the file extension instead of using the .TXT extension, you may need to >tell your viewer program to list "All Files" when you open one. For that >reason, I would recommend that you download them into their own separate >directory/folder. > >### END FIRST MESSAGE ### > >### BEGIN SECOND MESSAGE ### > >Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you >Date: 22-Aug-00 07:42:12 Pacific Daylight Time >From: DWise1 >To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net, ealpurcell@juno.com > >I'm having to re-send this, because the addresses for our witnesses got >messed up and they did not receive it. I can't really feel too bad about >this duplication, since you had sent your "call for trial" twice. > >### Retransmission follows ### > >In the meantime, I have gone the extra mile. I have provided the transcript. > The ENTIRE transcript, from 1996 to the present (though not including this >message). It is on my web page "Transcripts of the E-Mail Correspondence >Between Bill Morgan and DWise1" which I just created today at >http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html . Simply point your web >browser there and download the files that contain the transcipt. They are of >no special format, just plain old text files. Since I had encoded their date >in the file extension instead of using the .TXT extension, you may need to >tell your viewer program to list "All Files" when you open one. For that >reason, I would recommend that you download them into their own separate >directory/folder. > >### END SECOND MESSAGE ### > >### BEGIN THIRD MESSAGE ### > >Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you >Date: 02-Sep-00 12:37:46 Pacific Daylight Time >From: DWise1 >To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net, ealpurcell@juno.com > >BILL. DO NOT SKIM THIS MESSAGE! READ IT! > >>>@@@@@ for the third time I told the court I do not save teh emails (do I >have to say it 5 more toimes until it sinks in).<< > >IMMATERIAL! You know full well that that has NEVER been an issue in these >proceedings! Cease this line of "rabbit trailing" at once! > >The information that we need is your MEMORY! What you "REMEMBER" that I had >said. You know, that big blank space on your "From the Mind of Bill Morgan" >stationary. YOU are the only one who has access to it! > >For the -- what is it now? -- SEVENTEENTH time, we need that information in >order to resolve this matter! With that information, we can then find the >messages that you think you remember and we can read what they ACTUALLY say. >Without that information, we have no idea what you are talking about. > >What part of that do you not understand, Bill? Do I need to say it SEVENTEEN >MORE TIMES until it sinks in? > > >>>Mr. Wise saves all my emails, so I request the court subpeona him to >present it.<< > >We know that, Bill. That is why I made THE ENTIRE TRANSCRIPT OF OUR >CORRESPONDENCE available to you . More than TEN DAYS AGO!!! Which I >informed you of, TWICE!! > >READ YOUR EMAIL, BILL!! Otherwise, you make yourself look like a complete >idiot. > > >Since I am sure that you did not save any pertinent information, here is the >URL --- AGAIN! : > TRANSCRIPTS OF THE E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN BILL MORGAN AND DWISE1 > http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html > > >BILL. DO NOT SKIM THIS MESSAGE! READ IT! > >### END THIRD MESSAGE ### > >### BEGIN FOURTH MESSAGE ### > >Subj: Re: Fwd: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer >to you >Date: 14-Sep-00 11:40:13 Pacific Daylight Time >From: DWise1 >To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net >CC: plasma@worldnet.att.net > >The entire transcript of our corresondence is available for download at >http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html in both straight text and >ZIPped format. I put that page up in order to fulfill Bill's request to make >the "offending messages" available for the "court". > >### END FOURTH MESSAGE ### > >### BEGIN FIFTH MESSAGE ### > >Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you >Date: 14-Sep-00 11:41:17 Pacific Daylight Time >From: DWise1 >To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net >CC: plasma@worldnet.att.net > >Bill, YOU are the one who keeps refusing to examine the facts. YOU accused >me. *I* said that we need to examine the facts, examine what was actually >written, but first we need to know what you think I had written. YOU have >consistently refused to provide that information which we need to examine the >facts. *I* have asked for that information over TWENTY TIMES and YOU have >steadfastly ignored those requests. YOU have single-handedly prevented >examination of the facts. Anybody can read the record, MORGN00B.TXT and >MORGN00C.TXT at http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html, and see >that that is the case. The record clearly shows which one of us has the >closed mind. > >### END FIFTH MESSAGE ### > >### BEGIN SIXTH MESSAGE ### > >Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you >Date: 14-Sep-00 11:42:33 Pacific Daylight Time >From: DWise1 >To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net >CC: plasma@worldnet.att.net > >I'll try to fill you in briefly. Hopefully CC:'ing you in my other replies >has helped to show you something of the situation. I have kept a record of >all the messages in my correspondence with Bill which you can access and read >for yourself. You will find the complete record at >http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html . The first >correspondence was from 1996 to 