################################################ Subj: God/Fore knowledge/Free Will/ Economic Analysis Date: 01/03/2001 08:20:07 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@mediaone.net By no means am I dismissing your point as a one that is trivial, weak or illogical, but we have taken it as far as it can go without rendering upon each other constant repetition. Your point of foreknowledge and free will has been debated for 2000 years. I debate it myself in my mind. And I have provided my best explanation. The Bible tells us God gives us free will, yet it tells us God knows the future. Does god know a mosquito will land on Jim Smith on August 26 2034 and Jim will swat at it and miss? Yes, in my opinion yes. Does God spend his precious time directing that mosquito to poor ol Jim, I think not. An incident just happened here at work that parallels your fine question Mr.. Spam Buster. A co worker, George was panicked because the HQ wants an economic analysis report for a huge project I am designing. George was literally shaking and upset, saying: "why do they want this, this makes no sense to me, why do bean counters get involved with engineering and design, I don't know what they re going to do with this." My reaction: "when do they want it?" You seek mark, my and your dealing with God is just like this economic analysis. We can certainly try to figure teh thoughts and ways of God. However, in the process of doing those thoughts we can either get stuck in neutral and cease all repsonses to the Word of God, the Bible and what the Bible instructs, or we can question, yet still proceed with the clear directives of the Bible. In my designs as an engineer, I will spit out the economic analysis as requested. Is the economic analysis logical? No. Is it necessary? yes because they are funding the work. Are Gods ways always logical to us? No. Are they necessary? yes, he created you, every cell, every atom. Listen to him, he's calling. God Bless you! Bill >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:50:57 -0600 > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"Again, I am trying, but failing to get you to acknowledge (but not accept >necessarily) that the future is known, but not set." > >If the future IS known then it must be set. This is the crux of the >argument. If God knows exactly what is going to happen then we cannot >avoid >no matter how hard we try. > >"If God 'set' it so someone would reject Him and then spend eternity in the >Lake of Fire, that would make him unloving. Remember, God is love." > >It sounds like you are making the argument that freewill must exist. Since >an all-knowing God and individual freewill run at odds with one another, it >sounds like you are choosing freewill instead of an all-knowing God. A >flawed God would therefore not purposefully doom someone by creating a >Universe where there is no choice. > >In short, if you want a God of love, this God is not all-knowing. Now you >must accept that your God has limited knowledge. > >Run with that, Bill. > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >From: "Mark" > >To: , , > >Subject: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:47:20 -0600 > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > >"...my position [is that the future] is known by God, not set." > > > >You see, knowing what the future will bring indicates that the future IS > >set. No matter what one does, a certain outcome will happen and God >knows > >it. This demonstrates that the future is set and freewill does not >exist. > > > >"But all we can know about God is what is revealed in the Bible and by >our > >conscience (Romans chapter 1 and 2)." > > > >Just because the Bible says that it is so, doesn't mean it is so. > > > >"And the Bible says we choose. How can that be preplanned." > > > >That's the contradiction. The Bible says that God is all-knowing yet it > >also says we have freewill. Both of these axioms cannot possibly be >true. > >Therefore, the Bible contains at least one flaw -- a contradiction -- > >making > >it less than perfect, which further demonstrates that the word of God is > >not > >sound. > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xd05.mx.aol.com (rly-xd05.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.170]) by air-xd03.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:20:07 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f127.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.127]) by rly-xd05.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Jan 2001 11:19:26 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 08:19:25 -0800 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:19:25 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@mediaone.net Subject: God/Fore knowledge/Free Will/ Economic Analysis Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:19:25 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jan 2001 16:19:25.0852 (UTC) FILETIME=[F09EA5C0:01C075A0] ################################################ Subj: Re: God/Fore knowledge/Free Will/ Economic Analysis Date: 01/03/2001 13:37:11 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@mediaone.net Bill Morgan you wrote: "By no means am I dismissing your point as a one that is trivial, weak or illogical, but we have taken it as far as it can go without rendering upon each other constant repetition. "Your point of foreknowledge and free will has been debated for 2000 years. I debate it myself in my mind. And I have provided my best explanation. The Bible tells us God gives us free will, yet it tells us God knows the future." What I have been saying is that God may be all-knowing and individual freewill may exist, but those two properties cannot exist together. The two contradict each other. "Does god know a mosquito will land on Jim Smith on August 26 2034 and Jim will swat at it and miss? Yes, in my opinion yes. Does God spend his precious time directing that mosquito to poor ol Jim, I think not." This is an interesting point -- one that I will return to after the following three paragraphs. If a person were to take a hoola-hoop and spin it around, it would trace out a three dimensional solid, a donut, if held properly. If we look at the spinning hoola-hoop under a strobe light, we might just see the person spinning and also see the hoola-hoop at different moments in time. They would appear as isolated snapshots. However, if we imagine the spinner going fast enough without a strobe light, it would be easy to see the donut formed by the spinning hoola-hoop over time. This is a perfect analogy of how we see the Universe. We see snapshots of the hoola-hoop -- cross-sections of the hool-hoop in time. However, if time is removed from the vision, we see a donut -- all the cross-sections put together. Now if there is an all-knowing God, this is how God must see the Universe. He must see it this way if he is all-knowing and outside of time. He must know exactly what the Universe looks like from start to finish -- if there is a start and a finish. To him, the Universe must look like a solid. He must see the totality of movements and events through time. So, when (if) God created the Universe, he must have known exactly what it was going to look like before he ever created it. More interestingly, he knew the exact outcome of his own actions before he acted upon them because he is all-knowing. So he created a fixed Universe -- one where the conclusions of each of our lives was known before it was created. This means that he created kids who would fall ill to cancer. He created men and women who would inevitably sin and be sent to Hell. God knew the consequences of his own actions and sentenced people to live out their lives with only the appearance of freewill. He knew the consequences of his own actions before he did them. So to return to your mosquito story, God must have created the Universe knowing when that mosquito was going to land on 'Jim'. Why? He created the Universe and knew it would turn out that way, which must mean that all the actions in the Universe are fixed, but to us appear to be random or prone to our decisions. Since this runs opposite to a Christian God -- a Christian God would not intentionally force people to sin and consequently serve an eternity in Hell -- we use backward logic to determine that one of our assumptions must be wrong. Either freewill does not exist or God is not all-knowing. It's your choice Bill. You choose. Which do you prefer? Which seems more logical? Do we really have freewill or is God all-knowing? If you choose a lack of freewill, visit Eastern mysticism. In the East it is common to accept destiny. You'll also see why these people can also swallow such a distinct class system, see India and untouchables. If you choose a God that is not all-knowing, you may as well worship many Gods that are limited in power as they are for Paganism, such as Greek Mythology. Before you quickly dismiss Greek Mythology, see how the mythology respects women. Research Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom and War. There is no equal counterpart in the Christian Mythology. As a result, women are still mistreated under Christian Mythology. We honestly know how this apparent contradiction between an all-knowing God and freewill came to happen. When Paganism was very popular, Christians wanted to out-do other faiths by claiming that their God was more powerful, more knowledgable than their Gods. So the Christians said their God was all-powerful, out-doing Pagan Gods. Christians said their God was all-knowing, out-doing Pagan Gods. What Christians do not realize is that the more powers they ascribe to their God, individual freedoms will become less powerful and also contradictions will logically erupt to dismantle their God. "An incident just happened here at work that parallels your fine question Mr.. Spam Buster. A co worker, George was panicked because the HQ wants an economic analysis report for a huge project I am designing. George was literally shaking and upset, saying: 'why do they want this, this makes no sense to me, why do bean counters get involved with engineering and design, I don't know what they re going to do with this.' "My reaction: 'when do they want it?' "You seek mark, my and your dealing with God is just like this economic analysis. We can certainly try to figure teh thoughts and ways of God. However, in the process of doing those thoughts we can either get stuck in neutral and cease all repsonses to the Word of God, the Bible and what the Bible instructs, or we can question, yet still proceed with the clear directives of the Bible." I disagree with your interpretation and your conclusion. Since God was created as a model for describing/understanding the Universe and our roles in it, we can ask better questions and learn from those answers so we can in turn ask even better questions. We can choose to proceed with the extremely vague notions and contradictory notions that are written in the Bible, but many of us are not open to such mindless, automaton-like behavior. We can realize that The Bible is no more the word of God than the words written on the side of our cereal boxes. We can choose to proceed intelligently or we can choose to proceed ignorantly. It is our choice. [It is our choice so long as freewill is not just an illusion.] "In my designs as an engineer, I will spit out the economic analysis as requested. Is the economic analysis logical? No. Is it necessary? yes because they are funding the work." Bill, your explanation/interpretation is not sound. Economic analysis is a vital part of engineering since no engineer has an unlimited budget. Ever designer has to work within certain parameters, which is an excellent analogy to life itself. What are our parameters? What are the parameters to the God we have created to explain the Universe? What are the 'rules' to the Universe? -- another question engineers must seek to answer as part of their trade. "Are Gods ways always logical to us? No." If the God model is inconsistent or no longer serves a purpose, a revisitation of the parameters of the God model are in order. "Are they necessary? yes..." This is unclear. Were you asking if Gods are necessary or were you asking if Gods are mandated to act logically? "...he created you, every cell, every atom. Listen to him, he's calling." You say these things as if you are certain that they are true, when you know for sure they are not absolutely certain. In all honesty Bill, you must admit that worshiping gremlins, leprechauns and fairies has equal relevance to worshipping the Christian God. The Christian God model is one model in a sea of God models. What we should concern ourselves with is thinking outside the box. Instead of eliminating religious intellectualism, sincere inquiry, and change within stagnant faiths that no longer serve the purposes of our peoples, we should examine the characters that our myths offer. We should study the influences of our faiths and the outcomes of our own actions. "God Bless you!" May you open your mind and your heart and may they be in synch. Mark Liberator The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:50:57 -0600 > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"Again, I am trying, but failing to get you to acknowledge (but not accept >necessarily) that the future is known, but not set." > >If the future IS known then it must be set. This is the crux of the >argument. If God knows exactly what is going to happen then we cannot >avoid >no matter how hard we try. > >"If God 'set' it so someone would reject Him and then spend eternity in the >Lake of Fire, that would make him unloving. Remember, God is love." > >It sounds like you are making the argument that freewill must exist. Since >an all-knowing God and individual freewill run at odds with one another, it >sounds like you are choosing freewill instead of an all-knowing God. A >flawed God would therefore not purposefully doom someone by creating a >Universe where there is no choice. > >In short, if you want a God of love, this God is not all-knowing. Now you >must accept that your God has limited knowledge. > >Run with that, Bill. > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >From: "Mark" > >To: , , > >Subject: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:47:20 -0600 > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > >"...my position [is that the future] is known by God, not set." > > > >You see, knowing what the future will bring indicates that the future IS > >set. No matter what one does, a certain outcome will happen and God >knows > >it. This demonstrates that the future is set and freewill does not >exist. > > > >"But all we can know about God is what is revealed in the Bible and by >our > >conscience (Romans chapter 1 and 2)." > > > >Just because the Bible says that it is so, doesn't mean it is so. > > > >"And the Bible says we choose. How can that be preplanned." > > > >That's the contradiction. The Bible says that God is all-knowing yet it > >also says we have freewill. Both of these axioms cannot possibly be >true. > >Therefore, the Bible contains at least one flaw -- a contradiction -- > >making > >it less than perfect, which further demonstrates that the word of God is > >not > >sound. > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (rly-yg03.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.3]) by air-yg03.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:37:11 -0500 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:36:55 -0500 Received: from oemcomputer (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f03LapA24871; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:36:51 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <000601c075cd$a45a4a20$052a03c7@oemcomputer> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , , References: Subject: Re: God/Fore knowledge/Free Will/ Economic Analysis Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:39:23 -0600 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: Now we are having polite discourse! Date: 01/05/2001 15:46:27 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@mediaone.net First, the good news for Dave is your suspension is over. Mark, I amnot saying a cost estimate is not esential and a budget, but this economic analysis is ridiculous. I did a detailed cost estimate to repair 90,000 feet of old deteriorating pipe. Now I have to justify, via economic analysis goofy other options such as using sea water, fixing patches. But I shall do them. Mark, your points are very good but again an old argument, and one I do not have the full answer to. But belief in Jesus has more merit than belief n Leprachans since thousands who claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus chose a brutal death rather than renounce His resurrection. God knows the mind of man, but man cannot know the mind of God. God can set the parameters, but man can screw them up. Look at how the ancient Jews made God mad. He could set the stage, but man with free will can turn against God's will. Therefore, God does not control all of man's emotions and actions. There is another element working here, evil. That is controlled by the fallen angel. Comments? >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > >Subject: Re: God/Fore knowledge/Free Will/ Economic Analysis >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:39:23 -0600 > >Bill Morgan you wrote: > >"By no means am I dismissing your point as a one that is trivial, weak or >illogical, but we have taken it as far as it can go without rendering upon >each other constant repetition. > >"Your point of foreknowledge and free will has been debated for 2000 years. >I debate it myself in my mind. And I have provided my best explanation. >The Bible tells us God gives us free will, yet it tells us God knows the >future." > >What I have been saying is that God may be all-knowing and individual >freewill may exist, but those two properties cannot exist together. The >two >contradict each other. > >"Does god know a mosquito will land on Jim Smith on August 26 2034 and Jim >will swat at it and miss? Yes, in my opinion yes. Does God spend his >precious time directing that mosquito to poor ol Jim, I think not." > >This is an interesting point -- one that I will return to after the >following three paragraphs. > >If a person were to take a hoola-hoop and spin it around, it would trace >out >a three dimensional solid, a donut, if held properly. If we look at the >spinning hoola-hoop under a strobe light, we might just see the person >spinning and also see the hoola-hoop at different moments in time. They >would appear as isolated snapshots. However, if we imagine the spinner >going fast enough without a strobe light, it would be easy to see the donut >formed by the spinning hoola-hoop over time. > >This is a perfect analogy of how we see the Universe. We see snapshots of >the hoola-hoop -- cross-sections of the hool-hoop in time. However, if >time >is removed from the vision, we see a donut -- all the cross-sections put >together. Now if there is an all-knowing God, this is how God must see the >Universe. He must see it this way if he is all-knowing and outside of >time. >He must know exactly what the Universe looks like from start to finish -- >if >there is a start and a finish. To him, the Universe must look like a >solid. >He must see the totality of movements and events through time. > >So, when (if) God created the Universe, he must have known exactly what it >was going to look like before he ever created it. More interestingly, he >knew the exact outcome of his own actions before he acted upon them because >he is all-knowing. So he created a fixed Universe -- one where the >conclusions of each of our lives was known before it was created. This >means that he created kids who would fall ill to cancer. He created men >and >women who would inevitably sin and be sent to Hell. God knew the >consequences of his own actions and sentenced people to live out their >lives >with only the appearance of freewill. He knew the consequences of his own >actions before he did them. > >So to return to your mosquito story, God must have created the Universe >knowing when that mosquito was going to land on 'Jim'. Why? He created >the >Universe and knew it would turn out that way, which must mean that all the >actions in the Universe are fixed, but to us appear to be random or prone >to >our decisions. > >Since this runs opposite to a Christian God -- a Christian God would not >intentionally force people to sin and consequently serve an eternity in >Hell -- we use backward logic to determine that one of our assumptions must >be wrong. Either freewill does not exist or God is not all-knowing. It's >your choice Bill. You choose. Which do you prefer? Which seems more >logical? Do we really have freewill or is God all-knowing? > >If you choose a lack of freewill, visit Eastern mysticism. In the East it >is common to accept destiny. You'll also see why these people can also >swallow such a distinct class system, see India and untouchables. If you >choose a God that is not all-knowing, you may as well worship many Gods >that >are limited in power as they are for Paganism, such as Greek Mythology. >Before you quickly dismiss Greek Mythology, see how the mythology respects >women. Research Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom and War. There is no equal >counterpart in the Christian Mythology. As a result, women are still >mistreated under Christian Mythology. > >We honestly know how this apparent contradiction between an all-knowing God >and freewill came to happen. When Paganism was very popular, Christians >wanted to out-do other faiths by claiming that their God was more powerful, >more knowledgable than their Gods. So the Christians said their God was >all-powerful, out-doing Pagan Gods. Christians said their God was >all-knowing, out-doing Pagan Gods. What Christians do not realize is that >the more powers they ascribe to their God, individual freedoms will become >less powerful and also contradictions will logically erupt to dismantle >their God. > >"An incident just happened here at work that parallels your fine question >Mr.. Spam Buster. A co worker, George was panicked because the HQ wants an >economic analysis report for a huge project I am designing. George was >literally shaking and upset, saying: 'why do they want this, this makes no >sense to me, why do bean counters get involved with engineering and design, >I don't know what they re going to do with this.' > >"My reaction: 'when do they want it?' > >"You seek mark, my and your dealing with God is just like this economic >analysis. We can certainly try to figure teh thoughts and ways of God. >However, in the process of doing those thoughts we can either get stuck in >neutral and cease all repsonses to the Word of God, the Bible and what the >Bible instructs, or we can question, yet still proceed with the clear >directives of the Bible." > >I disagree with your interpretation and your conclusion. Since God was >created as a model for describing/understanding the Universe and our roles >in it, we can ask better questions and learn from those answers so we can >in >turn ask even better questions. We can choose to proceed with the >extremely >vague notions and contradictory notions that are written in the Bible, but >many of us are not open to such mindless, automaton-like behavior. We can >realize that The Bible is no more the word of God than the words written on >the side of our cereal boxes. We can choose to proceed intelligently or we >can choose to proceed ignorantly. It is our choice. [It is our choice so >long as freewill is not just an illusion.] > >"In my designs as an engineer, I will spit out the economic analysis as >requested. Is the economic analysis logical? No. Is it necessary? yes >because they are funding the work." > >Bill, your explanation/interpretation is not sound. Economic analysis is a >vital part of engineering since no engineer has an unlimited budget. Ever >designer has to work within certain parameters, which is an excellent >analogy to life itself. What are our parameters? What are the parameters >to the God we have created to explain the Universe? What are the 'rules' >to >the Universe? -- another question engineers must seek to answer as part of >their trade. > >"Are Gods ways always logical to us? No." > >If the God model is inconsistent or no longer serves a purpose, a >revisitation of the parameters of the God model are in order. > >"Are they necessary? yes..." > >This is unclear. Were you asking if Gods are necessary or were you asking >if Gods are mandated to act logically? > >"...he created you, every cell, every atom. Listen to him, he's calling." > >You say these things as if you are certain that they are true, when you >know >for sure they are not absolutely certain. In all honesty Bill, you must >admit that worshiping gremlins, leprechauns and fairies has equal relevance >to worshipping the Christian God. The Christian God model is one model in >a >sea of God models. What we should concern ourselves with is thinking >outside the box. Instead of eliminating religious intellectualism, sincere >inquiry, and change within stagnant faiths that no longer serve the >purposes >of our peoples, we should examine the characters that our myths offer. We >should study the influences of our faiths and the outcomes of our own >actions. > >"God Bless you!" > >May you open your mind and your heart and may they be in synch. > >Mark Liberator >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >From: "Mark" > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:50:57 -0600 > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > >"Again, I am trying, but failing to get you to acknowledge (but not >accept > >necessarily) that the future is known, but not set." > > > >If the future IS known then it must be set. This is the crux of the > >argument. If God knows exactly what is going to happen then we cannot > >avoid > >no matter how hard we try. > > > >"If God 'set' it so someone would reject Him and then spend eternity in >the > >Lake of Fire, that would make him unloving. Remember, God is love." > > > >It sounds like you are making the argument that freewill must exist. >Since > >an all-knowing God and individual freewill run at odds with one another, >it > >sounds like you are choosing freewill instead of an all-knowing God. A > >flawed God would therefore not purposefully doom someone by creating a > >Universe where there is no choice. > > > >In short, if you want a God of love, this God is not all-knowing. Now >you > >must accept that your God has limited knowledge. > > > >Run with that, Bill. > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > >From: "Mark" > > >To: , , > > >Subject: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:47:20 -0600 > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > >"...my position [is that the future] is known by God, not set." > > > > > >You see, knowing what the future will bring indicates that the future >IS > > >set. No matter what one does, a certain outcome will happen and God > >knows > > >it. This demonstrates that the future is set and freewill does not > >exist. > > > > > >"But all we can know about God is what is revealed in the Bible and by > >our > > >conscience (Romans chapter 1 and 2)." > > > > > >Just because the Bible says that it is so, doesn't mean it is so. > > > > > >"And the Bible says we choose. How can that be preplanned." > > > > > >That's the contradiction. The Bible says that God is all-knowing yet >it > > >also says we have freewill. Both of these axioms cannot possibly be > >true. > > >Therefore, the Bible contains at least one flaw -- a contradiction -- > > >making > > >it less than perfect, which further demonstrates that the word of God >is > > >not > > >sound. > > > > > >Mark > > >The Liberator > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (rly-zd02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.226]) by air-zd04.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2001 18:46:27 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f181.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.181]) by rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2001 18:46:03 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:46:02 -0800 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:46:02 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@mediaone.net Subject: Now we are having polite discourse! Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:46:02 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Jan 2001 23:46:02.0492 (UTC) FILETIME=[A97CEBC0:01C07771] ################################################ Subj: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! Date: 01/05/2001 16:08:11 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@mediaone.net Bill Morgan , you wrote: "Mark, your points are very good but again an old argument, and one I do not have the full answer to." I have the answer. God cannot be all-knowing if individual freewill exists. "But belief in Jesus has more merit than belief n Leprachans since thousands who claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus chose a brutal death rather than renounce His resurrection." Let us assume these people chose a brutal death. Does this constitute a proof that the supernatural character called Jesus is real or would it be an indicator for something else that would be more plausable? "God knows the mind of man, but man cannot know the mind of God. God can set the parameters, but man can screw them up." For someone who has never met God, you seem to know what its capabilities are. How is that? "Look at how the ancient Jews made God mad. He could set the stage, but man with free will can turn against God's will. Therefore, God does not control all of man's emotions and actions." I pointed out to you that adopting those two particular axioms (an all knowing God and individual freewill) led to a contradiction. If you would like to find even more contradictions in The Bible, I'll leave that as a homework assignment for you. I am not interested in studying the Bible. Quite honestly Bill, I have better things to do with my time than to discuss something which was never meant to be taken literally. You and other Bible fundamentalists need to realize that it was a tool created to bring about a set of certain behaviors. Once you realize that, the learning can commence. "There is another element working here, evil. That is controlled by the fallen angel." Don't forget the gremlin that controls hemorhoids. If you want to believe that there is a real battle going on between the forces of good and and evil, my hat is off to you but it will be an activity you will have to carry on without me. Some people may need to hear these stories in order for them to act as members of a complicated society. I don't need it. I rather do as Joseph Campbell did. He sampled from all myths and discovered the seed of truth in them all, yet not becoming transfixed by any one. Mark Liberator The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > >Subject: Re: God/Fore knowledge/Free Will/ Economic Analysis >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:39:23 -0600 > >Bill Morgan you wrote: > >"By no means am I dismissing your point as a one that is trivial, weak or >illogical, but we have taken it as far as it can go without rendering upon >each other constant repetition. > >"Your point of foreknowledge and free will has been debated for 2000 years. >I debate it myself in my mind. And I have provided my best explanation. >The Bible tells us God gives us free will, yet it tells us God knows the >future." > >What I have been saying is that God may be all-knowing and individual >freewill may exist, but those two properties cannot exist together. The >two >contradict each other. > >"Does god know a mosquito will land on Jim Smith on August 26 2034 and Jim >will swat at it and miss? Yes, in my opinion yes. Does God spend his >precious time directing that mosquito to poor ol Jim, I think not." > >This is an interesting point -- one that I will return to after the >following three paragraphs. > >If a person were to take a hoola-hoop and spin it around, it would trace >out >a three dimensional solid, a donut, if held properly. If we look at the >spinning hoola-hoop under a strobe light, we might just see the person >spinning and also see the hoola-hoop at different moments in time. They >would appear as isolated snapshots. However, if we imagine the spinner >going fast enough without a strobe light, it would be easy to see the donut >formed by the spinning hoola-hoop over time. > >This is a perfect analogy of how we see the Universe. We see snapshots of >the hoola-hoop -- cross-sections of the hool-hoop in time. However, if >time >is removed from the vision, we see a donut -- all the cross-sections put >together. Now if there is an all-knowing God, this is how God must see the >Universe. He must see it this way if he is all-knowing and outside of >time. >He must know exactly what the Universe looks like from start to finish -- >if >there is a start and a finish. To him, the Universe must look like a >solid. >He must see the totality of movements and events through time. > >So, when (if) God created the Universe, he must have known exactly what it >was going to look like before he ever created it. More interestingly, he >knew the exact outcome of his own actions before he acted upon them because >he is all-knowing. So he created a fixed Universe -- one where the >conclusions of each of our lives was known before it was created. This >means that he created kids who would fall ill to cancer. He created men >and >women who would inevitably sin and be sent to Hell. God knew the >consequences of his own actions and sentenced people to live out their >lives >with only the appearance of freewill. He knew the consequences of his own >actions before he did them. > >So to return to your mosquito story, God must have created the Universe >knowing when that mosquito was going to land on 'Jim'. Why? He created >the >Universe and knew it would turn out that way, which must mean that all the >actions in the Universe are fixed, but to us appear to be random or prone >to >our decisions. > >Since this runs opposite to a Christian God -- a Christian God would not >intentionally force people to sin and consequently serve an eternity in >Hell -- we use backward logic to determine that one of our assumptions must >be wrong. Either freewill does not exist or God is not all-knowing. It's >your choice Bill. You choose. Which do you prefer? Which seems more >logical? Do we really have freewill or is God all-knowing? > >If you choose a lack of freewill, visit Eastern mysticism. In the East it >is common to accept destiny. You'll also see why these people can also >swallow such a distinct class system, see India and untouchables. If you >choose a God that is not all-knowing, you may as well worship many Gods >that >are limited in power as they are for Paganism, such as Greek Mythology. >Before you quickly dismiss Greek Mythology, see how the mythology respects >women. Research Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom and War. There is no equal >counterpart in the Christian Mythology. As a result, women are still >mistreated under Christian Mythology. > >We honestly know how this apparent contradiction between an all-knowing God >and freewill came to happen. When Paganism was very popular, Christians >wanted to out-do other faiths by claiming that their God was more powerful, >more knowledgable than their Gods. So the Christians said their God was >all-powerful, out-doing Pagan Gods. Christians said their God was >all-knowing, out-doing Pagan Gods. What Christians do not realize is that >the more powers they ascribe to their God, individual freedoms will become >less powerful and also contradictions will logically erupt to dismantle >their God. > >"An incident just happened here at work that parallels your fine question >Mr.. Spam Buster. A co worker, George was panicked because the HQ wants an >economic analysis report for a huge project I am designing. George was >literally shaking and upset, saying: 'why do they want this, this makes no >sense to me, why do bean counters get involved with engineering and design, >I don't know what they re going to do with this.' > >"My reaction: 'when do they want it?' > >"You seek mark, my and your dealing with God is just like this economic >analysis. We can certainly try to figure teh thoughts and ways of God. >However, in the process of doing those thoughts we can either get stuck in >neutral and cease all repsonses to the Word of God, the Bible and what the >Bible instructs, or we can question, yet still proceed with the clear >directives of the Bible." > >I disagree with your interpretation and your conclusion. Since God was >created as a model for describing/understanding the Universe and our roles >in it, we can ask better questions and learn from those answers so we can >in >turn ask even better questions. We can choose to proceed with the >extremely >vague notions and contradictory notions that are written in the Bible, but >many of us are not open to such mindless, automaton-like behavior. We can >realize that The Bible is no more the word of God than the words written on >the side of our cereal boxes. We can choose to proceed intelligently or we >can choose to proceed ignorantly. It is our choice. [It is our choice so >long as freewill is not just an illusion.] > >"In my designs as an engineer, I will spit out the economic analysis as >requested. Is the economic analysis logical? No. Is it necessary? yes >because they are funding the work." > >Bill, your explanation/interpretation is not sound. Economic analysis is a >vital part of engineering since no engineer has an unlimited budget. Ever >designer has to work within certain parameters, which is an excellent >analogy to life itself. What are our parameters? What are the parameters >to the God we have created to explain the Universe? What are the 'rules' >to >the Universe? -- another question engineers must seek to answer as part of >their trade. > >"Are Gods ways always logical to us? No." > >If the God model is inconsistent or no longer serves a purpose, a >revisitation of the parameters of the God model are in order. > >"Are they necessary? yes..." > >This is unclear. Were you asking if Gods are necessary or were you asking >if Gods are mandated to act logically? > >"...he created you, every cell, every atom. Listen to him, he's calling." > >You say these things as if you are certain that they are true, when you >know >for sure they are not absolutely certain. In all honesty Bill, you must >admit that worshiping gremlins, leprechauns and fairies has equal relevance >to worshipping the Christian God. The Christian God model is one model in >a >sea of God models. What we should concern ourselves with is thinking >outside the box. Instead of eliminating religious intellectualism, sincere >inquiry, and change within stagnant faiths that no longer serve the >purposes >of our peoples, we should examine the characters that our myths offer. We >should study the influences of our faiths and the outcomes of our own >actions. > >"God Bless you!" > >May you open your mind and your heart and may they be in synch. > >Mark Liberator >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >From: "Mark" > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:50:57 -0600 > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > >"Again, I am trying, but failing to get you to acknowledge (but not >accept > >necessarily) that the future is known, but not set." > > > >If the future IS known then it must be set. This is the crux of the > >argument. If God knows exactly what is going to happen then we cannot > >avoid > >no matter how hard we try. > > > >"If God 'set' it so someone would reject Him and then spend eternity in >the > >Lake of Fire, that would make him unloving. Remember, God is love." > > > >It sounds like you are making the argument that freewill must exist. >Since > >an all-knowing God and individual freewill run at odds with one another, >it > >sounds like you are choosing freewill instead of an all-knowing God. A > >flawed God would therefore not purposefully doom someone by creating a > >Universe where there is no choice. > > > >In short, if you want a God of love, this God is not all-knowing. Now >you > >must accept that your God has limited knowledge. > > > >Run with that, Bill. > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > >From: "Mark" > > >To: , , > > >Subject: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:47:20 -0600 > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > >"...my position [is that the future] is known by God, not set." > > > > > >You see, knowing what the future will bring indicates that the future >IS > > >set. No matter what one does, a certain outcome will happen and God > >knows > > >it. This demonstrates that the future is set and freewill does not > >exist. > > > > > >"But all we can know about God is what is revealed in the Bible and by > >our > > >conscience (Romans chapter 1 and 2)." > > > > > >Just because the Bible says that it is so, doesn't mean it is so. > > > > > >"And the Bible says we choose. How can that be preplanned." > > > > > >That's the contradiction. The Bible says that God is all-knowing yet >it > > >also says we have freewill. Both of these axioms cannot possibly be > >true. > > >Therefore, the Bible contains at least one flaw -- a contradiction -- > > >making > > >it less than perfect, which further demonstrates that the word of God >is > > >not > > >sound. > > > > > >Mark > > >The Liberator > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.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 (v77.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2001 19:08:11 -0500 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2001 19:07:42 -0500 Received: from oemcomputer (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0607aG60529; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:07:36 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <02a601c07775$087f18c0$052a03c7@oemcomputer> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , , References: Subject: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:10:07 -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: Now we are having polite discourse! Date: 01/05/2001 17:18:41 Pacific Standard Time From: BillBeq@mediaone.net (Bill) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com Well Bill I have listened to you go over the cost estimate explanation. Once again your humble approach before man and God is awe inspiring. I am proud of you brother! I think the key here is the fact that man alone can not decide the ways of the world in a sinless way. Only through faith in Jesus Christ can one avert sin and become humble before the Lord. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Morgan" To: ; ; Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 11:46 PM Subject: Now we are having polite discourse! > First, the good news for Dave is your suspension is over. > > Mark, I amnot saying a cost estimate is not esential and a budget, but this > economic analysis is ridiculous. I did a detailed cost estimate to repair > 90,000 feet of old deteriorating pipe. Now I have to justify, via economic > analysis goofy other options such as using sea water, fixing patches. But I > shall do them. > > Mark, your points are very good but again an old argument, and one I do not > have the full answer to. But belief in Jesus has more merit than belief n > Leprachans since thousands who claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus > chose a brutal death rather than renounce His resurrection. > > God knows the mind of man, but man cannot know the mind of God. God can set > the parameters, but man can screw them up. Look at how the ancient Jews > made God mad. He could set the stage, but man with free will can turn > against God's will. Therefore, God does not control all of man's emotions > and actions. There is another element working here, evil. That is > controlled by the fallen angel. > > Comments? > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > >Subject: Re: God/Fore knowledge/Free Will/ Economic Analysis > >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:39:23 -0600 > > > >Bill Morgan you wrote: > > > >"By no means am I dismissing your point as a one that is trivial, weak or > >illogical, but we have taken it as far as it can go without rendering upon > >each other constant repetition. > > > >"Your point of foreknowledge and free will has been debated for 2000 years. > >I debate it myself in my mind. And I have provided my best explanation. > >The Bible tells us God gives us free will, yet it tells us God knows the > >future." > > > >What I have been saying is that God may be all-knowing and individual > >freewill may exist, but those two properties cannot exist together. The > >two > >contradict each other. > > > >"Does god know a mosquito will land on Jim Smith on August 26 2034 and Jim > >will swat at it and miss? Yes, in my opinion yes. Does God spend his > >precious time directing that mosquito to poor ol Jim, I think not." > > > >This is an interesting point -- one that I will return to after the > >following three paragraphs. > > > >If a person were to take a hoola-hoop and spin it around, it would trace > >out > >a three dimensional solid, a donut, if held properly. If we look at the > >spinning hoola-hoop under a strobe light, we might just see the person > >spinning and also see the hoola-hoop at different moments in time. They > >would appear as isolated snapshots. However, if we imagine the spinner > >going fast enough without a strobe light, it would be easy to see the donut > >formed by the spinning hoola-hoop over time. > > > >This is a perfect analogy of how we see the Universe. We see snapshots of > >the hoola-hoop -- cross-sections of the hool-hoop in time. However, if > >time > >is removed from the vision, we see a donut -- all the cross-sections put > >together. Now if there is an all-knowing God, this is how God must see the > >Universe. He must see it this way if he is all-knowing and outside of > >time. > >He must know exactly what the Universe looks like from start to finish -- > >if > >there is a start and a finish. To him, the Universe must look like a > >solid. > >He must see the totality of movements and events through time. > > > >So, when (if) God created the Universe, he must have known exactly what it > >was going to look like before he ever created it. More interestingly, he > >knew the exact outcome of his own actions before he acted upon them because > >he is all-knowing. So he created a fixed Universe -- one where the > >conclusions of each of our lives was known before it was created. This > >means that he created kids who would fall ill to cancer. He created men > >and > >women who would inevitably sin and be sent to Hell. God knew the > >consequences of his own actions and sentenced people to live out their > >lives > >with only the appearance of freewill. He knew the consequences of his own > >actions before he did them. > > > >So to return to your mosquito story, God must have created the Universe > >knowing when that mosquito was going to land on 'Jim'. Why? He created > >the > >Universe and knew it would turn out that way, which must mean that all the > >actions in the Universe are fixed, but to us appear to be random or prone > >to > >our decisions. > > > >Since this runs opposite to a Christian God -- a Christian God would not > >intentionally force people to sin and consequently serve an eternity in > >Hell -- we use backward logic to determine that one of our assumptions must > >be wrong. Either freewill does not exist or God is not all-knowing. It's > >your choice Bill. You choose. Which do you prefer? Which seems more > >logical? Do we really have freewill or is God all-knowing? > > > >If you choose a lack of freewill, visit Eastern mysticism. In the East it > >is common to accept destiny. You'll also see why these people can also > >swallow such a distinct class system, see India and untouchables. If you > >choose a God that is not all-knowing, you may as well worship many Gods > >that > >are limited in power as they are for Paganism, such as Greek Mythology. > >Before you quickly dismiss Greek Mythology, see how the mythology respects > >women. Research Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom and War. There is no equal > >counterpart in the Christian Mythology. As a result, women are still > >mistreated under Christian Mythology. > > > >We honestly know how this apparent contradiction between an all-knowing God > >and freewill came to happen. When Paganism was very popular, Christians > >wanted to out-do other faiths by claiming that their God was more powerful, > >more knowledgable than their Gods. So the Christians said their God was > >all-powerful, out-doing Pagan Gods. Christians said their God was > >all-knowing, out-doing Pagan Gods. What Christians do not realize is that > >the more powers they ascribe to their God, individual freedoms will become > >less powerful and also contradictions will logically erupt to dismantle > >their God. > > > >"An incident just happened here at work that parallels your fine question > >Mr.. Spam Buster. A co worker, George was panicked because the HQ wants an > >economic analysis report for a huge project I am designing. George was > >literally shaking and upset, saying: 'why do they want this, this makes no > >sense to me, why do bean counters get involved with engineering and design, > >I don't know what they re going to do with this.' > > > >"My reaction: 'when do they want it?' > > > >"You seek mark, my and your dealing with God is just like this economic > >analysis. We can certainly try to figure teh thoughts and ways of God. > >However, in the process of doing those thoughts we can either get stuck in > >neutral and cease all repsonses to the Word of God, the Bible and what the > >Bible instructs, or we can question, yet still proceed with the clear > >directives of the Bible." > > > >I disagree with your interpretation and your conclusion. Since God was > >created as a model for describing/understanding the Universe and our roles > >in it, we can ask better questions and learn from those answers so we can > >in > >turn ask even better questions. We can choose to proceed with the > >extremely > >vague notions and contradictory notions that are written in the Bible, but > >many of us are not open to such mindless, automaton-like behavior. We can > >realize that The Bible is no more the word of God than the words written on > >the side of our cereal boxes. We can choose to proceed intelligently or we > >can choose to proceed ignorantly. It is our choice. [It is our choice so > >long as freewill is not just an illusion.] > > > >"In my designs as an engineer, I will spit out the economic analysis as > >requested. Is the economic analysis logical? No. Is it necessary? yes > >because they are funding the work." > > > >Bill, your explanation/interpretation is not sound. Economic analysis is a > >vital part of engineering since no engineer has an unlimited budget. Ever > >designer has to work within certain parameters, which is an excellent > >analogy to life itself. What are our parameters? What are the parameters > >to the God we have created to explain the Universe? What are the 'rules' > >to > >the Universe? -- another question engineers must seek to answer as part of > >their trade. > > > >"Are Gods ways always logical to us? No." > > > >If the God model is inconsistent or no longer serves a purpose, a > >revisitation of the parameters of the God model are in order. > > > >"Are they necessary? yes..." > > > >This is unclear. Were you asking if Gods are necessary or were you asking > >if Gods are mandated to act logically? > > > >"...he created you, every cell, every atom. Listen to him, he's calling." > > > >You say these things as if you are certain that they are true, when you > >know > >for sure they are not absolutely certain. In all honesty Bill, you must > >admit that worshiping gremlins, leprechauns and fairies has equal relevance > >to worshipping the Christian God. The Christian God model is one model in > >a > >sea of God models. What we should concern ourselves with is thinking > >outside the box. Instead of eliminating religious intellectualism, sincere > >inquiry, and change within stagnant faiths that no longer serve the > >purposes > >of our peoples, we should examine the characters that our myths offer. We > >should study the influences of our faiths and the outcomes of our own > >actions. > > > >"God Bless you!" > > > >May you open your mind and your heart and may they be in synch. > > > >Mark Liberator > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > > > >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:50:57 -0600 > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > >"Again, I am trying, but failing to get you to acknowledge (but not > >accept > > >necessarily) that the future is known, but not set." > > > > > >If the future IS known then it must be set. This is the crux of the > > >argument. If God knows exactly what is going to happen then we cannot > > >avoid > > >no matter how hard we try. > > > > > >"If God 'set' it so someone would reject Him and then spend eternity in > >the > > >Lake of Fire, that would make him unloving. Remember, God is love." > > > > > >It sounds like you are making the argument that freewill must exist. > >Since > > >an all-knowing God and individual freewill run at odds with one another, > >it > > >sounds like you are choosing freewill instead of an all-knowing God. A > > >flawed God would therefore not purposefully doom someone by creating a > > >Universe where there is no choice. > > > > > >In short, if you want a God of love, this God is not all-knowing. Now > >you > > >must accept that your God has limited knowledge. > > > > > >Run with that, Bill. > > > > > >Mark > > >The Liberator > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > > >To: , , > > > >Subject: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > > >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:47:20 -0600 > > > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > > > >"...my position [is that the future] is known by God, not set." > > > > > > > >You see, knowing what the future will bring indicates that the future > >IS > > > >set. No matter what one does, a certain outcome will happen and God > > >knows > > > >it. This demonstrates that the future is set and freewill does not > > >exist. > > > > > > > >"But all we can know about God is what is revealed in the Bible and by > > >our > > > >conscience (Romans chapter 1 and 2)." > > > > > > > >Just because the Bible says that it is so, doesn't mean it is so. > > > > > > > >"And the Bible says we choose. How can that be preplanned." > > > > > > > >That's the contradiction. The Bible says that God is all-knowing yet > >it > > > >also says we have freewill. Both of these axioms cannot possibly be > > >true. > > > >Therefore, the Bible contains at least one flaw -- a contradiction -- > > > >making > > > >it less than perfect, which further demonstrates that the word of God > >is > > > >not > > > >sound. > > > > > > > >Mark > > > >The Liberator > > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd01.mx.aol.com (rly-yd01.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.1]) by air-yd02.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2001 20:18:41 -0500 Received: from lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (lsmls02.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.15]) by rly-yd01.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jan 2001 20:17:58 -0500 Received: from bb (we-24-130-112-49.we.mediaone.net [24.130.112.49]) by lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA19553; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:17:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000501c0777f$26ed1f00$31708218@we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill" To: "Bill Morgan" , , References: Subject: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:22:35 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 ################################################ Subj: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! Date: 01/08/2001 11:50:17 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: BillBeq@mediaone.net, spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com Thanks Bill. It is good to hear your unbiased impartial opinion now and then! Mark is raising a good question, and I wish he lived in California because we could discuss the mening of life over a filet mignon, broiled mushroon\ms, mashed potatoes and gravya nd french onion soup. >From: "Bill" >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > >Subject: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! >Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:22:35 -0800 > >Well Bill I have listened to you go over the cost estimate explanation. >Once again your humble approach before man and God is awe inspiring. I am >proud of you brother! I think the key here is the fact that man alone can >not decide the ways of the world in a sinless way. Only through faith in >Jesus Christ can one avert sin and become humble before the Lord. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Bill Morgan" >To: ; ; >Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 11:46 PM >Subject: Now we are having polite discourse! > > > > First, the good news for Dave is your suspension is over. > > > > Mark, I amnot saying a cost estimate is not esential and a budget, but >this > > economic analysis is ridiculous. I did a detailed cost estimate to >repair > > 90,000 feet of old deteriorating pipe. Now I have to justify, via >economic > > analysis goofy other options such as using sea water, fixing patches. >But >I > > shall do them. > > > > Mark, your points are very good but again an old argument, and one I do >not > > have the full answer to. But belief in Jesus has more merit than belief >n > > Leprachans since thousands who claimed to have seen the resurrected >Jesus > > chose a brutal death rather than renounce His resurrection. > > > > God knows the mind of man, but man cannot know the mind of God. God can >set > > the parameters, but man can screw them up. Look at how the ancient Jews > > made God mad. He could set the stage, but man with free will can turn > > against God's will. Therefore, God does not control all of man's >emotions > > and actions. There is another element working here, evil. That is > > controlled by the fallen angel. > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > > > >Subject: Re: God/Fore knowledge/Free Will/ Economic Analysis > > >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:39:23 -0600 > > > > > >Bill Morgan you wrote: > > > > > >"By no means am I dismissing your point as a one that is trivial, weak >or > > >illogical, but we have taken it as far as it can go without rendering >upon > > >each other constant repetition. > > > > > >"Your point of foreknowledge and free will has been debated for 2000 >years. > > >I debate it myself in my mind. And I have provided my best >explanation. > > >The Bible tells us God gives us free will, yet it tells us God knows >the > > >future." > > > > > >What I have been saying is that God may be all-knowing and individual > > >freewill may exist, but those two properties cannot exist together. >The > > >two > > >contradict each other. > > > > > >"Does god know a mosquito will land on Jim Smith on August 26 2034 and >Jim > > >will swat at it and miss? Yes, in my opinion yes. Does God spend his > > >precious time directing that mosquito to poor ol Jim, I think not." > > > > > >This is an interesting point -- one that I will return to after the > > >following three paragraphs. > > > > > >If a person were to take a hoola-hoop and spin it around, it would >trace > > >out > > >a three dimensional solid, a donut, if held properly. If we look at >the > > >spinning hoola-hoop under a strobe light, we might just see the person > > >spinning and also see the hoola-hoop at different moments in time. >They > > >would appear as isolated snapshots. However, if we imagine the spinner > > >going fast enough without a strobe light, it would be easy to see the >donut > > >formed by the spinning hoola-hoop over time. > > > > > >This is a perfect analogy of how we see the Universe. We see snapshots >of > > >the hoola-hoop -- cross-sections of the hool-hoop in time. However, if > > >time > > >is removed from the vision, we see a donut -- all the cross-sections >put > > >together. Now if there is an all-knowing God, this is how God must see >the > > >Universe. He must see it this way if he is all-knowing and outside of > > >time. > > >He must know exactly what the Universe looks like from start to finish >-- > > >if > > >there is a start and a finish. To him, the Universe must look like a > > >solid. > > >He must see the totality of movements and events through time. > > > > > >So, when (if) God created the Universe, he must have known exactly what >it > > >was going to look like before he ever created it. More interestingly, >he > > >knew the exact outcome of his own actions before he acted upon them >because > > >he is all-knowing. So he created a fixed Universe -- one where the > > >conclusions of each of our lives was known before it was created. This > > >means that he created kids who would fall ill to cancer. He created >men > > >and > > >women who would inevitably sin and be sent to Hell. God knew the > > >consequences of his own actions and sentenced people to live out their > > >lives > > >with only the appearance of freewill. He knew the consequences of his >own > > >actions before he did them. > > > > > >So to return to your mosquito story, God must have created the Universe > > >knowing when that mosquito was going to land on 'Jim'. Why? He >created > > >the > > >Universe and knew it would turn out that way, which must mean that all >the > > >actions in the Universe are fixed, but to us appear to be random or >prone > > >to > > >our decisions. > > > > > >Since this runs opposite to a Christian God -- a Christian God would >not > > >intentionally force people to sin and consequently serve an eternity in > > >Hell -- we use backward logic to determine that one of our assumptions >must > > >be wrong. Either freewill does not exist or God is not all-knowing. >It's > > >your choice Bill. You choose. Which do you prefer? Which seems more > > >logical? Do we really have freewill or is God all-knowing? > > > > > >If you choose a lack of freewill, visit Eastern mysticism. In the East >it > > >is common to accept destiny. You'll also see why these people can also > > >swallow such a distinct class system, see India and untouchables. If >you > > >choose a God that is not all-knowing, you may as well worship many Gods > > >that > > >are limited in power as they are for Paganism, such as Greek Mythology. > > >Before you quickly dismiss Greek Mythology, see how the mythology >respects > > >women. Research Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom and War. There is no >equal > > >counterpart in the Christian Mythology. As a result, women are still > > >mistreated under Christian Mythology. > > > > > >We honestly know how this apparent contradiction between an all-knowing >God > > >and freewill came to happen. When Paganism was very popular, >Christians > > >wanted to out-do other faiths by claiming that their God was more >powerful, > > >more knowledgable than their Gods. So the Christians said their God >was > > >all-powerful, out-doing Pagan Gods. Christians said their God was > > >all-knowing, out-doing Pagan Gods. What Christians do not realize is >that > > >the more powers they ascribe to their God, individual freedoms will >become > > >less powerful and also contradictions will logically erupt to dismantle > > >their God. > > > > > >"An incident just happened here at work that parallels your fine >question > > >Mr.. Spam Buster. A co worker, George