1998 and the second correspondence started on >06 July 2000. Shortly after our first correspondence had ended due to Bill's >sudden disappearance, I started converting the record into a set of web pages >about what had happened. The main page is at >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/index.html . I would recommend that you >read it in order to get a better feel for how Bill has been conducting >himself on-line. I do not expect you to believe my word against Bill's, but >the facts, the record of our correspondence, should speak for themselves. > >### END SIXTH MESSAGE ### > >### BEGIN SEVENTH MESSAGE ### > >Subj: Re: Read my lips: I don't save my emails >Date: 17-Oct-00 12:56:15 Pacific Daylight Time >From: DWise1 >To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >CC: editor@liberator.net, billbeq@mediaone.net >CC: DWise1 > >.. > >>>I dont save my e mails.<< > >That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this matter AND YOU KNOW IT! Stop >acting like such an idiotic jerk! Stop playing your damnable "rabbit trail" >games! That lame excuse will buy you absolutely no weasel room! > >1) You don't need a copy of the email to answer the question. > >We need for you to tell us what you think you remember I had written. >Obviously, that is not the same as what was actually written, so the actual >messages would not help you in answering the question. The purpose of the >question is to get your version so that the message that it might have been >loosely based on could be identified and that the two could then be compared >to determine whether your accusation is legitimate or not. > >2) You already HAVE a complete copy of the messages in question and have had >it for EIGHT WEEKS! SINCE 19 AUGUST! > >You had requested a specific message and my reply, which I did provide on 19 >August 2000. In the same message, I wrote: > >"In the meantime, I have gone the extra mile. I have provided the >transcript. The ENTIRE transcript, from 1996 to the present (though not >including this message). It is on my web page "Transcripts of the E-Mail >Correspondence Between Bill Morgan and DWise1" which I just created today at >http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html . Simply point your web >browser there and download the files that contain the transcipt. They are of >no special format, just plain old text files. Since I had encoded their date >in the file extension instead of using the .TXT extension, you may need to >tell your viewer program to list "All Files" when you open one. For that >reason, I would recommend that you download them into their own separate >directory/folder." > >Then because I had messed up the CC: portion of the message, I sent it again >on 21 August. So you received that message TWICE! In addition, I have >reminded you a number of times of my having given you the complete transcript >of our correspondence, including when I made it available to Bill B. > >If you could not be bothered to go pick it up, then that is not my problem. >The problem would be that you are still ACTING LIKE AN IDIOT! > >### END SEVENTH MESSAGE ### > > >You will note that I had incorrectly remembered the first message as having >gone out on 19 August 2000. In fact, it went out on 21 August. I am not >sure why, except that I had completed the first set of files on 19 August but >had to wait until the following Monday, 21 August, to actually upload them. > >Still, a factual error of two days is trival compared with the NEARLY TEN >WEEKS that you have had free and complete access to ALL THE MESSAGES BETWEEN >US. > > >OK, Bill M, for the THIRTY-SEVENTH TIME, substantiate your accusations >against me. Tell us what you think I had written. You know the >requirements; we've had to go over them so many times, thanks to your >obstinance. > >Here's a simple one with a yes-or-no answer. I think this is the third time >I've asked it: > >Was "*ssh*l*" (synonym for "anus" ) one of the "very nasty names" you accuse >me of having called you? Yes or no. That should be an easy one to answer. > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zd04.mx.aol.com (rly-zd04.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.228]) by air-zd05.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:34:11 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-zd04.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:33:33 -0400 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA17976; Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:33:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <010f01c042da$811f74c0$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:32:59 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 31-Oct-00 07:11:16 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net "Next" what? ################################################ Subj: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 31-Oct-00 14:38:01 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: dwise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com, editor@liberator.net Next ----- Original Message ----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billbeq@mediaone.net Cc: dwise1@aol.com ; billyjack1@hotmail.com ; editor@liberator.net Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:11 AM Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail "Next" what? --------------------
Next
----- Original Message -----
From: DWise1@aol.com
To: billbeq@mediaone.net
Cc: dwise1@aol.com ; billyjack1@hotmail.com ; editor@liberator.net
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail
"Next" what?