was panicked because the HQ >wants >an > > >economic analysis report for a huge project I am designing. George was > > >literally shaking and upset, saying: 'why do they want this, this makes >no > > >sense to me, why do bean counters get involved with engineering and >design, > > >I don't know what they re going to do with this.' > > > > > >"My reaction: 'when do they want it?' > > > > > >"You seek mark, my and your dealing with God is just like this economic > > >analysis. We can certainly try to figure teh thoughts and ways of God. > > >However, in the process of doing those thoughts we can either get stuck >in > > >neutral and cease all repsonses to the Word of God, the Bible and what >the > > >Bible instructs, or we can question, yet still proceed with the clear > > >directives of the Bible." > > > > > >I disagree with your interpretation and your conclusion. Since God was > > >created as a model for describing/understanding the Universe and our >roles > > >in it, we can ask better questions and learn from those answers so we >can > > >in > > >turn ask even better questions. We can choose to proceed with the > > >extremely > > >vague notions and contradictory notions that are written in the Bible, >but > > >many of us are not open to such mindless, automaton-like behavior. We >can > > >realize that The Bible is no more the word of God than the words >written >on > > >the side of our cereal boxes. We can choose to proceed intelligently >or >we > > >can choose to proceed ignorantly. It is our choice. [It is our choice >so > > >long as freewill is not just an illusion.] > > > > > >"In my designs as an engineer, I will spit out the economic analysis as > > >requested. Is the economic analysis logical? No. Is it necessary? >yes > > >because they are funding the work." > > > > > >Bill, your explanation/interpretation is not sound. Economic analysis >is >a > > >vital part of engineering since no engineer has an unlimited budget. >Ever > > >designer has to work within certain parameters, which is an excellent > > >analogy to life itself. What are our parameters? What are the >parameters > > >to the God we have created to explain the Universe? What are the >'rules' > > >to > > >the Universe? -- another question engineers must seek to answer as part >of > > >their trade. > > > > > >"Are Gods ways always logical to us? No." > > > > > >If the God model is inconsistent or no longer serves a purpose, a > > >revisitation of the parameters of the God model are in order. > > > > > >"Are they necessary? yes..." > > > > > >This is unclear. Were you asking if Gods are necessary or were you >asking > > >if Gods are mandated to act logically? > > > > > >"...he created you, every cell, every atom. Listen to him, he's >calling." > > > > > >You say these things as if you are certain that they are true, when you > > >know > > >for sure they are not absolutely certain. In all honesty Bill, you >must > > >admit that worshiping gremlins, leprechauns and fairies has equal >relevance > > >to worshipping the Christian God. The Christian God model is one model >in > > >a > > >sea of God models. What we should concern ourselves with is thinking > > >outside the box. Instead of eliminating religious intellectualism, >sincere > > >inquiry, and change within stagnant faiths that no longer serve the > > >purposes > > >of our peoples, we should examine the characters that our myths offer. >We > > >should study the influences of our faiths and the outcomes of our own > > >actions. > > > > > >"God Bless you!" > > > > > >May you open your mind and your heart and may they be in synch. > > > > > >Mark Liberator > > >The Liberator > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > > >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:50:57 -0600 > > > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > > > >"Again, I am trying, but failing to get you to acknowledge (but not > > >accept > > > >necessarily) that the future is known, but not set." > > > > > > > >If the future IS known then it must be set. This is the crux of the > > > >argument. If God knows exactly what is going to happen then we >cannot > > > >avoid > > > >no matter how hard we try. > > > > > > > >"If God 'set' it so someone would reject Him and then spend eternity >in > > >the > > > >Lake of Fire, that would make him unloving. Remember, God is love." > > > > > > > >It sounds like you are making the argument that freewill must exist. > > >Since > > > >an all-knowing God and individual freewill run at odds with one >another, > > >it > > > >sounds like you are choosing freewill instead of an all-knowing God. >A > > > >flawed God would therefore not purposefully doom someone by creating >a > > > >Universe where there is no choice. > > > > > > > >In short, if you want a God of love, this God is not all-knowing. >Now > > >you > > > >must accept that your God has limited knowledge. > > > > > > > >Run with that, Bill. > > > > > > > >Mark > > > >The Liberator > > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > > > >To: , , > > > > > >Subject: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > > > >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:47:20 -0600 > > > > > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > > > > > >"...my position [is that the future] is known by God, not set." > > > > > > > > > >You see, knowing what the future will bring indicates that the >future > > >IS > > > > >set. No matter what one does, a certain outcome will happen and >God > > > >knows > > > > >it. This demonstrates that the future is set and freewill does not > > > >exist. > > > > > > > > > >"But all we can know about God is what is revealed in the Bible and >by > > > >our > > > > >conscience (Romans chapter 1 and 2)." > > > > > > > > > >Just because the Bible says that it is so, doesn't mean it is so. > > > > > > > > > >"And the Bible says we choose. How can that be preplanned." > > > > > > > > > >That's the contradiction. The Bible says that God is all-knowing >yet > > >it > > > > >also says we have freewill. Both of these axioms cannot possibly >be > > > >true. > > > > >Therefore, the Bible contains at least one flaw -- a contradiction >-- > > > > >making > > > > >it less than perfect, which further demonstrates that the word of >God > > >is > > > > >not > > > > >sound. > > > > > > > > > >Mark > > > > >The Liberator > > > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zb04.mx.aol.com (rly-zb04.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.4]) by air-zb02.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:50:17 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f96.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.96]) by rly-zb04.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:49:56 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:49:54 -0800 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:49:54 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: BillBeq@mediaone.net, spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:49:54 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2001 19:49:54.0998 (UTC) FILETIME=[2C3E2560:01C079AC] ################################################ Subj: You say Solctice; I say solstice, lets call the whole thing off Date: 01/08/2001 11:57:23 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: spambuster@gigagod.com, BillBeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com I always spelled it solstice. What is the correct spelling? Sol is from the latin for sun. >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" >, >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. >Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 14:07:17 -0600 > >Bill Bequette , you wrote: > >"John 3:16" > >If you are incapable of reflecting in your own words and would rather >deflect with Bible quotes, please do not bother sending further messages. >Bonehead religionists do nothing for me, accept make themselves look very >stupid. > >Happy Winter Solctice > >= ) > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Bill Morgan" >To: ; ; >Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 8:11 AM >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > > > Again, I am trying, but failing to get you to acknowledge (but not >accpet > > necessarily) that the future is known, but not set. > > > > If God "set" it so someone would reject Him and then spend eternity in >the > > Lake of Fire, that would make him unloving. Remember, God is love. > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > >To: , , > > >Subject: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:47:20 -0600 > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > >"...my position [is that the future] is known by God, not set." > > > > > >You see, knowing what the future will bring indicates that the future >IS > > >set. No matter what one does, a certain outcome will happen and God >knows > > >it. This demonstrates that the future is set and freewill does not >exist. > > > > > >"But all we can know about God is what is revealed in the Bible and by >our > > >conscience (Romans chapter 1 and 2)." > > > > > >Just because the Bible says that it is so, doesn't mean it is so. > > > > > >"And the Bible says we choose. How can that be preplanned." > > > > > >That's the contradiction. The Bible says that God is all-knowing yet >it > > >also says we have freewill. Both of these axioms cannot possibly be >true. > > >Therefore, the Bible contains at least one flaw -- a contradiction -- > > >making > > >it less than perfect, which further demonstrates that the word of God >is > > >not > > >sound. > > > > > >Mark > > >The Liberator > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-za05.mx.aol.com (rly-za05.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.101]) by air-za01.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:57:23 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f105.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.105]) by rly-za05.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:56:55 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:56:54 -0800 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:56:54 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: spambuster@gigagod.com, BillBeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com Subject: You say Solctice; I say solstice, lets call the whole thing off Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 19:56:54 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2001 19:56:54.0692 (UTC) FILETIME=[26665E40:01C079AD] ################################################ Subj: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. Date: 01/08/2001 12:37:08 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: spambuster@gigagod.com, billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@AOL.com Which Bill did you block? Smart Bill or handsome Bill? >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > >Subject: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. >Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 19:30:19 -0600 > >Bill, > >I will no longer be able to receive e-mail from you. I have placed you on >ignore for mindlessly sending me Bible quotes. > >Have a good life. > >I'll be thinking for the two of us. > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Mark >To: Bill Bequette >Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 7:04 PM >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > >Bill, > >If you send another mindless Bible quote to me, I will be forced to place >you on ignore. > >You have been forewarned. > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >P.S. You have a brain so please use it. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Bill Bequette >To: Mark >Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 6:51 PM >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > >"Whoever acknowledges me before men, >I will also acknowledge him before my Father >in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, >I will disown him before my Father in heaven." > >Matthew 10:32 > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xa03.mx.aol.com (rly-xa03.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.72]) by air-xa02.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:37:08 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f81.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.81]) by rly-xa03.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:37:02 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:37:01 -0800 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:37:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: spambuster@gigagod.com, billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@AOL.com Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 20:37:01 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jan 2001 20:37:01.0847 (UTC) FILETIME=[C12D1270:01C079B2] ################################################ Subj: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! Date: 01/08/2001 12:48:54 Pacific Standard Time From: BillBeq@mediaone.net (Bill) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com You rock brother! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Morgan" To: ; ; Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 7:49 PM Subject: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! > Thanks Bill. It is good to hear your unbiased impartial opinion now and > then! Mark is raising a good question, and I wish he lived in California > because we could discuss the mening of life over a filet mignon, broiled > mushroon\ms, mashed potatoes and gravya nd french onion soup. > > > >From: "Bill" > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > >Subject: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! > >Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:22:35 -0800 > > > >Well Bill I have listened to you go over the cost estimate explanation. > >Once again your humble approach before man and God is awe inspiring. I am > >proud of you brother! I think the key here is the fact that man alone can > >not decide the ways of the world in a sinless way. Only through faith in > >Jesus Christ can one avert sin and become humble before the Lord. > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Bill Morgan" > >To: ; ; > >Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 11:46 PM > >Subject: Now we are having polite discourse! > > > > > > > First, the good news for Dave is your suspension is over. > > > > > > Mark, I amnot saying a cost estimate is not esential and a budget, but > >this > > > economic analysis is ridiculous. I did a detailed cost estimate to > >repair > > > 90,000 feet of old deteriorating pipe. Now I have to justify, via > >economic > > > analysis goofy other options such as using sea water, fixing patches. > >But > >I > > > shall do them. > > > > > > Mark, your points are very good but again an old argument, and one I do > >not > > > have the full answer to. But belief in Jesus has more merit than belief > >n > > > Leprachans since thousands who claimed to have seen the resurrected > >Jesus > > > chose a brutal death rather than renounce His resurrection. > > > > > > God knows the mind of man, but man cannot know the mind of God. God can > >set > > > the parameters, but man can screw them up. Look at how the ancient Jews > > > made God mad. He could set the stage, but man with free will can turn > > > against God's will. Therefore, God does not control all of man's > >emotions > > > and actions. There is another element working here, evil. That is > > > controlled by the fallen angel. > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: God/Fore knowledge/Free Will/ Economic Analysis > > > >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:39:23 -0600 > > > > > > > >Bill Morgan you wrote: > > > > > > > >"By no means am I dismissing your point as a one that is trivial, weak > >or > > > >illogical, but we have taken it as far as it can go without rendering > >upon > > > >each other constant repetition. > > > > > > > >"Your point of foreknowledge and free will has been debated for 2000 > >years. > > > >I debate it myself in my mind. And I have provided my best > >explanation. > > > >The Bible tells us God gives us free will, yet it tells us God knows > >the > > > >future." > > > > > > > >What I have been saying is that God may be all-knowing and individual > > > >freewill may exist, but those two properties cannot exist together. > >The > > > >two > > > >contradict each other. > > > > > > > >"Does god know a mosquito will land on Jim Smith on August 26 2034 and > >Jim > > > >will swat at it and miss? Yes, in my opinion yes. Does God spend his > > > >precious time directing that mosquito to poor ol Jim, I think not." > > > > > > > >This is an interesting point -- one that I will return to after the > > > >following three paragraphs. > > > > > > > >If a person were to take a hoola-hoop and spin it around, it would > >trace > > > >out > > > >a three dimensional solid, a donut, if held properly. If we look at > >the > > > >spinning hoola-hoop under a strobe light, we might just see the person > > > >spinning and also see the hoola-hoop at different moments in time. > >They > > > >would appear as isolated snapshots. However, if we imagine the spinner > > > >going fast enough without a strobe light, it would be easy to see the > >donut > > > >formed by the spinning hoola-hoop over time. > > > > > > > >This is a perfect analogy of how we see the Universe. We see snapshots > >of > > > >the hoola-hoop -- cross-sections of the hool-hoop in time. However, if > > > >time > > > >is removed from the vision, we see a donut -- all the cross-sections > >put > > > >together. Now if there is an all-knowing God, this is how God must see > >the > > > >Universe. He must see it this way if he is all-knowing and outside of > > > >time. > > > >He must know exactly what the Universe looks like from start to finish > >-- > > > >if > > > >there is a start and a finish. To him, the Universe must look like a > > > >solid. > > > >He must see the totality of movements and events through time. > > > > > > > >So, when (if) God created the Universe, he must have known exactly what > >it > > > >was going to look like before he ever created it. More interestingly, > >he > > > >knew the exact outcome of his own actions before he acted upon them > >because > > > >he is all-knowing. So he created a fixed Universe -- one where the > > > >conclusions of each of our lives was known before it was created. This > > > >means that he created kids who would fall ill to cancer. He created > >men > > > >and > > > >women who would inevitably sin and be sent to Hell. God knew the > > > >consequences of his own actions and sentenced people to live out their > > > >lives > > > >with only the appearance of freewill. He knew the consequences of his > >own > > > >actions before he did them. > > > > > > > >So to return to your mosquito story, God must have created the Universe > > > >knowing when that mosquito was going to land on 'Jim'. Why? He > >created > > > >the > > > >Universe and knew it would turn out that way, which must mean that all > >the > > > >actions in the Universe are fixed, but to us appear to be random or > >prone > > > >to > > > >our decisions. > > > > > > > >Since this runs opposite to a Christian God -- a Christian God would > >not > > > >intentionally force people to sin and consequently serve an eternity in > > > >Hell -- we use backward logic to determine that one of our assumptions > >must > > > >be wrong. Either freewill does not exist or God is not all-knowing. > >It's > > > >your choice Bill. You choose. Which do you prefer? Which seems more > > > >logical? Do we really have freewill or is God all-knowing? > > > > > > > >If you choose a lack of freewill, visit Eastern mysticism. In the East > >it > > > >is common to accept destiny. You'll also see why these people can also > > > >swallow such a distinct class system, see India and untouchables. If > >you > > > >choose a God that is not all-knowing, you may as well worship many Gods > > > >that > > > >are limited in power as they are for Paganism, such as Greek Mythology. > > > >Before you quickly dismiss Greek Mythology, see how the mythology > >respects > > > >women. Research Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom and War. There is no > >equal > > > >counterpart in the Christian Mythology. As a result, women are still > > > >mistreated under Christian Mythology. > > > > > > > >We honestly know how this apparent contradiction between an all-knowing > >God > > > >and freewill came to happen. When Paganism was very popular, > >Christians > > > >wanted to out-do other faiths by claiming that their God was more > >powerful, > > > >more knowledgable than their Gods. So the Christians said their God > >was > > > >all-powerful, out-doing Pagan Gods. Christians said their God was > > > >all-knowing, out-doing Pagan Gods. What Christians do not realize is > >that > > > >the more powers they ascribe to their God, individual freedoms will > >become > > > >less powerful and also contradictions will logically erupt to dismantle > > > >their God. > > > > > > > >"An incident just happened here at work that parallels your fine > >question > > > >Mr.. Spam Buster. A co worker, George was panicked because the HQ > >wants > >an > > > >economic analysis report for a huge project I am designing. George was > > > >literally shaking and upset, saying: 'why do they want this, this makes > >no > > > >sense to me, why do bean counters get involved with engineering and > >design, > > > >I don't know what they re going to do with this.' > > > > > > > >"My reaction: 'when do they want it?' > > > > > > > >"You seek mark, my and your dealing with God is just like this economic > > > >analysis. We can certainly try to figure teh thoughts and ways of God. > > > >However, in the process of doing those thoughts we can either get stuck > >in > > > >neutral and cease all repsonses to the Word of God, the Bible and what > >the > > > >Bible instructs, or we can question, yet still proceed with the clear > > > >directives of the Bible." > > > > > > > >I disagree with your interpretation and your conclusion. Since God was > > > >created as a model for describing/understanding the Universe and our > >roles > > > >in it, we can ask better questions and learn from those answers so we > >can > > > >in > > > >turn ask even better questions. We can choose to proceed with the > > > >extremely > > > >vague notions and contradictory notions that are written in the Bible, > >but > > > >many of us are not open to such mindless, automaton-like behavior. We > >can > > > >realize that The Bible is no more the word of God than the words > >written > >on > > > >the side of our cereal boxes. We can choose to proceed intelligently > >or > >we > > > >can choose to proceed ignorantly. It is our choice. [It is our choice > >so > > > >long as freewill is not just an illusion.] > > > > > > > >"In my designs as an engineer, I will spit out the economic analysis as > > > >requested. Is the economic analysis logical? No. Is it necessary? > >yes > > > >because they are funding the work." > > > > > > > >Bill, your explanation/interpretation is not sound. Economic analysis > >is > >a > > > >vital part of engineering since no engineer has an unlimited budget. > >Ever > > > >designer has to work within certain parameters, which is an excellent > > > >analogy to life itself. What are our parameters? What are the > >parameters > > > >to the God we have created to explain the Universe? What are the > >'rules' > > > >to > > > >the Universe? -- another question engineers must seek to answer as part > >of > > > >their trade. > > > > > > > >"Are Gods ways always logical to us? No." > > > > > > > >If the God model is inconsistent or no longer serves a purpose, a > > > >revisitation of the parameters of the God model are in order. > > > > > > > >"Are they necessary? yes..." > > > > > > > >This is unclear. Were you asking if Gods are necessary or were you > >asking > > > >if Gods are mandated to act logically? > > > > > > > >"...he created you, every cell, every atom. Listen to him, he's > >calling." > > > > > > > >You say these things as if you are certain that they are true, when you > > > >know > > > >for sure they are not absolutely certain. In all honesty Bill, you > >must > > > >admit that worshiping gremlins, leprechauns and fairies has equal > >relevance > > > >to worshipping the Christian God. The Christian God model is one model > >in > > > >a > > > >sea of God models. What we should concern ourselves with is thinking > > > >outside the box. Instead of eliminating religious intellectualism, > >sincere > > > >inquiry, and change within stagnant faiths that no longer serve the > > > >purposes > > > >of our peoples, we should examine the characters that our myths offer. > >We > > > >should study the influences of our faiths and the outcomes of our own > > > >actions. > > > > > > > >"God Bless you!" > > > > > > > >May you open your mind and your heart and may they be in synch. > > > > > > > >Mark Liberator > > > >The Liberator > > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > > > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > > > >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:50:57 -0600 > > > > > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > > > > > >"Again, I am trying, but failing to get you to acknowledge (but not > > > >accept > > > > >necessarily) that the future is known, but not set." > > > > > > > > > >If the future IS known then it must be set. This is the crux of the > > > > >argument. If God knows exactly what is going to happen then we > >cannot > > > > >avoid > > > > >no matter how hard we try. > > > > > > > > > >"If God 'set' it so someone would reject Him and then spend eternity > >in > > > >the > > > > >Lake of Fire, that would make him unloving. Remember, God is love." > > > > > > > > > >It sounds like you are making the argument that freewill must exist. > > > >Since > > > > >an all-knowing God and individual freewill run at odds with one > >another, > > > >it > > > > >sounds like you are choosing freewill instead of an all-knowing God. > >A > > > > >flawed God would therefore not purposefully doom someone by creating > >a > > > > >Universe where there is no choice. > > > > > > > > > >In short, if you want a God of love, this God is not all-knowing. > >Now > > > >you > > > > >must accept that your God has limited knowledge. > > > > > > > > > >Run with that, Bill. > > > > > > > > > >Mark > > > > >The Liberator > > > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > > > > >To: , , > > > > > > > >Subject: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > > > > >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:47:20 -0600 > > > > > > > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >"...my position [is that the future] is known by God, not set." > > > > > > > > > > > >You see, knowing what the future will bring indicates that the > >future > > > >IS > > > > > >set. No matter what one does, a certain outcome will happen and > >God > > > > >knows > > > > > >it. This demonstrates that the future is set and freewill does not > > > > >exist. > > > > > > > > > > > >"But all we can know about God is what is revealed in the Bible and > >by > > > > >our > > > > > >conscience (Romans chapter 1 and 2)." > > > > > > > > > > > >Just because the Bible says that it is so, doesn't mean it is so. > > > > > > > > > > > >"And the Bible says we choose. How can that be preplanned." > > > > > > > > > > > >That's the contradiction. The Bible says that God is all-knowing > >yet > > > >it > > > > > >also says we have freewill. Both of these axioms cannot possibly > >be > > > > >true. > > > > > >Therefore, the Bible contains at least one flaw -- a contradiction > >-- > > > > > >making > > > > > >it less than perfect, which further demonstrates that the word of > >God > > > >is > > > > > >not > > > > > >sound. > > > > > > > > > > > >Mark > > > > > >The Liberator > > > > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc02.mx.aol.com (rly-zc02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.2]) by air-zc02.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:48:54 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-zc02.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:48:34 -0500 Received: from bb (we-24-130-112-49.we.mediaone.net [24.130.112.49]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA24581; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:48:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004701c079b5$0b590a00$31708218@we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill" To: "Bill Morgan" , , References: Subject: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:53:24 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 ################################################ Subj: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. Date: 01/08/2001 12:50:44 Pacific Standard Time From: BillBeq@mediaone.net (Bill) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@AOL.com Gee whiz I am so broken up over that! Thanks for the favor Mark! God Bless! PS I hope you read the Bible quotes and studied up on them. They would help you out in life and after you die! John 3:16 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Morgan" To: ; ; Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 8:37 PM Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > Which Bill did you block? Smart Bill or handsome Bill? > > > >From: "Mark" > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > >Subject: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > >Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 19:30:19 -0600 > > > >Bill, > > > >I will no longer be able to receive e-mail from you. I have placed you on > >ignore for mindlessly sending me Bible quotes. > > > >Have a good life. > > > >I'll be thinking for the two of us. > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Mark > >To: Bill Bequette > >Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 7:04 PM > >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > > > > >Bill, > > > >If you send another mindless Bible quote to me, I will be forced to place > >you on ignore. > > > >You have been forewarned. > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >P.S. You have a brain so please use it. > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Bill Bequette > >To: Mark > >Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 6:51 PM > >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > > > > >"Whoever acknowledges me before men, > >I will also acknowledge him before my Father > >in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, > >I will disown him before my Father in heaven." > > > >Matthew 10:32 > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xd01.mx.aol.com (rly-xd01.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.166]) by air-xd04.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:50:44 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-xd01.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:50:33 -0500 Received: from bb (we-24-130-112-49.we.mediaone.net [24.130.112.49]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA26569; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:50:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004f01c079b5$52d053c0$31708218@we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill" To: "Bill Morgan" , , References: Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:55:24 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 ################################################ Subj: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. Date: 01/08/2001 19:58:47 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@AOL.com Bill Morgan , you wrote: "Which Bill did you block? Smart Bill or handsome Bill?" I was forced to 'block' all e-mail from billbeq@mediaone.net because he was mindlessly spamming my e-mail address with Bible quotes. Outlook Express is able to automatically funnel any e-mail I receive from him directly to my 'deleted items' folder. I asked Bill B. nicely to stop spamming me, but unfortunately, he refused. Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > >Subject: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. >Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 19:30:19 -0600 > >Bill, > >I will no longer be able to receive e-mail from you. I have placed you on >ignore for mindlessly sending me Bible quotes. > >Have a good life. > >I'll be thinking for the two of us. > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Mark >To: Bill Bequette >Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 7:04 PM >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > >Bill, > >If you send another mindless Bible quote to me, I will be forced to place >you on ignore. > >You have been forewarned. > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >P.S. You have a brain so please use it. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Bill Bequette >To: Mark >Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 6:51 PM >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > >"Whoever acknowledges me before men, >I will also acknowledge him before my Father >in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, >I will disown him before my Father in heaven." > >Matthew 10:32 > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (rly-yb05.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.5]) by air-yb02.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 22:58:47 -0500 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yb05.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 22:58:23 1900 Received: from oemcomputer (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f093wH156780; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 21:58:18 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <000a01c079f0$c4fcfd00$052a03c7@oemcomputer> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , , References: Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:00:54 -0600 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: Now we are having polite discourse! Date: 01/08/2001 20:05:22 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), BillBeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com Bill Morgan , you wrote: "Thanks Bill. It is good to hear your unbiased impartial opinion now and then!" Bill M., don't insult yourself. You know as well as I do that everyone is biased. Saying otherwise indicates that you're either ignorant or deceptive. "Mark is raising a good question, and I wish he lived in California because we could discuss the mening of life over a filet mignon, broiled mushroon\ms, mashed potatoes and gravya nd french onion soup." If you guys are willing to put all of this lip-service into action by paying for my planefair, I'l gladly have dinner with you. Since it is doubtful that either of you are willing to follow through with that plan, the likelihood of me shelling out the money for me to buy my own ticket is zero and therefore we will never eat a meal together. = ) Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >From: "Bill" >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > >Subject: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! >Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:22:35 -0800 > >Well Bill I have listened to you go over the cost estimate explanation. >Once again your humble approach before man and God is awe inspiring. I am >proud of you brother! I think the key here is the fact that man alone can >not decide the ways of the world in a sinless way. Only through faith in >Jesus Christ can one avert sin and become humble before the Lord. > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Bill Morgan" >To: ; ; >Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 11:46 PM >Subject: Now we are having polite discourse! > > > > First, the good news for Dave is your suspension is over. > > > > Mark, I amnot saying a cost estimate is not esential and a budget, but >this > > economic analysis is ridiculous. I did a detailed cost estimate to >repair > > 90,000 feet of old deteriorating pipe. Now I have to justify, via >economic > > analysis goofy other options such as using sea water, fixing patches. >But >I > > shall do them. > > > > Mark, your points are very good but again an old argument, and one I do >not > > have the full answer to. But belief in Jesus has more merit than belief >n > > Leprachans since thousands who claimed to have seen the resurrected >Jesus > > chose a brutal death rather than renounce His resurrection. > > > > God knows the mind of man, but man cannot know the mind of God. God can >set > > the parameters, but man can screw them up. Look at how the ancient Jews > > made God mad. He could set the stage, but man with free will can turn > > against God's will. Therefore, God does not control all of man's >emotions > > and actions. There is another element working here, evil. That is > > controlled by the fallen angel. > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > > > >Subject: Re: God/Fore knowledge/Free Will/ Economic Analysis > > >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:39:23 -0600 > > > > > >Bill Morgan you wrote: > > > > > >"By no means am I dismissing your point as a one that is trivial, weak >or > > >illogical, but we have taken it as far as it can go without rendering >upon > > >each other constant repetition. > > > > > >"Your point of foreknowledge and free will has been debated for 2000 >years. > > >I debate it myself in my mind. And I have provided my best >explanation. > > >The Bible tells us God gives us free will, yet it tells us God knows >the > > >future." > > > > > >What I have been saying is that God may be all-knowing and individual > > >freewill may exist, but those two properties cannot exist together. >The > > >two > > >contradict each other. > > > > > >"Does god know a mosquito will land on Jim Smith on August 26 2034 and >Jim > > >will swat at it and miss? Yes, in my opinion yes. Does God spend his > > >precious time directing that mosquito to poor ol Jim, I think not." > > > > > >This is an interesting point -- one that I will return to after the > > >following three paragraphs. > > > > > >If a person were to take a hoola-hoop and spin it around, it would >trace > > >out > > >a three dimensional solid, a donut, if held properly. If we look at >the > > >spinning hoola-hoop under a strobe light, we might just see the person > > >spinning and also see the hoola-hoop at different moments in time. >They > > >would appear as isolated snapshots. However, if we imagine the spinner > > >going fast enough without a strobe light, it would be easy to see the >donut > > >formed by the spinning hoola-hoop over time. > > > > > >This is a perfect analogy of how we see the Universe. We see snapshots >of > > >the hoola-hoop -- cross-sections of the hool-hoop in time. However, if > > >time > > >is removed from the vision, we see a donut -- all the cross-sections >put > > >together. Now if there is an all-knowing God, this is how God must see >the > > >Universe. He must see it this way if he is all-knowing and outside of > > >time. > > >He must know exactly what the Universe looks like from start to finish >-- > > >if > > >there is a start and a finish. To him, the Universe must look like a > > >solid. > > >He must see the totality of movements and events through time. > > > > > >So, when (if) God created the Universe, he must have known exactly what >it > > >was going to look like before he ever created it. More interestingly, >he > > >knew the exact outcome of his own actions before he acted upon them >because > > >he is all-knowing. So he created a fixed Universe -- one where the > > >conclusions of each of our lives was known before it was created. This > > >means that he created kids who would fall ill to cancer. He created >men > > >and > > >women who would inevitably sin and be sent to Hell. God knew the > > >consequences of his own actions and sentenced people to live out their > > >lives > > >with only the appearance of freewill. He knew the consequences of his >own > > >actions before he did them. > > > > > >So to return to your mosquito story, God must have created the Universe > > >knowing when that mosquito was going to land on 'Jim'. Why? He >created > > >the > > >Universe and knew it would turn out that way, which must mean that all >the > > >actions in the Universe are fixed, but to us appear to be random or >prone > > >to > > >our decisions. > > > > > >Since this runs opposite to a Christian God -- a Christian God would >not > > >intentionally force people to sin and consequently serve an eternity in > > >Hell -- we use backward logic to determine that one of our assumptions >must > > >be wrong. Either freewill does not exist or God is not all-knowing. >It's > > >your choice Bill. You choose. Which do you prefer? Which seems more > > >logical? Do we really have freewill or is God all-knowing? > > > > > >If you choose a lack of freewill, visit Eastern mysticism. In the East >it > > >is common to accept destiny. You'll also see why these people can also > > >swallow such a distinct class system, see India and untouchables. If >you > > >choose a God that is not all-knowing, you may as well worship many Gods > > >that > > >are limited in power as they are for Paganism, such as Greek Mythology. > > >Before you quickly dismiss Greek Mythology, see how the mythology >respects > > >women. Research Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom and War. There is no >equal > > >counterpart in the Christian Mythology. As a result, women are still > > >mistreated under Christian Mythology. > > > > > >We honestly know how this apparent contradiction between an all-knowing >God > > >and freewill came to happen. When Paganism was very popular, >Christians > > >wanted to out-do other faiths by claiming that their God was more >powerful, > > >more knowledgable than their Gods. So the Christians said their God >was > > >all-powerful, out-doing Pagan Gods. Christians said their God was > > >all-knowing, out-doing Pagan Gods. What Christians do not realize is >that > > >the more powers they ascribe to their God, individual freedoms will >become > > >less powerful and also contradictions will logically erupt to dismantle > > >their God. > > > > > >"An incident just happened here at work that parallels your fine >question > > >Mr.. Spam Buster. A co worker, George was panicked because the HQ >wants >an > > >economic analysis report for a huge project I am designing. George was > > >literally shaking and upset, saying: 'why do they want this, this makes >no > > >sense to me, why do bean counters get involved with engineering and >design, > > >I don't know what they re going to do with this.' > > > > > >"My reaction: 'when do they want it?' > > > > > >"You seek mark, my and your dealing with God is just like this economic > > >analysis. We can certainly try to figure teh thoughts and ways of God. > > >However, in the process of doing those thoughts we can either get stuck >in > > >neutral and cease all repsonses to the Word of God, the Bible and what >the > > >Bible instructs, or we can question, yet still proceed with the clear > > >directives of the Bible." > > > > > >I disagree with your interpretation and your conclusion. Since God was > > >created as a model for describing/understanding the Universe and our >roles > > >in it, we can ask better questions and learn from those answers so we >can > > >in > > >turn ask even better questions. We can choose to proceed with the > > >extremely > > >vague notions and contradictory notions that are written in the Bible, >but > > >many of us are not open to such mindless, automaton-like behavior. We >can > > >realize that The Bible is no more the word of God than the words >written >on > > >the side of our cereal boxes. We can choose to proceed intelligently >or >we > > >can choose to proceed ignorantly. It is our choice. [It is our choice >so > > >long as freewill is not just an illusion.] > > > > > >"In my designs as an engineer, I will spit out the economic analysis as > > >requested. Is the economic analysis logical? No. Is it necessary? >yes > > >because they are funding the work." > > > > > >Bill, your explanation/interpretation is not sound. Economic analysis >is >a > > >vital part of engineering since no engineer has an unlimited budget. >Ever > > >designer has to work within certain parameters, which is an excellent > > >analogy to life itself. What are our parameters? What are the >parameters > > >to the God we have created to explain the Universe? What are the >'rules' > > >to > > >the Universe? -- another question engineers must seek to answer as part >of > > >their trade. > > > > > >"Are Gods ways always logical to us? No." > > > > > >If the God model is inconsistent or no longer serves a purpose, a > > >revisitation of the parameters of the God model are in order. > > > > > >"Are they necessary? yes..." > > > > > >This is unclear. Were you asking if Gods are necessary or were you >asking > > >if Gods are mandated to act logically? > > > > > >"...he created you, every cell, every atom. Listen to him, he's >calling." > > > > > >You say these things as if you are certain that they are true, when you > > >know > > >for sure they are not absolutely certain. In all honesty Bill, you >must > > >admit that worshiping gremlins, leprechauns and fairies has equal >relevance > > >to worshipping the Christian God. The Christian God model is one model >in > > >a > > >sea of God models. What we should concern ourselves with is thinking > > >outside the box. Instead of eliminating religious intellectualism, >sincere > > >inquiry, and change within stagnant faiths that no longer serve the > > >purposes > > >of our peoples, we should examine the characters that our myths offer. >We > > >should study the influences of our faiths and the outcomes of our own > > >actions. > > > > > >"God Bless you!" > > > > > >May you open your mind and your heart and may they be in synch. > > > > > >Mark Liberator > > >The Liberator > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > > >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:50:57 -0600 > > > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > > > >"Again, I am trying, but failing to get you to acknowledge (but not > > >accept > > > >necessarily) that the future is known, but not set." > > > > > > > >If the future IS known then it must be set. This is the crux of the > > > >argument. If God knows exactly what is going to happen then we >cannot > > > >avoid > > > >no matter how hard we try. > > > > > > > >"If God 'set' it so someone would reject Him and then spend eternity >in > > >the > > > >Lake of Fire, that would make him unloving. Remember, God is love." > > > > > > > >It sounds like you are making the argument that freewill must exist. > > >Since > > > >an all-knowing God and individual freewill run at odds with one >another, > > >it > > > >sounds like you are choosing freewill instead of an all-knowing God. >A > > > >flawed God would therefore not purposefully doom someone by creating >a > > > >Universe where there is no choice. > > > > > > > >In short, if you want a God of love, this God is not all-knowing. >Now > > >you > > > >must accept that your God has limited knowledge. > > > > > > > >Run with that, Bill. > > > > > > > >Mark > > > >The Liberator > > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > > > >To: , , > > > > > >Subject: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > > > >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:47:20 -0600 > > > > > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > > > > > >"...my position [is that the future] is known by God, not set." > > > > > > > > > >You see, knowing what the future will bring indicates that the >future > > >IS > > > > >set. No matter what one does, a certain outcome will happen and >God > > > >knows > > > > >it. This demonstrates that the future is set and freewill does not > > > >exist. > > > > > > > > > >"But all we can know about God is what is revealed in the Bible and >by > > > >our > > > > >conscience (Romans chapter 1 and 2)." > > > > > > > > > >Just because the Bible says that it is so, doesn't mean it is so. > > > > > > > > > >"And the Bible says we choose. How can that be preplanned." > > > > > > > > > >That's the contradiction. The Bible says that God is all-knowing >yet > > >it > > > > >also says we have freewill. Both of these axioms cannot possibly >be > > > >true. > > > > >Therefore, the Bible contains at least one flaw -- a contradiction >-- > > > > >making > > > > >it less than perfect, which further demonstrates that the word of >God > > >is > > > > >not > > > > >sound. > > > > > > > > > >Mark > > > > >The Liberator > > > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (rly-yh01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.33]) by air-yh03.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 23:05:22 -0500 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 23:04:57 -0500 Received: from oemcomputer (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0944p157384; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:04:51 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <001101c079f1$af6cdb80$052a03c7@oemcomputer> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , , References: Subject: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:07:28 -0600 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: Myth Conceptions Date: 01/08/2001 20:36:48 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill B), DWise1@aol.com Bill Morgan , you wrote: "And you accuse me of knowing God. It sounds like you know him better than I do. Thats great. Which verses do you base this conclusion on?" As I have repeatedly explained to you, based on the logical contradiction that occurs from assuming the existence of an all-knowing God and individual freewill, one or both of those axioms must be wrong. This means that either God is not all-knowing (making God a flawed entity) or individual freewill does not exist (making sin a meaningless concept) or God is not all-knowing AND individual freewill does not exist. "Has anyone died for a leprachan?" If I spun a story which stated that people did willingly die for leprechauns, would this motivate you to worship cute little, Lucky Charms-eating, pot-of-gold-protecting, Irish midgets? If you say 'yes' then we should stop communicating entirely for obvious reasons. "I read the book of Isaiah please read isaiah chapter 55 with emphasis on verse 8 [to know what God's abilities are]." For an engineer, Bill, your 'logic' is strange. You believe that you know God's abilities and base that knowledge on what is written in the Bible. You claim that God wrote the Bible. So, you are using a Bible to justify the existence of God, which is used to justify the validity of the Bible, which is in turn used to justify God. This is a very small tautology. "...ever see kids play tag and just before one gets tagged they scream 'TIME OUT'? That is what iIthought of when you claimed waste of time when I pointed out the wandering Israelites and Gods frustration with them." If you think that I'm going to hunt down Bible verses as a means for justifying your Christian God, you fail to see my point. Unless you can prove that God exists and then created a book called The Bible, I cannot view the Bible as anything other than a geopolitical tool used to modify behavior. You are making the unsupported claim that the Bible is something miraculous, so the burden of proof rests with you to convince me that it is so. "Like eatinga smorgasborg? Thats cool. Which portions offered by the Bible do you see as a seed of truth and which are not?" The Bible is a manmade book. I assume this is true because of Okham's Razor -- it's the simplist reason and most likely truthful. It was created to guide people to certain sets of behavior. Therefore, it is not meant to be taken literally because the authors used artistic freedom to driver these points home. It is as truthful as any other myth. "Is there such athing as evil Mark?" Main Entry: 1evil Pronunciation: 'E-v&l, British often & US also 'E-(")vil Function: adjective Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler; evil·est or evil·lest Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil Date: before 12th century 1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct 2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE c : DISAGREEABLE 3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY - evil adverb, archaic - evil·ly /-(l)E/ adverb - evil·ness /-n&s/ noun I can accept definitions 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a and 3b. Bill, since I answered one of your questions, answer one of mine: 'Is there any logic to faith?' Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-za04.mx.aol.com (rly-za04.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.100]) by air-za04.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 23:36:48 -0500 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-za04.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 23:36:07 -0500 Received: from oemcomputer (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f094a3160278; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:36:03 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <003101c079f6$0b459880$052a03c7@oemcomputer> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , "Bill B" , References: Subject: Re: Myth Conceptions Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:38:40 -0600 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 f094a3160278 ################################################ Subj: Creation Science Meeting this Saturday! Date: 01/09/2001 20:04:30 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack321@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) Next Month's Meeting: Dr Joseph Mastropaolo will speak on: “Learning Evolution Terminology and How to Respond” When: Saturday January 13, 2001 @ 7 PM Where: Santa Ana Calvary Church, 1010 N Tustin, Samsvick Chapel (look for the Big White Steeple) Room S7. (Park in the North Parking Lot off of Wellington Street) Dr. Mastropaolo has earned his Ph.D. from the University of Iowa in Biomechanics, and taught that subject at Cal State Long Beach and ICR. Dr. Mastropaolo will teach you some terms evolutionists frequently use, tell you what they mean and the flaws in their reasoning. He comes very highly recommended. Dr. Mastropaolo will also share his incredible testimony. His is just one story of more and more Ph.D.’s becoming young earth Creationists. You must hear it! QUICK ANSWERS TO TOUGH QUESTIONS SKEPTICS ASK Last month I had to fill in at the last minute due to a scheduling conflict with the speaker. I gave a lesson I have recently been giving. My goal is to share with your quick answers to tough questions you may be asked as you witness. Listed below are the questions. To get maximum benefit, I request you get a pen and paper and try to answer these questions before checking the answers. Answer quickly! Provide just a few words for each answer. First some quick questions on witnessing. 1. How can you become a better witnesser for Christ? 2. When you witness what is more important than knowledge? 3. Who was the best witnesser of all time? 4. How did the best witnesser witness? 5. Beside your brain, what is the most important part of your head when you witness? 6. List some reasons why people are atheists. HERE ARE TOUGH QUESTIONS FROM SKEPTICS 7. Why do you believe in God? 8. Why don’t you think God used Evolution? 9. Why do you believe the Bible is from God and not from people. 10. Why do you believe Christianity is true? 11. Is Christianity the only way to heaven? 12. What about some person in the middle of Africa who never heard of God, Jesus or the Bible….what about him? 13. Who made God? 14. Were dinosaurs on the ark? 15. How could they and all of those other animals have fit? 16. Who did Cain marry? 17. Was Adam a real person? Or symbolic? SUGGESTED ANSWERS 1. Practice! Many people read books their whole life and never talk to skeptics. That is how you get better, be bold! 2. Love. Do not mock, insult or fight. The goal is to share truth, not win an argument and get them mad at you. 3 & 4. Jesus and he witnessed by asking questions! I like to ask people:” what is your opinion on Creation vs. Evolution?” And: “Why do you believe that?” 5. Your ears! Do 80% listening and 20% talking. It is loving and you learn where they are coming from. 6. People are not athiests for logic or science reasons. People are atheists for many other reasons: they want to sin; too proud to be humble to superior intelligence; they are mad at God for a death or illness; peer pressure (they think that’s what smart people believe). 7. Creation! The Universe is designed, not the result of chance. 8. The Bible doesn’t teach it, and science does not show it. 9. Three quick reasons. First, agree with the skeptic the Bible was written a long time ago. Then do some simple tests. (1) The Bible says the Universe had a beginning, back then, that was not known, wise men thought the Universe was eternal; today scientists agree the Universe is not eternal, it had a beginning. (2) The Bible said a long time ago there was a global flood. Today we see billions of fossils buried under sedimentary rock showing the entire earth did have flooding, even the highest mountains have sea life fossils, sea shells and sedimentary rock!; (3) Revelation states a one world Government will be a reality, back then that was crazy, but it is occurring! 10. The world dates the calendar by Christ’s resurrection. Christian nations appear greatly blessed, changed lives, and Bible’s accuracy. 11 and 12. Tough question! God is just. This is asked a lot. As I understand Romans 2:14-16, you are accountable to what you have heard. Reject Christ, you are in trouble. Never heard of Christ? Read Romans 2. 13. God created time, thus is independent of time and is eternal thus not made. 14 & 15. Of course. Baby dinosaurs are smaller. I think all the animals on the ark were young and small. 16. His sister. Genesis 5:4 states Adam and Eve had sons and daughters. 17. Do symbolic people die and have an age assigned to them? Genesis 5:5 says Adam was 930 when he died. Adam was a real person according to God’s Word. Call me at 714 898-8331 if you would like a free lesson. We are witnessing on college campuses! Come join us and meet some great people. Call me at 714 898-8331 if you want to join us. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xa04.mx.aol.com (rly-xa04.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.73]) by air-xa01.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 23:04:30 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f119.law6.hotmail.com [216.32.241.119]) by rly-xa04.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 23:04:03 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:04:02 -0800 Received: from 64.12.104.28 by lw6fd.law6.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:04:00 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.12.104.28] From: "Bill Morgan" Subject: Creation Science Meeting this Saturday! Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:04:00 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowedMessage-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2001 04:04:02.0094 (UTC) FILETIME=[5DB3BCE0:01C07ABA] ################################################ Subj: Eats; everyone gotta eats Date: 01/13/2001 20:25:58 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: spambuster@gigagod.com, BillBeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com Here is the offer, you get out here and I buy the meal. I know some fine denizons of eats. >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > >Subject: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! >Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:07:28 -0600 > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"Thanks Bill. It is good to hear your unbiased impartial opinion now and >then!" > >Bill M., don't insult yourself. You know as well as I do that everyone is >biased. Saying otherwise indicates that you're either ignorant or >deceptive. > >"Mark is raising a good question, and I wish he lived in California because >we could discuss the mening of life over a filet mignon, broiled >mushroon\ms, mashed potatoes and gravya nd french onion soup." > >If you guys are willing to put all of this lip-service into action by >paying >for my planefair, I'l gladly have dinner with you. Since it is doubtful >that either of you are willing to follow through with that plan, the >likelihood of me shelling out the money for me to buy my own ticket is zero >and therefore we will never eat a meal together. > >= ) > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >From: "Bill" > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > >Subject: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! > >Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:22:35 -0800 > > > >Well Bill I have listened to you go over the cost estimate explanation. > >Once again your humble approach before man and God is awe inspiring. I >am > >proud of you brother! I think the key here is the fact that man alone >can > >not decide the ways of the world in a sinless way. Only through faith in > >Jesus Christ can one avert sin and become humble before the Lord. > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Bill Morgan" > >To: ; ; > >Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 11:46 PM > >Subject: Now we are having polite discourse! > > > > > > > First, the good news for Dave is your suspension is over. > > > > > > Mark, I amnot saying a cost estimate is not esential and a budget, but > >this > > > economic analysis is ridiculous. I did a detailed cost estimate to > >repair > > > 90,000 feet of old deteriorating pipe. Now I have to justify, via > >economic > > > analysis goofy other options such as using sea water, fixing patches. > >But > >I > > > shall do them. > > > > > > Mark, your points are very good but again an old argument, and one I >do > >not > > > have the full answer to. But belief in Jesus has more merit than >belief > >n > > > Leprachans since thousands who claimed to have seen the resurrected > >Jesus > > > chose a brutal death rather than renounce His resurrection. > > > > > > God knows the mind of man, but man cannot know the mind of God. God >can > >set > > > the parameters, but man can screw them up. Look at how the ancient >Jews > > > made God mad. He could set the stage, but man with free will can turn > > > against God's will. Therefore, God does not control all of man's > >emotions > > > and actions. There is another element working here, evil. That is > > > controlled by the fallen angel. > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: God/Fore knowledge/Free Will/ Economic Analysis > > > >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:39:23 -0600 > > > > > > > >Bill Morgan you wrote: > > > > > > > >"By no means am I dismissing your point as a one that is trivial, >weak > >or > > > >illogical, but we have taken it as far as it can go without rendering > >upon > > > >each other constant repetition. > > > > > > > >"Your point of foreknowledge and free will has been debated for 2000 > >years. > > > >I debate it myself in my mind. And I have provided my best > >explanation. > > > >The Bible tells us God gives us free will, yet it tells us God knows > >the > > > >future." > > > > > > > >What I have been saying is that God may be all-knowing and individual > > > >freewill may exist, but those two properties cannot exist together. > >The > > > >two > > > >contradict each other. > > > > > > > >"Does god know a mosquito will land on Jim Smith on August 26 2034 >and > >Jim > > > >will swat at it and miss? Yes, in my opinion yes. Does God spend >his > > > >precious time directing that mosquito to poor ol Jim, I think not." > > > > > > > >This is an interesting point -- one that I will return to after the > > > >following three paragraphs. > > > > > > > >If a person were to take a