----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xa03.mx.aol.com (rly-xa03.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.72]) by air-xa01.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 17:38:01 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-xa03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 17:37:34 -0500 Received: from gunsgalore (1Cust161.tnt1.huntington-beach2.ca.da.uu.net [63.17.32.161]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA28478; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:37:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002b01c0438a$c290ef00$a120113f@com> From: "Bill Bequette" To: Cc: , , References: <82.233769d.27303b14@aol.com> Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:34:38 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0028_01C04347.B3059380" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 ################################################ Subj: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 31-Oct-00 16:06:18 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette), DWise1@aol.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com I guess the other side simply dismisses an argument with a 'next' everytime they have no substantive counterpoint. Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Bequette To: DWise1@aol.com Cc: dwise1@aol.com ; billyjack1@hotmail.com ; editor@liberator.net Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 4:34 PM Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Next ----- Original Message ----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billbeq@mediaone.net Cc: dwise1@aol.com ; billyjack1@hotmail.com ; editor@liberator.net Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:11 AM Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail "Next" what? ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-st06.mail.aol.com (rly-st06.mail.aol.com [172.31.34.5]) by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:06:18 -0500 Received: from rly-zb03.mx.aol.com (rly-zb03.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.3]) by rly-st06.mail.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id TAA00603 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:00:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-zb03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:59:57 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA74812; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 17:59:54 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <013d01c04396$f114c700$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Bequette" , Cc: References: <82.233769d.27303b14@aol.com> <002b01c0438a$c290ef00$a120113f@com> Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:01:51 -0600 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ################################################ Subj: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 31-Oct-00 17:29:09 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: spambuster@gigagod.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1 >>I guess the other side simply dismisses an argument with a 'next' everytime they have no substantive counterpoint.<< Guess that supports your suspicions about the corrosive effects of Christian self-righteousness on the brain. It certainly witnesses to me their hypocrisy of saying that they serve Truth and yet by their actions they are so opposed to seeking the truth. They smugly think that they are Saved, but what good is being Saved if in the process you lose your soul? ################################################ Subj: Re: The Retraction Date: 31-Oct-00 17:31:18 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, plasma@worldnet.att.net CC: editor@liberator.net I'm trying to catch up on my emails. Sorry I hadn't taken care of this before, but besides work, reserve duty, and five classes, I've been kept quite busy with your slanderous accusations and with helping a fundamentalist who is deeply troubled by creationists' disregard for truth. Your message has rolled off of AOL. It read: >> Subj: Pat Buchannon Date: 29-Sep-00 13:04:44 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com So not even a thank you for the retraction? I try so hard to please you Mr Wise and I think I never will. I took precious space in our excellent newletter to retract and and you slam me. What more can I do? << You are right that I should have thanked you. I apologize for being remiss in the matter. To be honest, because of your history of keeping your promises, I had not expected you to keep this one either. Unfortunately, you spoiled that pleasant surprise with a lie. The reason you gave your readers for the retraction was "We at the Orange County Creation Science Association strive to be accurate and honest in all our reporting to you." But now you tell me that you didn't want to print that retraction and that your reason for doing so was to try to please me. Bill M, either you lied to your readers or you just lied to me. Personally, from having observed your actions, I think that you lied to both. Your other message on this matter read: >> Subj: RE: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 29-Sep-00 13:16:16 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) I think my retracting in my newsletter which goes out to 1500 people aptly demonstrates my fairness. Love me or hate me, you must admit my retraction was a mnaly thing to do. << No, Bill M., what you did was not the manly thing. The manly thing would have been to do the right thing just because it IS the right thing to do. Without prompting. Without expectation of any reward or praise. Look at yourself, Bill M. I had to practically force you to even consider taking corrective action. You begrudged having to do it. You lied to your readers in the process. And now you want a reward for having done it. Hardly the manly thing. I've been taught that character is what you do when nobody is watching. This has been a sad testimony of your character. ################################################ Subj: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 31-Oct-00 19:17:53 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, spambuster@gigagod.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, DWise1@aol.com next -----Original Message----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: spambuster@gigagod.com Cc: billyjack1@hotmail.com ; billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 5:30 PM Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail >>>I guess the other side simply dismisses an argument with a 'next' everytime >they have no substantive counterpoint.<< > >Guess that supports your suspicions about the corrosive effects of Christian >self-righteousness on the brain. > >It certainly witnesses to me their hypocrisy of saying that they serve Truth >and yet by their actions they are so opposed to seeking the truth. > >They smugly think that they are Saved, but what good is being Saved if in the >process you lose your soul? > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-ye05.mx.aol.com (rly-ye05.mail.aol.com [172.18.151.202]) by air-ye01.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.20) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:17:53 -0500 Received: from lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (lsmls02.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.15]) by rly-ye05.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:17:36 -0400 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA21284; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:17:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000401c043b2$4486d2a0$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:17:29 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: 31-Oct-00 19:18:07 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark), DWise1@aol.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com next -----Original Message----- From: Mark To: Bill Bequette ; DWise1@aol.com Cc: billyjack1@hotmail.com Date: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 4:00 PM Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail >I guess the other side simply dismisses an argument with a 'next' everytime >they have no substantive counterpoint. > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Bill Bequette >To: DWise1@aol.com >Cc: dwise1@aol.com ; billyjack1@hotmail.com ; editor@liberator.net >Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 4:34 PM >Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail > > >Next >----- Original Message ----- >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: billbeq@mediaone.net >Cc: dwise1@aol.com ; billyjack1@hotmail.com ; editor@liberator.net >Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:11 AM >Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail > > >"Next" what? > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc02.mx.aol.com (rly-zc02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.2]) by air-zc03.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:18:07 -0500 Received: from lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (lsmls02.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.15]) by rly-zc02.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:17:55 -0400 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id TAA21434; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:17:53 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000901c043b2$4f986140$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: "Mark" , Cc: Subject: Re: Re:Hey! How did it go from the 33rd and 34th time in one e mail Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 19:17:48 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################