hoola-hoop and spin it around, it would > >trace > > > >out > > > >a three dimensional solid, a donut, if held properly. If we look at > >the > > > >spinning hoola-hoop under a strobe light, we might just see the >person > > > >spinning and also see the hoola-hoop at different moments in time. > >They > > > >would appear as isolated snapshots. However, if we imagine the >spinner > > > >going fast enough without a strobe light, it would be easy to see the > >donut > > > >formed by the spinning hoola-hoop over time. > > > > > > > >This is a perfect analogy of how we see the Universe. We see >snapshots > >of > > > >the hoola-hoop -- cross-sections of the hool-hoop in time. However, >if > > > >time > > > >is removed from the vision, we see a donut -- all the cross-sections > >put > > > >together. Now if there is an all-knowing God, this is how God must >see > >the > > > >Universe. He must see it this way if he is all-knowing and outside >of > > > >time. > > > >He must know exactly what the Universe looks like from start to >finish > >-- > > > >if > > > >there is a start and a finish. To him, the Universe must look like a > > > >solid. > > > >He must see the totality of movements and events through time. > > > > > > > >So, when (if) God created the Universe, he must have known exactly >what > >it > > > >was going to look like before he ever created it. More >interestingly, > >he > > > >knew the exact outcome of his own actions before he acted upon them > >because > > > >he is all-knowing. So he created a fixed Universe -- one where the > > > >conclusions of each of our lives was known before it was created. >This > > > >means that he created kids who would fall ill to cancer. He created > >men > > > >and > > > >women who would inevitably sin and be sent to Hell. God knew the > > > >consequences of his own actions and sentenced people to live out >their > > > >lives > > > >with only the appearance of freewill. He knew the consequences of >his > >own > > > >actions before he did them. > > > > > > > >So to return to your mosquito story, God must have created the >Universe > > > >knowing when that mosquito was going to land on 'Jim'. Why? He > >created > > > >the > > > >Universe and knew it would turn out that way, which must mean that >all > >the > > > >actions in the Universe are fixed, but to us appear to be random or > >prone > > > >to > > > >our decisions. > > > > > > > >Since this runs opposite to a Christian God -- a Christian God would > >not > > > >intentionally force people to sin and consequently serve an eternity >in > > > >Hell -- we use backward logic to determine that one of our >assumptions > >must > > > >be wrong. Either freewill does not exist or God is not all-knowing. > >It's > > > >your choice Bill. You choose. Which do you prefer? Which seems >more > > > >logical? Do we really have freewill or is God all-knowing? > > > > > > > >If you choose a lack of freewill, visit Eastern mysticism. In the >East > >it > > > >is common to accept destiny. You'll also see why these people can >also > > > >swallow such a distinct class system, see India and untouchables. If > >you > > > >choose a God that is not all-knowing, you may as well worship many >Gods > > > >that > > > >are limited in power as they are for Paganism, such as Greek >Mythology. > > > >Before you quickly dismiss Greek Mythology, see how the mythology > >respects > > > >women. Research Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom and War. There is no > >equal > > > >counterpart in the Christian Mythology. As a result, women are still > > > >mistreated under Christian Mythology. > > > > > > > >We honestly know how this apparent contradiction between an >all-knowing > >God > > > >and freewill came to happen. When Paganism was very popular, > >Christians > > > >wanted to out-do other faiths by claiming that their God was more > >powerful, > > > >more knowledgable than their Gods. So the Christians said their God > >was > > > >all-powerful, out-doing Pagan Gods. Christians said their God was > > > >all-knowing, out-doing Pagan Gods. What Christians do not realize is > >that > > > >the more powers they ascribe to their God, individual freedoms will > >become > > > >less powerful and also contradictions will logically erupt to >dismantle > > > >their God. > > > > > > > >"An incident just happened here at work that parallels your fine > >question > > > >Mr.. Spam Buster. A co worker, George was panicked because the HQ > >wants > >an > > > >economic analysis report for a huge project I am designing. George >was > > > >literally shaking and upset, saying: 'why do they want this, this >makes > >no > > > >sense to me, why do bean counters get involved with engineering and > >design, > > > >I don't know what they re going to do with this.' > > > > > > > >"My reaction: 'when do they want it?' > > > > > > > >"You seek mark, my and your dealing with God is just like this >economic > > > >analysis. We can certainly try to figure teh thoughts and ways of >God. > > > >However, in the process of doing those thoughts we can either get >stuck > >in > > > >neutral and cease all repsonses to the Word of God, the Bible and >what > >the > > > >Bible instructs, or we can question, yet still proceed with the clear > > > >directives of the Bible." > > > > > > > >I disagree with your interpretation and your conclusion. Since God >was > > > >created as a model for describing/understanding the Universe and our > >roles > > > >in it, we can ask better questions and learn from those answers so we > >can > > > >in > > > >turn ask even better questions. We can choose to proceed with the > > > >extremely > > > >vague notions and contradictory notions that are written in the >Bible, > >but > > > >many of us are not open to such mindless, automaton-like behavior. >We > >can > > > >realize that The Bible is no more the word of God than the words > >written > >on > > > >the side of our cereal boxes. We can choose to proceed intelligently > >or > >we > > > >can choose to proceed ignorantly. It is our choice. [It is our >choice > >so > > > >long as freewill is not just an illusion.] > > > > > > > >"In my designs as an engineer, I will spit out the economic analysis >as > > > >requested. Is the economic analysis logical? No. Is it necessary? > >yes > > > >because they are funding the work." > > > > > > > >Bill, your explanation/interpretation is not sound. Economic >analysis > >is > >a > > > >vital part of engineering since no engineer has an unlimited budget. > >Ever > > > >designer has to work within certain parameters, which is an excellent > > > >analogy to life itself. What are our parameters? What are the > >parameters > > > >to the God we have created to explain the Universe? What are the > >'rules' > > > >to > > > >the Universe? -- another question engineers must seek to answer as >part > >of > > > >their trade. > > > > > > > >"Are Gods ways always logical to us? No." > > > > > > > >If the God model is inconsistent or no longer serves a purpose, a > > > >revisitation of the parameters of the God model are in order. > > > > > > > >"Are they necessary? yes..." > > > > > > > >This is unclear. Were you asking if Gods are necessary or were you > >asking > > > >if Gods are mandated to act logically? > > > > > > > >"...he created you, every cell, every atom. Listen to him, he's > >calling." > > > > > > > >You say these things as if you are certain that they are true, when >you > > > >know > > > >for sure they are not absolutely certain. In all honesty Bill, you > >must > > > >admit that worshiping gremlins, leprechauns and fairies has equal > >relevance > > > >to worshipping the Christian God. The Christian God model is one >model > >in > > > >a > > > >sea of God models. What we should concern ourselves with is thinking > > > >outside the box. Instead of eliminating religious intellectualism, > >sincere > > > >inquiry, and change within stagnant faiths that no longer serve the > > > >purposes > > > >of our peoples, we should examine the characters that our myths >offer. > > >We > > > >should study the influences of our faiths and the outcomes of our own > > > >actions. > > > > > > > >"God Bless you!" > > > > > > > >May you open your mind and your heart and may they be in synch. > > > > > > > >Mark Liberator > > > >The Liberator > > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > > > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > > > >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:50:57 -0600 > > > > > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > > > > > >"Again, I am trying, but failing to get you to acknowledge (but not > > > >accept > > > > >necessarily) that the future is known, but not set." > > > > > > > > > >If the future IS known then it must be set. This is the crux of >the > > > > >argument. If God knows exactly what is going to happen then we > >cannot > > > > >avoid > > > > >no matter how hard we try. > > > > > > > > > >"If God 'set' it so someone would reject Him and then spend >eternity > >in > > > >the > > > > >Lake of Fire, that would make him unloving. Remember, God is >love." > > > > > > > > > >It sounds like you are making the argument that freewill must >exist. > > > >Since > > > > >an all-knowing God and individual freewill run at odds with one > >another, > > > >it > > > > >sounds like you are choosing freewill instead of an all-knowing >God. > >A > > > > >flawed God would therefore not purposefully doom someone by >creating > >a > > > > >Universe where there is no choice. > > > > > > > > > >In short, if you want a God of love, this God is not all-knowing. > >Now > > > >you > > > > >must accept that your God has limited knowledge. > > > > > > > > > >Run with that, Bill. > > > > > > > > > >Mark > > > > >The Liberator > > > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > > > > >To: , , > > > > > > > >Subject: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > > > > >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:47:20 -0600 > > > > > > > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >"...my position [is that the future] is known by God, not set." > > > > > > > > > > > >You see, knowing what the future will bring indicates that the > >future > > > >IS > > > > > >set. No matter what one does, a certain outcome will happen and > >God > > > > >knows > > > > > >it. This demonstrates that the future is set and freewill does >not > > > > >exist. > > > > > > > > > > > >"But all we can know about God is what is revealed in the Bible >and > >by > > > > >our > > > > > >conscience (Romans chapter 1 and 2)." > > > > > > > > > > > >Just because the Bible says that it is so, doesn't mean it is so. > > > > > > > > > > > >"And the Bible says we choose. How can that be preplanned." > > > > > > > > > > > >That's the contradiction. The Bible says that God is all-knowing > >yet > > > >it > > > > > >also says we have freewill. Both of these axioms cannot possibly > >be > > > > >true. > > > > > >Therefore, the Bible contains at least one flaw -- a >contradiction > >-- > > > > > >making > > > > > >it less than perfect, which further demonstrates that the word of > >God > > > >is > > > > > >not > > > > > >sound. > > > > > > > > > > > >Mark > > > > > >The Liberator > > > > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xb02.mx.aol.com (rly-xb02.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.103]) by air-xb02.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 23:25:58 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f95.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.95]) by rly-xb02.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 23:25:45 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:25:44 -0800 Received: from 64.12.103.174 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:25:44 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.12.103.174] From: "Bill Morgan" To: spambuster@gigagod.com, BillBeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com Subject: Eats; everyone gotta eats Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:25:44 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2001 04:25:44.0621 (UTC) FILETIME=[0FB895D0:01C07DE2] ################################################ Subj: Re: Eats; everyone gotta eats Date: 01/13/2001 20:28:19 Pacific Standard Time From: BillBeq@mediaone.net (Bill) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com I was thinking some grits and greens at a hole in the wall in Riverside in 120 Degree weather with 100 % humidity = ) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Morgan" To: ; ; Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 4:25 AM Subject: Eats; everyone gotta eats > Here is the offer, you get out here and I buy the meal. I know some fine > denizons of eats. > > > >From: "Mark" > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > >Subject: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! > >Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:07:28 -0600 > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > >"Thanks Bill. It is good to hear your unbiased impartial opinion now and > >then!" > > > >Bill M., don't insult yourself. You know as well as I do that everyone is > >biased. Saying otherwise indicates that you're either ignorant or > >deceptive. > > > >"Mark is raising a good question, and I wish he lived in California because > >we could discuss the mening of life over a filet mignon, broiled > >mushroon\ms, mashed potatoes and gravya nd french onion soup." > > > >If you guys are willing to put all of this lip-service into action by > >paying > >for my planefair, I'l gladly have dinner with you. Since it is doubtful > >that either of you are willing to follow through with that plan, the > >likelihood of me shelling out the money for me to buy my own ticket is zero > >and therefore we will never eat a meal together. > > > >= ) > > > >Mark > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > >From: "Bill" > > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > > > >Subject: Re: Now we are having polite discourse! > > >Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 17:22:35 -0800 > > > > > >Well Bill I have listened to you go over the cost estimate explanation. > > >Once again your humble approach before man and God is awe inspiring. I > >am > > >proud of you brother! I think the key here is the fact that man alone > >can > > >not decide the ways of the world in a sinless way. Only through faith in > > >Jesus Christ can one avert sin and become humble before the Lord. > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: "Bill Morgan" > > >To: ; ; > > >Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 11:46 PM > > >Subject: Now we are having polite discourse! > > > > > > > > > > First, the good news for Dave is your suspension is over. > > > > > > > > Mark, I amnot saying a cost estimate is not esential and a budget, but > > >this > > > > economic analysis is ridiculous. I did a detailed cost estimate to > > >repair > > > > 90,000 feet of old deteriorating pipe. Now I have to justify, via > > >economic > > > > analysis goofy other options such as using sea water, fixing patches. > > >But > > >I > > > > shall do them. > > > > > > > > Mark, your points are very good but again an old argument, and one I > >do > > >not > > > > have the full answer to. But belief in Jesus has more merit than > >belief > > >n > > > > Leprachans since thousands who claimed to have seen the resurrected > > >Jesus > > > > chose a brutal death rather than renounce His resurrection. > > > > > > > > God knows the mind of man, but man cannot know the mind of God. God > >can > > >set > > > > the parameters, but man can screw them up. Look at how the ancient > >Jews > > > > made God mad. He could set the stage, but man with free will can turn > > > > against God's will. Therefore, God does not control all of man's > > >emotions > > > > and actions. There is another element working here, evil. That is > > > > controlled by the fallen angel. > > > > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > > > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: God/Fore knowledge/Free Will/ Economic Analysis > > > > >Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 15:39:23 -0600 > > > > > > > > > >Bill Morgan you wrote: > > > > > > > > > >"By no means am I dismissing your point as a one that is trivial, > >weak > > >or > > > > >illogical, but we have taken it as far as it can go without rendering > > >upon > > > > >each other constant repetition. > > > > > > > > > >"Your point of foreknowledge and free will has been debated for 2000 > > >years. > > > > >I debate it myself in my mind. And I have provided my best > > >explanation. > > > > >The Bible tells us God gives us free will, yet it tells us God knows > > >the > > > > >future." > > > > > > > > > >What I have been saying is that God may be all-knowing and individual > > > > >freewill may exist, but those two properties cannot exist together. > > >The > > > > >two > > > > >contradict each other. > > > > > > > > > >"Does god know a mosquito will land on Jim Smith on August 26 2034 > >and > > >Jim > > > > >will swat at it and miss? Yes, in my opinion yes. Does God spend > >his > > > > >precious time directing that mosquito to poor ol Jim, I think not." > > > > > > > > > >This is an interesting point -- one that I will return to after the > > > > >following three paragraphs. > > > > > > > > > >If a person were to take a hoola-hoop and spin it around, it would > > >trace > > > > >out > > > > >a three dimensional solid, a donut, if held properly. If we look at > > >the > > > > >spinning hoola-hoop under a strobe light, we might just see the > >person > > > > >spinning and also see the hoola-hoop at different moments in time. > > >They > > > > >would appear as isolated snapshots. However, if we imagine the > >spinner > > > > >going fast enough without a strobe light, it would be easy to see the > > >donut > > > > >formed by the spinning hoola-hoop over time. > > > > > > > > > >This is a perfect analogy of how we see the Universe. We see > >snapshots > > >of > > > > >the hoola-hoop -- cross-sections of the hool-hoop in time. However, > >if > > > > >time > > > > >is removed from the vision, we see a donut -- all the cross-sections > > >put > > > > >together. Now if there is an all-knowing God, this is how God must > >see > > >the > > > > >Universe. He must see it this way if he is all-knowing and outside > >of > > > > >time. > > > > >He must know exactly what the Universe looks like from start to > >finish > > >-- > > > > >if > > > > >there is a start and a finish. To him, the Universe must look like a > > > > >solid. > > > > >He must see the totality of movements and events through time. > > > > > > > > > >So, when (if) God created the Universe, he must have known exactly > >what > > >it > > > > >was going to look like before he ever created it. More > >interestingly, > > >he > > > > >knew the exact outcome of his own actions before he acted upon them > > >because > > > > >he is all-knowing. So he created a fixed Universe -- one where the > > > > >conclusions of each of our lives was known before it was created. > >This > > > > >means that he created kids who would fall ill to cancer. He created > > >men > > > > >and > > > > >women who would inevitably sin and be sent to Hell. God knew the > > > > >consequences of his own actions and sentenced people to live out > >their > > > > >lives > > > > >with only the appearance of freewill. He knew the consequences of > >his > > >own > > > > >actions before he did them. > > > > > > > > > >So to return to your mosquito story, God must have created the > >Universe > > > > >knowing when that mosquito was going to land on 'Jim'. Why? He > > >created > > > > >the > > > > >Universe and knew it would turn out that way, which must mean that > >all > > >the > > > > >actions in the Universe are fixed, but to us appear to be random or > > >prone > > > > >to > > > > >our decisions. > > > > > > > > > >Since this runs opposite to a Christian God -- a Christian God would > > >not > > > > >intentionally force people to sin and consequently serve an eternity > >in > > > > >Hell -- we use backward logic to determine that one of our > >assumptions > > >must > > > > >be wrong. Either freewill does not exist or God is not all-knowing. > > >It's > > > > >your choice Bill. You choose. Which do you prefer? Which seems > >more > > > > >logical? Do we really have freewill or is God all-knowing? > > > > > > > > > >If you choose a lack of freewill, visit Eastern mysticism. In the > >East > > >it > > > > >is common to accept destiny. You'll also see why these people can > >also > > > > >swallow such a distinct class system, see India and untouchables. If > > >you > > > > >choose a God that is not all-knowing, you may as well worship many > >Gods > > > > >that > > > > >are limited in power as they are for Paganism, such as Greek > >Mythology. > > > > >Before you quickly dismiss Greek Mythology, see how the mythology > > >respects > > > > >women. Research Athena, the Goddess of Wisdom and War. There is no > > >equal > > > > >counterpart in the Christian Mythology. As a result, women are still > > > > >mistreated under Christian Mythology. > > > > > > > > > >We honestly know how this apparent contradiction between an > >all-knowing > > >God > > > > >and freewill came to happen. When Paganism was very popular, > > >Christians > > > > >wanted to out-do other faiths by claiming that their God was more > > >powerful, > > > > >more knowledgable than their Gods. So the Christians said their God > > >was > > > > >all-powerful, out-doing Pagan Gods. Christians said their God was > > > > >all-knowing, out-doing Pagan Gods. What Christians do not realize is > > >that > > > > >the more powers they ascribe to their God, individual freedoms will > > >become > > > > >less powerful and also contradictions will logically erupt to > >dismantle > > > > >their God. > > > > > > > > > >"An incident just happened here at work that parallels your fine > > >question > > > > >Mr.. Spam Buster. A co worker, George was panicked because the HQ > > >wants > > >an > > > > >economic analysis report for a huge project I am designing. George > >was > > > > >literally shaking and upset, saying: 'why do they want this, this > >makes > > >no > > > > >sense to me, why do bean counters get involved with engineering and > > >design, > > > > >I don't know what they re going to do with this.' > > > > > > > > > >"My reaction: 'when do they want it?' > > > > > > > > > >"You seek mark, my and your dealing with God is just like this > >economic > > > > >analysis. We can certainly try to figure teh thoughts and ways of > >God. > > > > >However, in the process of doing those thoughts we can either get > >stuck > > >in > > > > >neutral and cease all repsonses to the Word of God, the Bible and > >what > > >the > > > > >Bible instructs, or we can question, yet still proceed with the clear > > > > >directives of the Bible." > > > > > > > > > >I disagree with your interpretation and your conclusion. Since God > >was > > > > >created as a model for describing/understanding the Universe and our > > >roles > > > > >in it, we can ask better questions and learn from those answers so we > > >can > > > > >in > > > > >turn ask even better questions. We can choose to proceed with the > > > > >extremely > > > > >vague notions and contradictory notions that are written in the > >Bible, > > >but > > > > >many of us are not open to such mindless, automaton-like behavior. > >We > > >can > > > > >realize that The Bible is no more the word of God than the words > > >written > > >on > > > > >the side of our cereal boxes. We can choose to proceed intelligently > > >or > > >we > > > > >can choose to proceed ignorantly. It is our choice. [It is our > >choice > > >so > > > > >long as freewill is not just an illusion.] > > > > > > > > > >"In my designs as an engineer, I will spit out the economic analysis > >as > > > > >requested. Is the economic analysis logical? No. Is it necessary? > > >yes > > > > >because they are funding the work." > > > > > > > > > >Bill, your explanation/interpretation is not sound. Economic > >analysis > > >is > > >a > > > > >vital part of engineering since no engineer has an unlimited budget. > > >Ever > > > > >designer has to work within certain parameters, which is an excellent > > > > >analogy to life itself. What are our parameters? What are the > > >parameters > > > > >to the God we have created to explain the Universe? What are the > > >'rules' > > > > >to > > > > >the Universe? -- another question engineers must seek to answer as > >part > > >of > > > > >their trade. > > > > > > > > > >"Are Gods ways always logical to us? No." > > > > > > > > > >If the God model is inconsistent or no longer serves a purpose, a > > > > >revisitation of the parameters of the God model are in order. > > > > > > > > > >"Are they necessary? yes..." > > > > > > > > > >This is unclear. Were you asking if Gods are necessary or were you > > >asking > > > > >if Gods are mandated to act logically? > > > > > > > > > >"...he created you, every cell, every atom. Listen to him, he's > > >calling." > > > > > > > > > >You say these things as if you are certain that they are true, when > >you > > > > >know > > > > >for sure they are not absolutely certain. In all honesty Bill, you > > >must > > > > >admit that worshiping gremlins, leprechauns and fairies has equal > > >relevance > > > > >to worshipping the Christian God. The Christian God model is one > >model > > >in > > > > >a > > > > >sea of God models. What we should concern ourselves with is thinking > > > > >outside the box. Instead of eliminating religious intellectualism, > > >sincere > > > > >inquiry, and change within stagnant faiths that no longer serve the > > > > >purposes > > > > >of our peoples, we should examine the characters that our myths > >offer. > > > > >We > > > > >should study the influences of our faiths and the outcomes of our own > > > > >actions. > > > > > > > > > >"God Bless you!" > > > > > > > > > >May you open your mind and your heart and may they be in synch. > > > > > > > > > >Mark Liberator > > > > >The Liberator > > > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > > > > >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > > > > > > > > > > > >Subject: Re: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > > > > >Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:50:57 -0600 > > > > > > > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >"Again, I am trying, but failing to get you to acknowledge (but not > > > > >accept > > > > > >necessarily) that the future is known, but not set." > > > > > > > > > > > >If the future IS known then it must be set. This is the crux of > >the > > > > > >argument. If God knows exactly what is going to happen then we > > >cannot > > > > > >avoid > > > > > >no matter how hard we try. > > > > > > > > > > > >"If God 'set' it so someone would reject Him and then spend > >eternity > > >in > > > > >the > > > > > >Lake of Fire, that would make him unloving. Remember, God is > >love." > > > > > > > > > > > >It sounds like you are making the argument that freewill must > >exist. > > > > >Since > > > > > >an all-knowing God and individual freewill run at odds with one > > >another, > > > > >it > > > > > >sounds like you are choosing freewill instead of an all-knowing > >God. > > >A > > > > > >flawed God would therefore not purposefully doom someone by > >creating > > >a > > > > > >Universe where there is no choice. > > > > > > > > > > > >In short, if you want a God of love, this God is not all-knowing. > > >Now > > > > >you > > > > > >must accept that your God has limited knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > >Run with that, Bill. > > > > > > > > > > > >Mark > > > > > >The Liberator > > > > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Mark" > > > > > > >To: , , > > > > > > > > > >Subject: God cannot be all-knowing if freewill exists. > > > > > > >Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:47:20 -0600 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"...my position [is that the future] is known by God, not set." > > > > > > > > > > > > > >You see, knowing what the future will bring indicates that the > > >future > > > > >IS > > > > > > >set. No matter what one does, a certain outcome will happen and > > >God > > > > > >knows > > > > > > >it. This demonstrates that the future is set and freewill does > >not > > > > > >exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"But all we can know about God is what is revealed in the Bible > >and > > >by > > > > > >our > > > > > > >conscience (Romans chapter 1 and 2)." > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Just because the Bible says that it is so, doesn't mean it is so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >"And the Bible says we choose. How can that be preplanned." > > > > > > > > > > > > > >That's the contradiction. The Bible says that God is all-knowing > > >yet > > > > >it > > > > > > >also says we have freewill. Both of these axioms cannot possibly > > >be > > > > > >true. > > > > > > >Therefore, the Bible contains at least one flaw -- a > >contradiction > > >-- > > > > > > >making > > > > > > >it less than perfect, which further demonstrates that the word of > > >God > > > > >is > > > > > > >not > > > > > > >sound. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Mark > > > > > > >The Liberator > > > > > > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > > > > > > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > > > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > > > > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (rly-yg02.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.2]) by air-yg03.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 23:28:19 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 23:27:51 -0500 Received: from bb (we-24-130-112-49.we.mediaone.net [24.130.112.49]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA15019; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:27:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003801c07de3$26084be0$31708218@we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill" To: "Bill Morgan" , , References: Subject: Re: Eats; everyone gotta eats Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:33:30 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 ################################################ Subj: Re: Your Assignment is Due Date: 01/24/2001 10:30:33 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: "DWise1 spambuster"@gigagod.com All of you except Morgan please remove me from your email address books and please don't reply to me in any shape or form. Thanks! Bill B. ----- Original Message ----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: "DWise1 spambuster"@gigagod.com ; billbeq@mediaone.net Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 7:18 AM Subject: Your Assignment is Due Bill M, sorry I hadn't gotten with you sooner, but I have been extremely busy since early December. On 20 Dec 2000 I assigned to you the task of substantiating your accusations against me: >>Bill Morgan, you know what accusations you have made against me and you know on what dates you had made them and you have the ENTIRE transcript of our correspondence. Within the week (ie, by 27 Dec 2000), you will present to us the ACTUAL TEXT of the messages that I had sent that you claim to base your accusations on. You have no excuses.<< Unfortunately, immediately thereafter I became completely snowed under with several different projects and commitments, so I was unable to follow up on your assignment in a timely manner. Because of that, you had been granted by default an extra four weeks in which to complete your task, so you have had much more than enough time. OK, Bill M, now present your findings. Remember that you must present to us the ACTUAL TEXT of the messages that I had sent that you claim to base your accusations on. THE ACTUAL TEXT. Let us log this in as Request # 50. --------------------
All of you except Morgan please remove me from your email address books and please don't reply to me in any shape or form.
Thanks!
Bill B.
----- Original Message -----
From: DWise1@aol.com
To: billyjack1@hotmail.com
Cc: "DWise1 spambuster"@gigagod.com ; billbeq@mediaone.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 7:18 AM
Subject: Your Assignment is Due
Bill M, sorry I hadn't gotten with you sooner, but I have been extremely busy since early December. On 20 Dec 2000 I assigned to you the task of substantiating your accusations against me: <DWise1, "Re: 13 days left in the suspension", 12/20/2000 07:10:27 Pacific Standard Time> >>Bill Morgan, you know what accusations you have made against me and you know on what dates you had made them and you have the ENTIRE transcript of our correspondence.  Within the week (ie, by 27 Dec 2000), you will present to us the ACTUAL TEXT of the messages that I had sent that you claim to base your accusations on.  You have no excuses.<< Unfortunately, immediately thereafter I became completely snowed under with several different projects and commitments, so I was unable to follow up on your assignment in a timely manner.  Because of that, you had been granted by default an extra four weeks in which to complete your task, so you have had much more than enough time. OK, Bill M, now present your findings.  Remember that you must present to us the ACTUAL TEXT of the messages that I had sent that you claim to base your accusations on.  THE ACTUAL TEXT. Let us log this in as Request # 50.
----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-za02.mx.aol.com (rly-za02.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.98]) by air-za01.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:30:33 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-za02.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:29:38 -0500 Received: from gunsgalore (1Cust137.tnt33.lax3.da.uu.net [63.29.201.137]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA24234; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:29:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001b01c08633$1e8d3a80$89c91d3f@com> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: <"DWise1 spambuster"@gigagod.com> References: <87.5f8c1f1.27a04c5a@aol.com> Subject: Re: Your Assignment is Due Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:26:06 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0018_01C085F0.0FBA80A0" 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: Your Assignment is Due Date: 01/24/2001 11:55:10 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billbeq@mediaone.net CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, spambuster@gigagod.com CC: DWise1 As you wish, Bill B. As I said before, I have absolutely no idea why Bill Morgan had dragged you into this in the first place. It is too bad that your presence here had only made matters even worse. If you still wish to check in on what's happening in this issue from time to time, go to http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html for the message traffic, which I will continue to update (it is presently current up through the end of Dec 2000) and to http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/j_accuse.html for reports on the progress (or lack thereof) towards a resolution. ################################################ Subj: Re: Your Assignment is Due Date: 01/24/2001 11:58:32 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com Thank you. Goodbye forever. ----- Original Message ----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billbeq@mediaone.net Cc: billyjack1@hotmail.com ; spambuster@gigagod.com ; DWise1@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:55 AM Subject: Re: Your Assignment is Due As you wish, Bill B. As I said before, I have absolutely no idea why Bill Morgan had dragged you into this in the first place. It is too bad that your presence here had only made matters even worse. If you still wish to check in on what's happening in this issue from time to time, go to http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html for the message traffic, which I will continue to update (it is presently current up through the end of Dec 2000) and to http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/j_accuse.html for reports on the progress (or lack thereof) towards a resolution. --------------------
Thank you.  Goodbye forever.
----- Original Message -----
From: DWise1@aol.com
To: billbeq@mediaone.net
Cc: billyjack1@hotmail.com ; spambuster@gigagod.com ; DWise1@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Your Assignment is Due
As you wish, Bill B.  As I said before, I have absolutely no idea why Bill Morgan had dragged you into this in the first place.  It is too bad that your presence here had only made matters even worse. If you still wish to check in on what's happening in this issue from time to time, go to http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html for the message traffic, which I will continue to update (it is presently current up through the end of Dec 2000) and to http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/j_accuse.html for reports on the progress (or lack thereof) towards a resolution.
----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (rly-zb05.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.5]) by air-zb03.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:58:32 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:57:59 -0500 Received: from gunsgalore (1Cust137.tnt33.lax3.da.uu.net [63.29.201.137]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA13868; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:57:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005d01c0863f$7518e000$89c91d3f@com> From: "Bill Bequette" To: Cc: , , References: <9.10179e67.27a08d1e@aol.com> Subject: Re: Your Assignment is Due Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:54:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005A_01C085FC.6613CB80" 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: PEs Date: 01/24/2001 12:27:40 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1 When last we "spoke", you had just rescinded our partial resolution of your false accusation that I had somehow besmirched your professional reputation on my web site. I gave you a homework assignment to locate the offending text and to present it to us. Well, Bill M, you have had much more than enough time to do your homework. Show us EXACTLY where you claim that I had "slandered" you! Complete with URL and a copy of the ACTUAL TEXT! Or else admit that I had done no such thing, admit that you had just made it all up, and make a binding promise that you will never again make that accusation against me to ANYBODY, not even to yourself! So that you cannot conveniently overlook the question: you must now present to us the evidence for your accusation that I had "slandered" your professional reputation! Now! ################################################ Subj: Re: Eats; everyone gotta eats Date: 01/24/2001 18:20:58 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), BillBeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com Bill Morgan , you wrote: "Here is the offer, you get out here and I buy the meal. I know some fine denizons of eats." Like I said, unless you're willing to pay the airfare for me to visit your local, it isn't going to happen. = ) Mark ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (rly-yd02.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.2]) by air-yd02.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:20:58 -0500 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:20:39 -0500 Received: from oemcomputer (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0P2KX953578; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:20:34 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <010301c08675$c984e7c0$052a03c7@oemcomputer> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , , References: Subject: Re: Eats; everyone gotta eats Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:23:19 -0600 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: Eats; everyone gotta eats Date: 01/25/2001 22:31:45 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: spambuster@gigagod.com, BillBeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com Bill: By no means does this action condone all tatheists, but I am certain whent he Born again Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and when George W Bush leaves office, it was not trashed. The fruits of atheism is often selfishness. ___________________________________________________________________ WHITE HOUSE OFFICES LEFT 'TRASHED': PORN BOMBS, LEWD MESSAGES; LEGAL PROBE CONSIDERED **Exclusive Details** The Bush Administration has quietly launched an investigation into apparent acts of vandalism and destruction of federal property -- after incoming Bush staffers discover widespread sabotage of White House office equipment and lewd messages left behind by previous tenants! Harriet Miers, 55, Assistant to President Bush and staff secretary will be investigating possible legal ramifications of the White House trashing and possible theft, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. "Miers is just beginning her investigation," a well-place source said late Wednesday from Washington. "The level of the trashing is very troubling, this is not just 'W' keys missing from keyboards." The damage left by departing Clintonites goes "way beyond pranks, to vandalism", said a close Bush adviser. White House employees aren't waiting to be interviewed by Miers. They are providing names of the worst malefactors, previous occupants of specific offices. Photographic and audio evidence is being collected -- as the full scope of the damage becomes clear. Bush's staff has been cautioned not to go public with the extent of the damage and the worst is being closely held among very top staffers for fear of leaks. But, according to sources, so far Bush officials have found: *Phone lines were cut, rendering them inoperable. *Voice mail messages were changed to obscene, scatological greetings. One Bush staffer had his grandmother call from the Midwest. She was horrified by what she heard on the other end of the line. *Many phone lines misdirected to other government offices. *Desks found turned completely upside down and trash deliberately left everywhere. *Computer printers that were filled with blank paper but interspersed with pornographic pictures and obscene slogans that would be revealed only as items were run off the computer. *'W' keys weren't just pried off more than 40 keyboards, some were glued on with Superglue; some were turned upside down and glued on. *Filing cabinets glued shut. *VP Office space in the Old Executive Office Building found in complete shambles. Mrs. Gore had to phone Mrs. Cheney to apologize, first reported by Rich Galen's Mullings. *Lewd MagicMarker graffiti found on one office hallway. Separately, the WASHINGTON TIMES reported that Air Force One was "stripped bare" during the former president's "official" farewell flight to New York on Inaugural Day. All the plane's porcelain china, silverware, salt and pepper shakers, blankets and pillow cases - most of it bearing the presidential seal -- where taken by Clinton staff, a military steward told the paper. _____________________________________________________________________ >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > >Subject: Re: Eats; everyone gotta eats >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:23:19 -0600 > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"Here is the offer, you get out here and I buy the meal. I know some fine >denizons of eats." > >Like I said, unless you're willing to pay the airfare for me to visit your >local, it isn't going to happen. > >= ) > >Mark > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (rly-yd05.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.5]) by air-yd04.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:31:44 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f97.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.97]) by rly-yd05.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:31:19 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:31:18 -0800 Received: from 64.12.104.174 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 06:31:17 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.12.104.174] From: "Bill Morgan" To: spambuster@gigagod.com, BillBeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Eats; everyone gotta eats Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 06:31:17 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jan 2001 06:31:18.0058 (UTC) FILETIME=[96F4D8A0:01C08761] ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: 01/25/2001 22:40:38 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my requqest. >From: "Mark" >To: >CC: , , >Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:26:45 -0600 > >, you wrote: > >"Basically, what is the role of truth and truthfulness in Bill Morgan's >theology? Would his theology legitimize the use of lying and deceipt in >proselytizing? > >The question of 'lying for the Lord' is a perennial one throughout the >creation/evolution issue, not just in dealing with Bill Morgan. Yes, we >have both watched Bill M repeatedly dodge simple direct questions and >distort what others have said, but I have also observed that that is common >behavior among most creationists. Though I have occasionally encountered >an >honest creationist, but unfortunately they are rare." > >Bill Morgan should be a disappointment to those who respect religion. > >"Gee, Mark, have you noticed that Bill M has not responded to my having >answered his polystrate fossil claim and that he has not answered my >request >for a specific example of one? Yet he is making a big show about my not >having answered his origin-of-life question (which, it turns out, I have >already answered -- twice)." > >Bill sees this debate as strategy, instead as the pursuit of truth. If I >believed in the theories that Bill presents, I would be very disappointed >with his less than ethical tactics. > >"So, by his word and his example, that is one Christian's answer to the >question of the role of truth in Christianity: it is supposed to be very >important. By his own example, Bill Morgan tells us that the truth is not >important, even though he has uttered words to the contrary." > >Why am I not surprised? > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xd01.mx.aol.com (rly-xd01.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.166]) by air-xd05.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:40:38 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f128.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.128]) by rly-xd01.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:40:30 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:40:30 -0800 Received: from 64.12.104.174 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 06:40:29 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.12.104.174] From: "Bill Morgan" To: spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 06:40:29 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jan 2001 06:40:30.0138 (UTC) FILETIME=[E00591A0:01C08762] ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: 01/26/2001 18:28:26 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, spambuster@gigagod.com CC: DWise1 >>CC: billbeq@mediaone.net << Bill M, please stop including Bill B in these messages. He has indicated to us that he never ever again wants to be included in our discussions. Bill B, please tell Bill M to stop including you in this message traffic. Also, please be advised that for each and every message from Bill M in which he does include you, I must likewise include you in the response. Otherwise, you would get only Bill M's false and contrary-to-fact statements and never be able to benefit from my truthful statements, as is the case here. >>I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my requqest.<< Bill M, what are you talking about? Your statement is totally false! FIRST, damn you for trying yet another RABBIT TRAIL! You are trying to divert us from the business at hand, which is the resolution of the situation created by your false and slanderous accusations. SHAME ON YOU! The due date for your assignment has already come and gone. Show us the ACTUAL TEXT written by me upon which you based your accusations against me! Also, for your false accusation that I had slandered your professional reputation on my web pages, present to us the ACTUAL TEXT of what is posted there which constitutes the alleged slander. NOW! AND NO MORE RABBIT TRAILS! SECOND, I am adding your "I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my requqest" [please save yourself embaressment later on by noting that the misspelling is your own and not mine] to the growing list of your false accusations against me. I am doing so for the purpose of demonstrating that in the case of the accusations that we ARE able to trace back to their source we find in each and every case that the accusation has no basis in fact and that it actually twists and distorts grossly what had actually happened. Therefore, the most probable outcome of the investigation of your other accusations which you refuse to substantiate will be that they too will prove to be without basis and contrary-to-fact. Bill M, we are supposed to trying to make that list of accusations smaller, not increasingly larger. Please stop dreaming up new false accusations and start working WITH us to get the old ones resolved! THIRD, because you are persisting in your obstruction of the resolution process, I find that I must abandon my attempts to keep this process just between us and must take it to the public. Therefore, be notified that the pages regarding your false accusations and your obstruction start at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/j_accuse.html . Two pages linked-to through that page are http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/dennys.html (which explains my reasons for refusing to dine with you, what conditions would have to be met before I could even begin to consider meeting with you, and why your repeated demands for meeting constitute "rabbit trailing" -- I will refer you to this page every time to try that particular "rabbit trail" trick) and http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/clipboard.html (which repeats my Clipboard lesson to you -- I will refer you to this page every time you try to feign ignorance of the process). FOURTH, just what do you mean by "... and as usual you ignored my requqest"? That is a very old lie of yours that you just keep repeating. We have all gone over the actual record of which of us is better at answering the other's questions: Bill Morgan less than 12.6% (actually much lower if you do not factor in the high degree of leniency that was used) compared to my 92% (graded much more strictly than Bill M was). You need to read again my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr. 100%'" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/mr_100percent.html . That page was written in response to the first time Bill Morgan told that lie. The facts, Bill M, the facts. FIFTH, keeping in mind that your immediate task has already been given in item FIRST (in other words, Bill M, NO RABBIT TRAILS!), we will go over the FACTS of our correspondence concerning polystrate fossils. You know, Bill M, you really should pay more attention to the facts; it would lessen the sharpness of their bite. For brevity and clarity sake, I will present this as a timeline. You may go back and examine the full text at any time. But before I do, since I fully expect Bill M to not read any of this, here is the skinny to the skinny: 1. I quoted somebody else's story about Kent Hovind, in which that other party mentioned polystrate fossils. 2. Bill M asked me "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" 3. I asked BILL to please provide a specific example with references that I could respond to directly. 4. I also told him about one polystrate fossil claim I had researched several years ago. In addition, in other messages I have passed on a few other polystrate-fossil claims along with references. 5. Bill M did not respond to my request, until after I had mentioned this lapse in another message reminding everybody of Bill's very solid "F" grade for answering questions. 6. Bill M finally responded and he made sure to respond SPECIFICALLY to my message. Bill Morgan explicitly ACKNOWLEDGED MY RESPONSE thus: "Thank you very much for the e amil and I agree the burden of proof is on me to find a specific example of a polystrate fossil if I am making the claim they exist! If it is a phoney claim, not only won't I state they exist, I will correct other Creation people not to claim they exist." 7. I became very suspicious about the high level of weasel-wording in that paragraph, so I mentioned to Bill M that it looked suspiciously like he was and I asked him a number of additional questions: a. "Why are you suddenly raising the issue of whether the polystrate fossil claims are false?" b. "Bill M, you had asked me: "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" Now it looks like you are trying to distance yourself from the polystrate fossil claim by saying "if [Bill Morgan is] making the claim they exist". Well, are you making the claim that they exist or aren't you? If you are making that claim, then simply say so." c. "If you are not making that claim, then why did you ask me that question in the first place?" d. "If you don't know of any examples of polystrate fossils, then why did you ask me for an explanation for them?" e. "Were you just bluffing? Bill M, you know that I do not bluff. You should also know that I am in these discussions for the information, so a bluff has no effect on me except to irritate me; I expect all hands to be shown so that all information can be shared. That is, after all, one of the marks of an open and examining mind." f. "Or did I short-circuit your example with my own example of a claim I had researched? Or with my short exposition on how that claim misrepresented geology?" g. "Bill M, if you do not know of any specific example of a polystrate fossil, then please make a simple and direct statement to that effect (actually, I was expecting you to mention the Lompoc whale fossil)." h. "If you do have a specific example of one, then please make a simple and direct statement to that effect and present it." i. "If you need more time to dig for the references and will need to get back with us on it later, then please make a simple and direct statement to that effect, tell us what little you do know, being sure to point out what you are doubtful about, AND BE SURE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH YOUR PROMISE to get back with us on it. That would include prompt and honest responses to our subsequent inquiries about that example." 8. I explicitly told Bill M that I fully expected to see his answers to my questions. To date, Bill Morgan has responded to none of those questions. So, we see that Bill Morgan's latest accusation -- "I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my requqest." -- is completely and utterly false. What had actually happened is that *I* had responded to BILL M by asking for a specific example of a polystrate fossil, to which at first Bill appeared to not want to answer. When he did, Bill M EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGED MY RESPONSE and EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE NEEDED TO PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE, but then he went into a little weasel-dance to get out of it. Because I saw that weasel-dance, *I* asked BILL M some more questions which were highly pertinent. Bill M has not answered those questions. Therefore, the first part of Bill Morgan's latest accusation has been shown to be contrary-to-fact. Bill Morgan did not ask ME "for examples of polystrate fossils", but rather *I* had asked HIM! And Bill has never come up with any of those examples, but rather tried to weasel his way out of it. The questions still pending in this matter are all ones that Bill Morgan is supposed to answer, not me. The second part of part of Bill Morgan's latest accusation has also been shown to be contrary-to-fact, as a visit to my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr. 100%'" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/mr_100percent.html , shows. Synopses and selected quotes from the messages with actual message headers included (except for the minus sign at the beginning of the line -- makes things nicer for perl and grep, don't you know?): ----------------------------- -Subj:Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal -Date: 22-Sep-00 20:06:44 Pacific Daylight Time -From: billyjack321@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) Bill Morgan announces a Kent Hovind presentation in the area (Calvary Chapel Golden Springs). -Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal -Date: 05-Oct-00 17:31:45 Pacific Daylight Time -From: DWise1 -To: billyjack321@hotmail.com -CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net -CC: DWise1 I respond with what I know about Kent Hovind. This includes what a Christian friend and a former YEC-addict, Ed, told me about how watching a Kent Hovind had shaken his faith and led to curing his YEC addiction. The full story is at his page, http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ixthus/a7.html , but part of what I QUOTED from his page was (note: the "famous 'young earther'" in the quote was Kent Hovind): "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! .." -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 Bill Morgan's response ends with this question: "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" -Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal -Date: 16-Nov-00 17:41:59 Pacific Standard Time -From: DWise1 -To: billyjack321@hotmail.com -CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 -CC: editor@liberator.net Since Bill M had excluded the others, I repeated his previous message for their benefit and addressed his polystrate fossil question first. I prefaced my reply with: "I'll place my question right up front so that you won't miss it as you don't bother to read my reply. "It would help me greatly in answering your question if you were to tell me what particular polystrate fossil you have in mind and why what kind of a problem you think that it presents to science. Of course, I will also need a reference to the science journal that describes that fossil. I simply do not have the time to waste chasing a phantom wild goose." Then my reply stated that I found polystrate fossil claims to be "one of the worst documented classes of creationist claims that I have encountered" and that "[f]or a long time I could not find a single scientific reference anywhere -- lots of claims of polystrate fossils, but no references." No references, no way to discover the truth about the claims. I then described one of the few references I could find, which was given to me by Paul Ekdahl, a creationist on CompuServe. Going back to the "quoted" scientific source, I found that the creationist that Ekdahl had quoted had himself misrepresented his own source and had made several statements that were directly contradicted by the scientific source. I also found that both Ekdahl and his creationist source were proceeding from false premises about geology: "...that modern geology requires slow, strictly gradualistic accumulation of sediment at a uniform rate and that modern geology cannot account for rapid depositation. Therefore, they conclude, any signs of rapid burial disproves uniformitarianism and is direct evidence of Noah's Flood. "Bullfrog! Modern geologists know full well that flooding and landslides occur and that they had occured in the past. Even 19th century geologists knew that! Geologists also know what to look for to indicate whether a deposit had been deposited rapidly or gradually. The referenced article even described some of the characteristics of rapid vs gradual burial. If the creationist had only bothered to read his source, ... ." I concluded the section on polystrate fossils with: "In the meantime, it would help me greatly in answering your question if you were to tell me what particular polystrate fossil you have in mind and what kind of a problem you think that it presents to science. "Of course, I will also need a reference to the science journal that describes that fossil. I simply do not have the time to waste chasing a phantom wild goose. Besides which, your response to my having answered your question would undoubtedly be your standard immediate dropping of the subject and ignoring all follow-up questions from me." -Subj: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide, -Date: 10-Oct-00 13:20:07 Pacific Daylight Time -From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) -To: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com -CC: editor@liberator.net Bill Morgan wrote in reference to Bill B's repeating of his "Origin of Life" question: "Buddy, they are too chicken to answer your sincere inquiry. trust me!" -Subj: "Origin of Life" Question -Date: 22-Nov-00 17:22:06 Pacific Standard Time -From: DWise1 -To: billyjack1@hotmail.com -CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 -CC: editor@liberator.net I responded to that mocking taunt by pointing out Bill M's abysmal record of answering questions (12.6% in 1996, much worse now) and comparing it to my own record (92% in 1996 and holding steady). I refer you again: "You can (and should) read the entire story on my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr. 100%'" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/mr_100percent.html . You should also read my page, "BILL MORGAN'S 'UNANSWERABLE' QUESTIONS" at http://membersaol.com/billyjack6/morgan/bills_questions.html to see my responses to Bill M's "unanswerable" questions, Bill M's reaction to my responses, and the original discussions that Bill M had tried to escape via "rabbit trails" by asking those "unanswerable" questions." Then I review the questions to demonstrate how unreasonable Bill's questions were (yet I did answer them) compared to how reasonable my questions to Bill were (yet he repeatedly dodged them). I included my questions to Bill about polystrate fossils, which he had not yet responded to: "14. "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" (27 Oct 2000 17:29:13 EDT) You have all received my response to Bill M. Basically, I told him: a. That I needed more information from him about the specific claim that he had in mind, including scientific references. b. That I have traditionally found the polystrate claims to be one of the worst-documented classes of creationist claims that I have encountered. c. What the results were of checking on a specific claim with references (ie, the creationist source had misrepresented his scientific source and made claims directly contradicted by his source). d. That: "Now, the creationist and Paul were both proceeding from the false premise that modern geology requires slow, strictly gradualistic accumulation of sediment at a uniform rate and that modern geology cannot account for rapid depositation. Therefore, they conclude, any signs of rapid burial disproves uniformitarianism and is direct evidence of Noah's Flood. "Bullfrog! Modern geologists know full well that flooding and landslides occur and that they had occured in the past. Even 19th century geologists knew that! Geologists also know what to look for to indicate whether a deposit had been deposited rapidly or gradually. The referenced article even described some of the characteristics of rapid vs gradual burial. If the creationist had only bothered to read his source, ... ." I posted my response on 16 Nov 2000. Bill Morgan has not responded within the six days since then and, quite frankly, given his past conduct, I do not expect him to respond. He doesn't want any real answers. He just wanted to try to stump me again and yet again found that he could not." -Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net -Date: 30-Nov-00 16:24:50 Pacific Standard Time -From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) -To: DWise1@aol.com -CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com This is the message to which Bill Morgan has just responded! This is a response to my response to Mark's question of what I meant by my question to Bill Morgan: >>Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net >>Date: 16-Nov-00 17:28:56 Pacific Standard Time >>From: DWise1 >>To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >>CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 >>CC: editor@liberator.net >> >>No, seriously, Bill Morgan. >> >>What IS the role of truth in your creationist ministry? >> >>DO you believe that faith in God is more important than the truth? >> >>WOULD you willfully lie for the sake of your religious cause and for its advancement? >> >>These questions are central to the issue. Please note that Bill Morgan has never answer these questions. Among the things that Mark quoted me (with complete accuracy) as saying was: "Gee, Mark, have you noticed that Bill M has not responded to my having answered his polystrate fossil claim and that he has not answered my request for a specific example of one? Yet he is making a big show about my not having answered his origin-of-life question (which, it turns out, I have already answered -- twice)." It appears to be this statement to which Bill Morgan has just responded with a new false accusation. -Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal -Date: 05-Dec-00 06:42:01 Pacific Standard Time -From: billyjack321@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) -To: DWise1@aol.com Bill Morgan, again neglecting to include our witnesses, ACKNOWLEDGED MY RESPONSE thus: "Thank you very much for the e amil and I agree the burden of proof is on me to find a specific example of a polystrate fossil if I am making the claim they exist! If it is a phoney claim, not only won't I state they exist, I will correct other Creation people not to claim they exist." Please note that Bill Morgan was responding SPECIFICALLY to my message of 16 Nov 2000 20:41:58 EST (given above as "17:41:59 Pacific Standard Time"), in which I had requested a specific example from him. Please also note that in this message Bill Morgan explicitly accepts responsibility for providing that specific example. To date, Bill Morgan has not provided that example. -Subj: Re: List of alleged falsehoods. -Date: 07-Dec-00 18:32:08 Pacific Standard Time -From: DWise1 -To: billyjack321@hotmail.com -CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 -CC: editor@liberator.net While waiting in vain for Bill Morgan to produce that specific example, I followed through on another request from Bill (notice how I try to keep my promises as opposed to Bill always breaking his) and provided him with the list of falsehoods that fundamentalist Christian Carl Drews found in an "Answers in Genesis" video lecture series. Among them was a reference to polystrate fossils: "3. On August 20 Gary Parker spoke about polystrate fossils. He stated that "Evolutionists are mystified by these things," and "No one has proposed a way that they can form slowly." "Those statements are not correct. Geologist John William Dawson described polystrate tree fossils in 1868 and gave a good explanation for their formation. Modern geologists are comfortable with these fossils, and call them "in situ trees." (3) I found examples of polystrate fossils forming now at Neskowin Beach in Oregon. (4) Such findings are outside the popular media, but if Gary Parker is teaching on these matters he should know about these cases and not claim that evolutionists can't figure them out. He gave an example of a non-tree polystrate fossil (a nautilus), but provided no reference for me to check." Referenced footnotes: (3) Polystrate Fossils. John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at Joggins, Nova Scotia, and provided a reasonable explanation for its formation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html Coal deposits were formed from ancient swamps, and the trees grew there. The trees kept growing as the level of the swamp slowly rose through accumulation of sediment and organic matter. The point of citing such an old reference is to emphasize how long these fossils have been known and understood. (4) Ancient Buried Trees at Neskowin Beach. A forest was submerged during an earthquake 2,000 years ago. Now unearthed by storm erosion. Visible at Neskowin Beach (reported by Brian T. Meehan in The Oregonian, March 7, 1998). This beach is north of Cascade Head. Also, "This winter, erosion exposed 4,000-year-old stumps at Beverly Beach State Park, north of Newport." http://www.oregonlive.com/todaysnews/9803/st03073.html Another news story by Lynda V. Mapes in the Seattle Times, Posted Monday, May 11, 1998: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/health-science/html98/altstum_051198.html Pilgrims descended on the beach by the thousands in Neskowin after news reports described stumps "dating back to the time of Jesus." A flyer pasted on a motel-office door notes: "As a matter of general interest, the stumps are visible most years." Geologists theorize that a subduction earthquake lowered the coastline suddenly and shoreline erosion buried the trees. These fossils are being formed now without the aid of a global flood. A catastrophic event (an earthquake) certainly helps to form fossils, but a worldwide flood is not necessary to explain the Neskowin trees. Tree stumps can take thousands of years to get fully buried. "Episodically Buried Forests in the Oregon Surf Zone", a scientific paper by Roger Hart and Curt Peterson. http://www.netbridge.net/~rogerhart/dogami.html Carl Drews' references page is at http://www.theistic-evolution.com/references.html . -Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal -Date: 12/11/2000 17:17:46 Pacific Standard Time -From: DWise1 -To: billyjack321@hotmail.com -CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 -CC: editor@liberator.net I respond to Bill Morgan's message of 5 Dec 2000 9:42:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, asking him several questions about his strange reply: ">>Thank you very much for the e amil and I agree the burden of proof is on me to find a specific example of a polystrate fossil if I am making the claim they exist! If it is a phoney claim, not only won't I state they exist, I will correct other Creation people not to claim they exist.<< "I'm sorry, Bill M, but that looks too much to me like yet another weasel maneuver, albeit somewhat more subtle than you usually try to pull, so you're improving. I am going to have to ask some direct questions to which I fully expect to see your answers. "Why are you suddenly raising the issue of whether the polystrate fossil claims are false? And that last sentence in which you say you would correct other creationists making "phoney" claims appears to be an attempt to divert our attention away from the question of the polystrate claim. In other words, you're starting another "rabbit trail" there, quite a bit more subtly than you usually do, but a "rabbit trail" nonetheless. "Bill M, you had asked me: "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" Now it looks like you are trying to distance yourself from the polystrate fossil claim by saying "if I am making the claim they exist". Well, are you making the claim that they exist or aren't you? If you are making that claim, then simply say so. If you are not making that claim, then why did you ask me that question in the first place? If you don't know of any examples of polystrate fossils, then why did you ask me for an explanation for them? Were you just bluffing? Bill M, you know that I do not bluff. You should also know that I am in these discussions for the information, so a bluff has no effect on me except to irritate me; I expect all hands to be shown so that all information can be shared. That is, after all, one of the marks of an open and examining mind. "Or did I short-circuit your example with my own example of a claim I had researched? Or with my short exposition on how that claim misrepresented geology? "Bill M, if you do not know of any specific example of a polystrate fossil, then please make a simple and direct statement to that effect (actually, I was expecting you to mention the Lompoc whale fossil). If you do have a specific example of one, then please make a simple and direct statement to that effect and present it. If you need more time to dig for the references and will need to get back with us on it later, then please make a simple and direct statement to that effect, tell us what little you do know, being sure to point out what you are doubtful about, AND BE SURE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH YOUR PROMISE to get back with us on it. That would include prompt and honest responses to our subsequent inquiries about that example. "In any of the above cases, you would also need to tell us why you think that geology is unable to explain them. Obviously, you believe that polystrate fossils present problems for geologists. Exactly what problems do you believe that they present? What assumptions are you making in identifying them as problems? "Those questions can still be answered whether polystrate fossils are "phoney" or not. They must still be answered and discussed, because they relate directly to the claims in question, which are still being used by Kent Hovind and many other creationists, whether they are true or not. "You asked your question in your reply concerning Kent Hovind, so I would assume that you were thinking of Hovind's claims concerning polystrate fossils. I do know that Kent Hovind uses such claims, including the one about the Lompoc whale fossil. What is he trying to say with those claims and what assumptions is he making? As Carl Drews commented, Gary Parker makes the false claim that geologists cannot explain polystrate fossils, whereas in truth geologists have been able to explain them for well over 100 years. In the example that Paul Ekdahl had given me, his creationist source claimed that geology only accepts slow gradual depositing and cannot account for rapid burial (also a common theme in several other Flood Geology claims), whereas in truth geology readily recognizes rapid burial, has no problem whatsoever with it, and knows what to look for, as described explicitly in the scientific source that the creationist had used. So what claims is Kent Hovind making? And what claims were you, Bill M, planning on making when you asked that question?" I concluded with: "As you should know by now, Bill Morgan, I do expect answers. Here's your chance to start pulling your grade up from that rock-solid F you've been maintaining for the past four years." -Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net -Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 1:40:38 AM Eastern Standard Time -From: "Bill Morgan" -To: spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com -CC: billbeq@mediaone.net Bill Morgan makes his latest false accusation: "I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my requqest." And now that we have examined the facts, we all know the true story. We also all know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Bill Morgan's latest accusation -- "I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my requqest." -- is completely and utterly false. This concludes the first and second phases of the resolution process for this accusation. The next phase requires Bill Morgan to acknowledge the facts and/or bring other facts to our attention that support his accusation. His failure to do either will be construed as his admission that his accusation is indeed false. The final phase of the resolution process will require us to ALL consider the matter to be closed. For Bill Morgan in this case (since the accusation has been shown to be blatantly and completely false), this will mean that he must state explicitly and FOR THE RECORD that he realizes that the accusation is false, that he retracts the accusation, that he apologizes for having made the accusation in the first place, and that he will never again believe that accusation to be true. Your turn to implement the next phase of the resolution process for your latest false accusation, Bill Morgan. ################################################ Subj: Re: Eats; everyone gotta eats Date: 01/27/2001 07:09:31 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), BillBeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com I hate to pop your bubble Bill, but Bill Clinton is a "religious" man. = ) Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Morgan To: ; ; Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 6:31 AM Subject: Re: Eats; everyone gotta eats Bill: By no means does this action condone all tatheists, but I am certain whent he Born again Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and when George W Bush leaves office, it was not trashed. The fruits of atheism is often selfishness. ___________________________________________________________________ WHITE HOUSE OFFICES LEFT 'TRASHED': PORN BOMBS, LEWD MESSAGES; LEGAL PROBE CONSIDERED **Exclusive Details** The Bush Administration has quietly launched an investigation into apparent acts of vandalism and destruction of federal property -- after incoming Bush staffers discover widespread sabotage of White House office equipment and lewd messages left behind by previous tenants! Harriet Miers, 55, Assistant to President Bush and staff secretary will be investigating possible legal ramifications of the White House trashing and possible theft, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. "Miers is just beginning her investigation," a well-place source said late Wednesday from Washington. "The level of the trashing is very troubling, this is not just 'W' keys missing from keyboards." The damage left by departing Clintonites goes "way beyond pranks, to vandalism", said a close Bush adviser. White House employees aren't waiting to be interviewed by Miers. They are providing names of the worst malefactors, previous occupants of specific offices. Photographic and audio evidence is being collected -- as the full scope of the damage becomes clear. Bush's staff has been cautioned not to go public with the extent of the damage and the worst is being closely held among very top staffers for fear of leaks. But, according to sources, so far Bush officials have found: *Phone lines were cut, rendering them inoperable. *Voice mail messages were changed to obscene, scatological greetings. One Bush staffer had his grandmother call from the Midwest. She was horrified by what she heard on the other end of the line. *Many phone lines misdirected to other government offices. *Desks found turned completely upside down and trash deliberately left everywhere. *Computer printers that were filled with blank paper but interspersed with pornographic pictures and obscene slogans that would be revealed only as items were run off the computer. *'W' keys weren't just pried off more than 40 keyboards, some were glued on with Superglue; some were turned upside down and glued on. *Filing cabinets glued shut. *VP Office space in the Old Executive Office Building found in complete shambles. Mrs. Gore had to phone Mrs. Cheney to apologize, first reported by Rich Galen's Mullings. *Lewd MagicMarker graffiti found on one office hallway. Separately, the WASHINGTON TIMES reported that Air Force One was "stripped bare" during the former president's "official" farewell flight to New York on Inaugural Day. All the plane's porcelain china, silverware, salt and pepper shakers, blankets and pillow cases - most of it bearing the presidential seal -- where taken by Clinton staff, a military steward told the paper. _____________________________________________________________________ >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" , , > >Subject: Re: Eats; everyone gotta eats >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:23:19 -0600 > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"Here is the offer, you get out here and I buy the meal. I know some fine >denizons of eats." > >Like I said, unless you're willing to pay the airfare for me to visit your >local, it isn't going to happen. > >= ) > >Mark > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yh04.mx.aol.com (rly-yh04.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.36]) by air-yh01.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:09:31 -0500 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yh04.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:09:12 -0500 Received: from oemcomputer (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0RF97W83855; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:09:08 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <00a101c08873$7d8d4240$052a03c7@oemcomputer> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , , References: Subject: Re: Eats; everyone gotta eats Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:11:54 -0600 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: Myth Conceptions Date: 01/27/2001 07:12:33 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) CC: DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill B) <> Until you answer my question -- which you have dodged twice now -- I will not answer your questions. Mark Liberator The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Morgan To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 6:13 AM Subject: Re: Myth Conceptions Again you begged the question. Who died for a leprachun? >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" >Subject: Re: Myth Conceptions >Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:24:59 -0600 > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: >"We have hammered [individual freewill vs an all-knowing God] to death. If >God programmed people, why did he get angrytwtihthem (Read Exodus and >Isaiah)." > >Anger is yet another sign that the Christian God must be flawed. Nice >point. > >"Histroy does not teach of of leprchan martyrs but history tells us of >thousands of martyrs for Jesus." > >History teaches us that a lot of people died for Hitler too. Should we >worship him? History shows that a lot of people risked their lives for >Gandhi. Should we worship him as if he was a God? > >"Not at all. I usse science to explain the existance of a supreme >creator...and he is revealed in the Bible." > >You do not use science at all and if you were a real engineer, you would >know this. Science is based on observation. Using the Bible as evidence >while trying to pass yourself off as an engineer says that either you're >ignorant or you're a calculating charlatan. Which is it? > >"But you are using the bible for your points, thus you should use to it >justify your points." > >I use the Bible to discredit it, which is always quite easily done. The >Bible contains numerous inconsistencies, which makes it the work of flawed >beings, not unlike any other book created by man. > >Instead of getting wrapped up in the soap opera, I like to use the >fundamental principles that are entertained in the Bible and then using >them >to show errors. > >Besides, educated Christians believe that the Bible is not a work to be >taken literally. It is a work that uses fantasy to hammer through behavior >patterns. > >"Now we are making progress. 3 points, the bible teaches [1] the universe >had a beginning, [2] there was a global flood, [3] the earth rests on >nothing Job 26:7 and the world will have a one world government. Is that >good proof." > >Once again Bill, if you were really an engineer, you would realize that >making unsupported statements is not science. [1] There are many theories >to explain what happened before the big bang but none of them can be >supported scientifically. [2] Global flood? Do you believe in Noah's Ark >too? I suppose you believe in Santa Clause as well? [3] One can pick out >many vague reference in the Bible to support a number of things. What's >your point? Again Bill, how is using the Bible to support your God-model >an >act of 'science'? > >I wrote in my previous letter: >"Bill, since I answered one of your questions, answer one of mine: 'Is >there >any logic to faith?'" > >Bill, you had no response. If you are a real engineer Bill, that question >would be very easy for you. > >Mark > > >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-ye04.mx.aol.com (rly-ye04.mail.aol.com [172.18.151.201]) by air-ye01.mail.aol.com (v77.35) with ESMTP; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:12:33 -0500 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-ye04.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:12:20 -0500 Received: from oemcomputer (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0RFCHW84186; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:12:18 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <00aa01c08873$ee55f080$052a03c7@oemcomputer> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" Cc: , "Bill B" References: Subject: Re: Myth Conceptions Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:15:05 -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: Eats; everyone gotta eats Date: 01/27/2001 15:22:28 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1 >>To: ..., BillBeq@mediaone.net, ... << Bill M, please stop including Bill B in these messages. He has indicated to us that he never ever again wants to be included in our discussions. Please honor his request. >>By no means does this action condone all tatheists, ... << Huh? What are you trying to say here? To condone something is to excuse or pardon something, yet the body of your message is clearly meant to be a condemnation. Also, the word's usage is such that you would condone a person's actions, but not the person performing those actions. Your usage of the word "condone" here makes no sense. If I didn't already have you pegged as a staunch and thorough monoglot, I would be tempted to ask what your original language was, since you seem to have so much trouble with English. >> ... , but I am certain whent he Born again Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and when George W Bush leaves office, it was not trashed.<< Wrong! When George Bush left office, his staff GUTTED all the computers. Removed all the hard drives and took them with them. >>The fruits of atheism is often selfishness.<< Ah, the message part of this message. Use the actions of a few individuals, characterize them as being part of the group you wish to demonize, So then, that would mean that your message to us would be: "The fruits of Christianity is often slander, lies, self-deception, and fear and loathing of the truth." I mean, that is certain the message that you have been conveying to us through your witness. And BTW, Mark is correct to point out that Bill Clinton and most of his people are Christians. Please be sure of your target before you demonize. PS On the matter of languages, Mark, do you remember that howler that Bill M had committed in his June 98 newsletter? The article warned that some Christian colleges may be hazardous to the students' spiritual health, with which I could agree, but then Bill M turned around and recommended most highly Christian Heritage College (CHC), which is notorious for setting its alumni's faith up for self-destruction (as with the creationist geologists working for Glenn Morton, all having graduated from CHC). As an example of "unChristian" though at most Christian colleges, Bill mentioned a professor from Fuller Seminary who had claimed in a debate that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but that it was more likely he had an identical twin who was crucified in his place. As I have said elsewhere and, I believe, at the time, I am at a total loss as to why a Christian would seek to explain away the central Mystery of Christianity. Well, here is what followed: I told a 9-year-old home schooled girl about this debate and her answer was immediate and powerful. She was puzzled for about two seconds and then quickly replied that the Bible said Mary was with child, not with children. I would rather learn scripture from her than the Fuller prof.< Gee, Bill, this one almost comes in second after the "how did food evolve?" bit from a few years ago (I don't know if that one was yours, too). The Bible, or any English-language publication adhering to standard English, would not use the phrase "with children" to indicate "pregnant with multiple embryos/feti". Such a phrase is not part of standard English. The phrase "with child" indicates only that a woman is pregnant and says nothing of the number of embryos/feti she is carrying; even the expectant mother of septuplets would be "with child", but not "with children." If you believe that Scripture study should depend on twisting torturously that which is written, even though you claim to believe that it is literally true, then your theology is in a lot worse shape than I thought it was. Besides which, twisting and distorting the ENGLISH phrasing should not reveal any new truths, since the New Testament was NOT written in ENGLISH, but rather in KOINE, a form of ancient GREEK, and was TRANSLATED into English, sometimes via an intermediate translation into Latin. All that analysis of the English translation would reveal would be how the translater, a fallible HUMAN, had INTERPRETED that passage in order to RETELL/REWORD it. If, as Thomas Paine had described it, an interpretation and retelling of Revelation is to be considered hear-say, then interpreting that hear-say is piling hear-say upon hear-say; it is NOT Revelation. You should have gone back to the original GREEK to see what IT said (assuming you can figure out which variation of that passage is the "right" one). ### END EXERPT ### Well, Mark, now we know from bitter experience that "twisting torturously that which is written" is SOP for Bill Morgan, as we watched him do it to almost everything that has been written in these exchanges. Then in my follow-up message at the time, I showed Bill M what the original Greek did say: Subj: Koine of Matt 1:18 Date: 98-06-14 23:19:04 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1, liber8r@mcs.com [clipped] Since I had to get ready for drill weekend, I didn't have time to research the Greek for that message, but I have since then. The Greek idiom used in each version of the referenced verse, Matthew 1:18, is [in its lexical form; in the text it is conjugated into a participial form, "ekhoysa"] "en gastri ekho" [to see it in Greek, change the font of the following string to Symbol >en gastri ecw<], meaning literally, "have in womb." No direct mention whatsoever of "child", let alone how many. Therefore, your young "Bible scholar's" response has nothing whatsoever to do with what Scripture actually says. This is in addition to twisting standard English (I'm quite sure that she was sincere and that she did not do it out of malice -- rather, the fault is yours for not properly evaluating her naive response). What she interpreted the verse as saying (ie, that the wording explicitly said "child" and not "children") really had nothing to do with what the verse really said in the original (ie, that Mary had someth ing in her womb; we know that would normally be one or more embryos/feti, but it was not explicitly said). Interesting that, despite your avoided [sic -- I believe it should have said "avid"] devotion to believing exactly what the Bible says, you would want to learn Scripture from somebody who claims Scripture to be saying things that it clearly does not. Rather typical of those who believe in creation science, eh? Bill, I don't know whether you have benefited from studying foreign languages or you are cursed with the archetypical American trait of being monolingual. If you are monolingual, then you might not understand what translation entails or what some of its inherent problems are, or even understand what language is ("You cannot know your own language until you have learned a foreign language." Lessing). Language entails the expressing of ideas into a structured medium consisting of symbols [eg, words] and usage [grammar] for the purpose of communicating those ideas to someone else. In order to communicate an idea to somebody else through a given language, the speaker must interpret his idea and express it as a statement in that language. Then he must transmit that statement to the listener through a medium or communications channel (eg, spoken, written). Then the listener must receive the statement and interpret it back into the idea being conveyed. Error and degradation can occur at any point in the communication process, creating loss. The speaker might fail to translate his idea accurately into words. The message might degrade when transmitted (eg, noise drowning out part of the spoken word, words lost or made illegible on torn/ruined paper). The listener might not receive the message accurately (eg, not paying attention, mishear/misread, not understand the terminology or the context being used). The listener might misinterpret the message (eg, the symbols used mean something different to him, his understanding of the context is different than the speaker's [eg, the very different interpretations in Back to the Future III when Dr. Brown of the 50's tells Marty McFly of the 80's that the failed component was made in Japan]). Translation is not word-for-word substitution. If it were, then computers would have taken over that task long ago. Rather, translation is a process of reading a statement in one language, determining the idea that the statement expresses, and then expressing that same idea in a second language. The manner in which that idea is expressed in the one language can be, and most likely will be, very different than in the other language. It can also happen that there really is no way to express the very same idea in both languages (eg, a recent entry in L.M.Boyd's trivia column that, since English is more concise than most other languages, an accurate translation from the English will normally be 25% larger in the target language). In some cases, the choice of words can convey extra meaning that becomes lost in translation. The main point is that a translation is based, not on the original author's original ideas, but rather on the translator's interpretation of those ideas [sic -- actually on the translator's interpretation of the original author's interpretation of his original ideas]. By further interpreting a translation, at best you would gain further insight, NOT into the original author's original ideas, but rather into the translator's interpretation. At best. Normally, you would just wander off on a tangent that neither the translator nor the original had intended. To dig deeper into the original ideas, you need to go to the original. And if the original has been copied and re-copied several times over a long period of time, then you also have to deal with the multiple versions of the same writings. And so on. Bill, as I understand it, your theology calls for you to believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Could you please share with us how you are taught to deal with the problems of translation and of different versions of the same verses, etc? What writings, precisely, are you to believe to be literally true? ### END EXERPT ### Of course, Bill M never answered that question. In fact, it was about a month later that he suddenly ran away. Gee, I would have thought that this would have been a very easy question for him to answer and that he would have wanted to answer it. ################################################ Subj: So Why 25 Dec? Date: 01/27/2001 15:24:19 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1 BTW, Bill M, what have you found on the reason for the date of Christmas? The date was chosen to tie it to the Winter Solstice, but the Solstice is on 21 Dec. So why then is Christmas on 25 Dec? It turns out that I had told you the answer already. Go back and look it up in my message to Mark, which I CC:'d to you: Subj: "From Jesus to Christ" Date: 98-07-09 02:02:14 EDT From: DWise1 To: liber8r@mcs.com CC: BillyJack6, DWise1 HINT: it's towards the end of the message, but there's a lot of interesting information in that message so you should read all of it. ################################################ Subj: Turn To! Date: 01/27/2001 15:26:26 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1 Bill Morgan: You are still on the hook to produce the ACTUAL TEXT of the messages in which I allegedly did all those terrible things of which you have accused me. This is the FIFTY-FIRST TIME! Just in case you have conveniently forgotten: YOU, BILL MORGAN, are the culprit! YOU are the perpetrator! YOU are the BAD GUY! YOU are the VILLAIN! Do the right thing, for a change! If you have forgotten conveniently forgotten what the accusations are, just go to http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/j_accuse.html . I still have to add the later accusations to the list, but the THIRTEEN accusations posted there should be a good start. Also, you need to produce the ACTUAL TEXT AND URL(s) of the web page where I allegedly slandered your professional reputation. OBTW, a week ago the visit count to my "Bill Morgan" pages was at 317 hits since 19 July 2000. My own visits to test the site couldn't account for more than 20 to 30 hits. A lot more people are seeing it than I thought there would be. I certainly hope that we will be able to give them some good news soon. ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: 01/29/2001 15:25:43 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, spambuster@gigagod.com Dave, I am going to delete every e mail you send me from now on. It will save both of us a lot of time. I told you many times I do not save my old emails, unfortunately this never got through to you comprehending that. I take full blame. I apologize. I wish you the best. Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , , >Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:28:25 EST > > >>CC: billbeq@mediaone.net << > >Bill M, please stop including Bill B in these messages. He has indicated >to us that he never ever again wants to be included in our discussions. > >Bill B, please tell Bill M to stop including you in this message traffic. >Also, please be advised that for each and every message from Bill M in >which he does include you, I must likewise include you in the response. >Otherwise, you would get only Bill M's false and contrary-to-fact >statements and never be able to benefit from my truthful statements, as is >the case here. > > > >>I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored >my requqest.<< > >Bill M, what are you talking about? Your statement is totally false! > >FIRST, damn you for trying yet another RABBIT TRAIL! You are trying to >divert us from the business at hand, which is the resolution of the >situation created by your false and slanderous accusations. SHAME ON YOU! > >The due date for your assignment has already come and gone. Show us the >ACTUAL TEXT written by me upon which you based your accusations against me! > Also, for your false accusation that I had slandered your professional >reputation on my web pages, present to us the ACTUAL TEXT of what is posted >there which constitutes the alleged slander. NOW! AND NO MORE RABBIT >TRAILS! > >SECOND, I am adding your "I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils >and as usual you ignored my requqest" [please save yourself embaressment >later on by noting that the misspelling is your own and not mine] to the >growing list of your false accusations against me. I am doing so for the >purpose of demonstrating that in the case of the accusations that we ARE >able to trace back to their source we find in each and every case that the >accusation has no basis in fact and that it actually twists and distorts >grossly what had actually happened. Therefore, the most probable outcome >of the investigation of your other accusations which you refuse to >substantiate will be that they too will prove to be without basis and >contrary-to-fact. > >Bill M, we are supposed to trying to make that list of accusations smaller, >not increasingly larger. Please stop dreaming up new false accusations and >start working WITH us to get the old ones resolved! > >THIRD, because you are persisting in your obstruction of the resolution >process, I find that I must abandon my attempts to keep this process just >between us and must take it to the public. Therefore, be notified that the >pages regarding your false accusations and your obstruction start at >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/j_accuse.html . Two pages >linked-to through that page are >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/dennys.html (which explains my >reasons for refusing to dine with you, what conditions would have to be met >before I could even begin to consider meeting with you, and why your >repeated demands for meeting constitute "rabbit trailing" -- I will refer >you to this page every time to try that particular "rabbit trail" trick) >and http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/clipboard.html (which repeats >my Clipboard lesson to you -- I will refer you to this page every time you >try to feign ignorance of the process). > >FOURTH, just what do you mean by "... and as usual you ignored my >requqest"? That is a very old lie of yours that you just keep repeating. >We have all gone over the actual record of which of us is better at >answering the other's questions: Bill Morgan less than 12.6% (actually >much lower if you do not factor in the high degree of leniency that was >used) compared to my 92% (graded much more strictly than Bill M was). You >need to read again my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr. 100%'" at >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/mr_100percent.html . That page >was written in response to the first time Bill Morgan told that lie. The >facts, Bill M, the facts. > >FIFTH, keeping in mind that your immediate task has already been given in >item FIRST (in other words, Bill M, NO RABBIT TRAILS!), we will go over the >FACTS of our correspondence concerning polystrate fossils. You know, Bill >M, you really should pay more attention to the facts; it would lessen the >sharpness of their bite. > >For brevity and clarity sake, I will present this as a timeline. You may >go back and examine the full text at any time. But before I do, since I >fully expect Bill M to not read any of this, here is the skinny to the >skinny: > >1. I quoted somebody else's story about Kent Hovind, in which that other >party mentioned polystrate fossils. > >2. Bill M asked me "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" > >3. I asked BILL to please provide a specific example with references that I >could respond to directly. > >4. I also told him about one polystrate fossil claim I had researched >several years ago. In addition, in other messages I have passed on a few >other polystrate-fossil claims along with references. > >5. Bill M did not respond to my request, until after I had mentioned this >lapse in another message reminding everybody of Bill's very solid "F" grade >for answering questions. > >6. Bill M finally responded and he made sure to respond SPECIFICALLY to my >message. Bill Morgan explicitly ACKNOWLEDGED MY RESPONSE thus: >"Thank you very much for the e amil and I agree the burden of proof is on >me to find a specific example of a polystrate fossil if I am making the >claim they exist! If it is a phoney claim, not only won't I state they >exist, I will correct other Creation people not to claim they exist." > >7. I became very suspicious about the high level of weasel-wording in that >paragraph, so I mentioned to Bill M that it looked suspiciously like he was >and I asked him a number of additional questions: > >a. "Why are you suddenly raising the issue of whether the polystrate fossil >claims are false?" > >b. "Bill M, you had asked me: "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate >fossils?" Now it looks like you are trying to distance yourself from the >polystrate fossil claim by saying "if [Bill Morgan is] making the claim >they exist". Well, are you making the claim that they exist or aren't you? > If you are making that claim, then simply say so." > >c. "If you are not making that claim, then why did you ask me that question >in the first place?" > >d. "If you don't know of any examples of polystrate fossils, then why did >you ask me for an >explanation for them?" > >e. "Were you just bluffing? Bill M, you know that I do not bluff. You >should also know that I am in these discussions for the information, so a >bluff has no effect on me except to irritate me; I expect all hands to be >shown so that all information can be shared. That is, after all, one of >the marks of an open and examining mind." > >f. "Or did I short-circuit your example with my own example of a claim I >had researched? Or with my short exposition on how that claim >misrepresented geology?" > >g. "Bill M, if you do not know of any specific example of a polystrate >fossil, then please make a simple and direct statement to that effect >(actually, I was expecting you to mention the Lompoc whale fossil)." > >h. "If you do have a specific example of one, then please make a simple and >direct statement to that effect and present it." > >i. "If you need more time to dig for the references and will need to get >back with us on it later, then please make a simple and direct statement to >that effect, tell us what little you do know, being sure to point out what >you are doubtful about, AND BE SURE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH YOUR PROMISE to >get back with us on it. That would include prompt and honest responses to >our subsequent inquiries about that example." > >8. I explicitly told Bill M that I fully expected to see his answers to my >questions. To date, Bill Morgan has responded to none of those questions. > > >So, we see that Bill Morgan's latest accusation -- >"I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my >requqest." -- is >completely and utterly false. > >What had actually happened is that *I* had responded to BILL M by asking >for a specific example of a polystrate fossil, to which at first Bill >appeared to not want to answer. When he did, Bill M EXPLICITLY >ACKNOWLEDGED MY RESPONSE and EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE NEEDED TO >PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE, but then he went into a little weasel-dance to get out >of it. Because I saw that weasel-dance, *I* asked BILL M some more >questions which were highly pertinent. Bill M has not answered those >questions. > >Therefore, the first part of Bill Morgan's latest accusation has been shown >to be contrary-to-fact. Bill Morgan did not ask ME "for examples of >polystrate fossils", but rather *I* had asked HIM! And Bill has never come >up with any of those examples, but rather tried to weasel his way out of >it. The questions still pending in this matter are all ones that Bill >Morgan is supposed to answer, not me. > >The second part of part of Bill Morgan's latest accusation has also been >shown to be contrary-to-fact, as a visit to my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr. >100%'" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/mr_100percent.html , >shows. > >Synopses and selected quotes from the messages with actual message headers >included (except for the minus sign at the beginning of the line -- makes >things nicer for perl and grep, don't you know?): >----------------------------- >-Subj:Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal >-Date: 22-Sep-00 20:06:44 Pacific Daylight Time >-From: billyjack321@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >Bill Morgan announces a Kent Hovind presentation in the area (Calvary >Chapel Golden Springs). > >-Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal >-Date: 05-Oct-00 17:31:45 Pacific Daylight Time >-From: DWise1 >-To: billyjack321@hotmail.com >-CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net >-CC: DWise1 >I respond with what I know about Kent Hovind. This includes what a >Christian friend and a former YEC-addict, Ed, told me about how watching a >Kent Hovind had shaken his faith and led to curing his YEC addiction. The >full story is at his page, http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ixthus/a7.html , >but part of what I QUOTED from his page was (note: the "famous 'young >earther'" in the quote was Kent Hovind): >"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! >.." > > >-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 >Bill Morgan's response ends with this question: > >"Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" > > >-Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal >-Date: 16-Nov-00 17:41:59 Pacific Standard Time >-From: DWise1 >-To: billyjack321@hotmail.com >-CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 >-CC: editor@liberator.net >Since Bill M had excluded the others, I repeated his previous message for >their benefit and addressed his polystrate fossil question first. > >I prefaced my reply with: > >"I'll place my question right up front so that you won't miss it as you >don't bother to read my reply. > >"It would help me greatly in answering your question if you were to tell me >what particular polystrate fossil you have in mind and why what kind of a >problem you think that it presents to science. Of course, I will also need >a reference to the science journal that describes that fossil. I simply do >not have the time to waste chasing a phantom wild goose." > >Then my reply stated that I found polystrate fossil claims to be "one of >the worst documented classes of creationist claims that I have encountered" >and that "[f]or a long time I could not find a single scientific reference >anywhere -- lots of claims of polystrate fossils, but no references." No >references, no way to discover the truth about the claims. > >I then described one of the few references I could find, which was given to >me by Paul Ekdahl, a creationist on CompuServe. Going back to the "quoted" >scientific source, I found that the creationist that Ekdahl had quoted had >himself misrepresented his own source and had made several statements that >were directly contradicted by the scientific source. I also found that >both Ekdahl and his creationist source were proceeding from false premises >about geology: >"...that modern geology requires slow, strictly gradualistic accumulation >of sediment at a uniform rate and that modern geology cannot account for >rapid depositation. Therefore, they conclude, any signs of rapid burial >disproves uniformitarianism and is direct evidence of Noah's Flood. > >"Bullfrog! Modern geologists know full well that flooding and landslides >occur and that they had occured in the past. Even 19th century geologists >knew that! Geologists also know what to look for to indicate whether a >deposit had been deposited rapidly or gradually. The referenced article >even described some of the characteristics of rapid vs gradual burial. If >the creationist had only bothered to read his source, ... ." > >I concluded the section on polystrate fossils with: >"In the meantime, it would help me greatly in answering your question if >you were to tell me what particular polystrate fossil you have in mind and >what kind of a problem you think that it presents to science. > >"Of course, I will also need a reference to the science journal that >describes that fossil. I simply do not have the time to waste chasing a >phantom wild goose. Besides which, your response to my having answered >your question would undoubtedly be your standard immediate dropping of the >subject and ignoring all follow-up questions from me." > > >-Subj: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide, >-Date: 10-Oct-00 13:20:07 Pacific Daylight Time >-From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >-To: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com >-CC: editor@liberator.net >Bill Morgan wrote in reference to Bill B's repeating of his "Origin of >Life" question: >"Buddy, they are too chicken to answer your sincere inquiry. trust me!" > > >-Subj: "Origin of Life" Question >-Date: 22-Nov-00 17:22:06 Pacific Standard Time >-From: DWise1 >-To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >-CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 >-CC: editor@liberator.net >I responded to that mocking taunt by pointing out Bill M's abysmal record >of answering questions (12.6% in 1996, much worse now) and comparing it to >my own record (92% in 1996 and holding steady). I refer you again: >"You can (and should) read the entire story on my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr. >100%'" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/mr_100percent.html . >You should also read my page, "BILL MORGAN'S 'UNANSWERABLE' QUESTIONS" at >http://membersaol.com/billyjack6/morgan/bills_questions.html to see my >responses to Bill M's "unanswerable" questions, Bill M's reaction to my >responses, and the original discussions that Bill M had tried to escape via >"rabbit trails" by asking those "unanswerable" questions." > >Then I review the questions to demonstrate how unreasonable Bill's >questions were (yet I did answer them) compared to how reasonable my >questions to Bill were (yet he repeatedly dodged them). I included my >questions to Bill about polystrate fossils, which he had not yet responded >to: >"14. "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" (27 Oct 2000 >17:29:13 EDT) >You have all received my response to Bill M. Basically, I told him: >a. That I needed more information from him about the specific claim that he >had in mind, including scientific references. >b. That I have traditionally found the polystrate claims to be one of the >worst-documented classes of creationist claims that I have encountered. >c. What the results were of checking on a specific claim with references >(ie, the creationist source had misrepresented his scientific source and >made claims directly contradicted by his source). >d. That: >"Now, the creationist and Paul were both proceeding from the false premise >that modern geology requires slow, strictly gradualistic accumulation of >sediment at a uniform rate and that modern geology cannot account for rapid >depositation. Therefore, they conclude, any signs of rapid burial >disproves uniformitarianism and is direct evidence of Noah's Flood. > >"Bullfrog! Modern geologists know full well that flooding and landslides >occur and that they had occured in the past. Even 19th century geologists >knew that! Geologists also know what to look for to indicate whether a >deposit had been deposited rapidly or gradually. The referenced article >even described some of the characteristics of rapid vs gradual burial. If >the creationist had only bothered to read his source, ... ." > >I posted my response on 16 Nov 2000. Bill Morgan has not responded within >the six days since then and, quite frankly, given his past conduct, I do >not expect him to respond. He doesn't want any real answers. He just >wanted to try to stump me again and yet again found that he could not." > > >-Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net >-Date: 30-Nov-00 16:24:50 Pacific Standard Time >-From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) >-To: DWise1@aol.com >-CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com >This is the message to which Bill Morgan has just responded! > >This is a response to my response to Mark's question of what I meant by my >question to Bill Morgan: > > >>Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net > >>Date: 16-Nov-00 17:28:56 Pacific Standard Time > >>From: DWise1 > >>To: billyjack1@hotmail.com > >>CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 > >>CC: editor@liberator.net > >> > >>No, seriously, Bill Morgan. > >> > >>What IS the role of truth in your creationist ministry? > >> > >>DO you believe that faith in God is more important than the truth? > >> > >>WOULD you willfully lie for the sake of your religious cause and for its >advancement? > >> > >>These questions are central to the issue. > >Please note that Bill Morgan has never answer these questions. > >Among the things that Mark quoted me (with complete accuracy) as saying >was: > >"Gee, Mark, have you noticed that Bill M has not responded to my having >answered his polystrate fossil claim and that he has not answered my >request for a specific example of one? Yet he is making a big show about >my not having answered his origin-of-life question (which, it turns out, I >have already answered -- twice)." > >It appears to be this statement to which Bill Morgan has just responded >with a new false accusation. > > >-Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal >-Date: 05-Dec-00 06:42:01 Pacific Standard Time >-From: billyjack321@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >-To: DWise1@aol.com >Bill Morgan, again neglecting to include our witnesses, ACKNOWLEDGED MY >RESPONSE thus: > >"Thank you very much for the e amil and I agree the burden of proof is on >me to find a specific example of a polystrate fossil if I am making the >claim they exist! If it is a phoney claim, not only won't I state they >exist, I will correct other Creation people not to claim they exist." > >Please note that Bill Morgan was responding SPECIFICALLY to my message of >16 Nov 2000 20:41:58 EST (given above as "17:41:59 Pacific Standard Time"), >in which I had requested a specific example from him. Please also note >that in this message Bill Morgan explicitly accepts responsibility for >providing that specific example. To date, Bill Morgan has not provided >that example. > > >-Subj: Re: List of alleged falsehoods. >-Date: 07-Dec-00 18:32:08 Pacific Standard Time >-From: DWise1 >-To: billyjack321@hotmail.com >-CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 >-CC: editor@liberator.net >While waiting in vain for Bill Morgan to produce that specific example, I >followed through on another request from Bill (notice how I try to keep my >promises as opposed to Bill always breaking his) and provided him with the >list of falsehoods that fundamentalist Christian Carl Drews found in an >"Answers in Genesis" video lecture series. Among them was a reference to >polystrate fossils: >"3. On August 20 Gary Parker spoke about polystrate fossils. He stated >that "Evolutionists are mystified by these things," and "No one has >proposed a way that they can form slowly." > >"Those statements are not correct. Geologist John William Dawson described >polystrate tree fossils in 1868 and gave a good explanation for their >formation. Modern geologists are comfortable with these fossils, and call >them "in situ trees." (3) I found examples of polystrate fossils forming >now at Neskowin Beach in Oregon. (4) Such findings are outside the popular >media, but if Gary Parker is teaching on these matters he should know about >these cases and not claim that evolutionists can't figure them out. He >gave an example of a non-tree polystrate fossil (a nautilus), but provided >no reference for me to check." > >Referenced footnotes: >(3) Polystrate Fossils. >John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality >at Joggins, Nova Scotia, and provided a reasonable explanation for its >formation: >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html >Coal deposits were formed from ancient swamps, and the trees grew there. >The trees kept growing as the level of the swamp slowly rose through >accumulation of sediment and organic matter. The point of citing such an >old reference is to emphasize how long these fossils have been known and >understood. > >(4) Ancient Buried Trees at Neskowin Beach. >A forest was submerged during an earthquake 2,000 years ago. Now unearthed >by storm erosion. >Visible at Neskowin Beach (reported by Brian T. Meehan in The Oregonian, >March 7, 1998). >This beach is north of Cascade Head. Also, "This winter, erosion exposed >4,000-year-old stumps at Beverly Beach State Park, north of Newport." >http://www.oregonlive.com/todaysnews/9803/st03073.html >Another news story by Lynda V. Mapes in the Seattle Times, Posted Monday, >May 11, 1998: > >http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/health-science/html98/altstum_051198.html >Pilgrims descended on the beach by the thousands in Neskowin after news >reports described stumps "dating back to the time of Jesus." A flyer >pasted on a motel-office door notes: "As a matter of general interest, the >stumps are visible most years." Geologists theorize that a subduction >earthquake lowered the coastline suddenly and shoreline erosion buried the >trees. These fossils are being formed now without the aid of a global >flood. A catastrophic event (an earthquake) certainly helps to form >fossils, but a worldwide flood is not necessary to explain the Neskowin >trees. Tree stumps can take thousands of years to get fully buried. >"Episodically Buried Forests in the Oregon Surf Zone", a scientific paper >by Roger Hart and Curt Peterson. >http://www.netbridge.net/~rogerhart/dogami.html > >Carl Drews' references page is at >http://www.theistic-evolution.com/references.html . > > >-Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal >-Date: 12/11/2000 17:17:46 Pacific Standard Time >-From: DWise1 >-To: billyjack321@hotmail.com >-CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 >-CC: editor@liberator.net >I respond to Bill Morgan's message of 5 Dec 2000 9:42:01 AM Eastern >Standard Time, asking him several questions about his strange reply: > >">>Thank you very much for the e amil and I agree the burden of proof is on >me to find a specific example of a polystrate fossil if I am making the >claim they exist! If it is a phoney claim, not only won't I state they >exist, I will correct other Creation people not to claim they exist.<< > >"I'm sorry, Bill M, but that looks too much to me like yet another weasel >maneuver, albeit somewhat more subtle than you usually try to pull, so >you're improving. I am going to have to ask some direct questions to which >I fully expect to see your answers. > >"Why are you suddenly raising the issue of whether the polystrate fossil >claims are false? And that last sentence in which you say you would >correct other creationists making "phoney" claims appears to be an attempt >to divert our attention away from the question of the polystrate claim. In >other words, you're starting another "rabbit trail" there, quite a bit more >subtly than you usually do, but a "rabbit trail" nonetheless. > >"Bill M, you had asked me: "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate >fossils?" Now it looks like you are trying to distance yourself from the >polystrate fossil claim by saying "if I am making the claim they exist". >Well, are you making the claim that they exist or aren't you? If you are >making that claim, then simply say so. If you are not making that claim, >then why did you ask me that question in the first place? If you don't >know of any examples of polystrate fossils, then why did you ask me for an >explanation for them? Were you just bluffing? Bill M, you know that I do >not bluff. You should also know that I am in these discussions for the >information, so a bluff has no effect on me except to irritate me; I expect >all hands to be shown so that all information can be shared. That is, >after all, one of the marks of an open and examining mind. > >"Or did I short-circuit your example with my own example of a claim I had >researched? Or with my short exposition on how that claim misrepresented >geology? > >"Bill M, if you do not know of any specific example of a polystrate fossil, >then please make a simple and direct statement to that effect (actually, I >was expecting you to mention the Lompoc whale fossil). If you do have a >specific example of one, then please make a simple and direct statement to >that effect and present it. If you need more time to dig for the >references and will need to get back with us on it later, then please make >a simple and direct statement to that effect, tell us what little you do >know, being sure to point out what you are doubtful about, AND BE SURE TO >FOLLOW THROUGH WITH YOUR PROMISE to get back with us on it. That would >include prompt and honest responses to our subsequent inquiries about that >example. > >"In any of the above cases, you would also need to tell us why you think >that geology is unable to explain them. Obviously, you believe that >polystrate fossils present problems for geologists. Exactly what problems >do you believe that they present? What assumptions are you making in >identifying them as problems? > >"Those questions can still be answered whether polystrate fossils are >"phoney" or not. They must still be answered and discussed, because they >relate directly to the claims in question, which are still being used by >Kent Hovind and many other creationists, whether they are true or not. > >"You asked your question in your reply concerning Kent Hovind, so I would >assume that you were thinking of Hovind's claims concerning polystrate >fossils. I do know that Kent Hovind uses such claims, including the one >about the Lompoc whale fossil. What is he trying to say with those claims >and what assumptions is he making? As Carl Drews commented, Gary Parker >makes the false claim that geologists cannot explain polystrate fossils, >whereas in truth geologists have been able to explain them for well over >100 years. In the example that Paul Ekdahl had given me, his creationist >source claimed that geology only accepts slow gradual depositing and cannot >account for rapid burial (also a common theme in several other Flood >Geology claims), whereas in truth geology readily recognizes rapid burial, >has no problem whatsoever with it, and knows what to look for, as described >explicitly in the scientific source that the creationist had used. So what >claims is Kent Hovind making? An! >d what claims were you, Bill M, >planning on making when you asked that question?" > >I concluded with: >"As you should know by now, Bill Morgan, I do expect answers. Here's your >chance to start pulling your grade up from that rock-solid F you've been >maintaining for the past four years." > > >-Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net >-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 1:40:38 AM Eastern Standard Time >-From: "Bill Morgan" >-To: spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com >-CC: billbeq@mediaone.net >Bill Morgan makes his latest false accusation: >"I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my >requqest." > > > > >And now that we have examined the facts, we all know the true story. We >also all know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Bill Morgan's latest >accusation -- "I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual >you ignored my requqest." -- is completely and utterly false. > >This concludes the first and second phases of the resolution process for >this accusation. >The next phase requires Bill Morgan to acknowledge the facts and/or bring >other facts to our attention that support his accusation. His failure to >do either will be construed as his admission that his accusation is indeed >false. The final phase of the resolution process will require us to ALL >consider the matter to be closed. For Bill Morgan in this case (since the >accusation has been shown to be blatantly and completely false), this will >mean that he must state explicitly and FOR THE RECORD that he realizes that >the accusation is false, that he retracts the accusation, that he >apologizes for having made the accusation in the first place, and that he >will never again believe that accusation to be true. > >Your turn to implement the next phase of the resolution process for your >latest false accusation, Bill Morgan. > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-za03.mx.aol.com (rly-za03.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.99]) by air-za01.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:25:42 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f171.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.171]) by rly-za03.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:24:38 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:24:37 -0800 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:24:36 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net, spambuster@gigagod.com Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:24:36 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jan 2001 23:24:37.0101 (UTC) FILETIME=[A53FD1D0:01C08A4A] ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: 01/29/2001 18:12:02 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, spambuster@gigagod.com CC: DWise1 >>CC: billbeq@mediaone.net << Bill M, please stop including Bill B in these messages. He has indicated to us that he never ever again wants to be included in our discussions. Bill B, please tell Bill M to stop including you in this message traffic. As I had advised you, for each and every message from Bill M in which he does include you, I must likewise include you in the response. Otherwise, you would get only Bill M's false and contrary-to-fact statements and never be able to benefit from my truthful statements >>I told you many times I do not save my old emails, unfortunately this never got through to you comprehending that.<< Why do you keep saying that? You know full well that it has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to produce the EXACT AND ACTUAL TEXT of my messages which you claim to be basing your accusations on. Please explain what you are trying to say here, because it makes no sense. >>I take full blame. I apologize.<< Bill, this matter has not concluded. You wouldn't even admit to yourself the terrible things that you have done, so how can you meaningfully accept the blame and apologize? We have already seen what your apologies mean in the case of your "PE slander" accusation: you mumbled an apology and then continued to accuse me. No, we still need to get this matter resolved! Bill M, you are just trying to run away from your responsibility again. I am trying to get this matter resolved, so please work with me on it. That is what I have been trying to get you to do since August! All you've been doing has been to block that process with your tricks and games. So please stop playing your tricks and games and work with me. I really would like to be able to report something positive about you, but first you have to show me something positive. Then after we have reached a resolution, we can discuss the fun stuff, but we cannot before that resolution. ################################################ Subj: Re: Myth Conceptions Date: 01/29/2001 18:33:22 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) CC: DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill B) Bill Morgan, you wrote: "You can worship Hitler if you want to but anyone with a funny moustache like that is not worthy to be praised. Gahndi was played in a movie by an Englishman, what kind of humiliation is that to the Indians?" What does that have to do with my question that you refuse to answer? -- 'Is there any logic to faith?' Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ >From: "Mark" >To: "Bill Morgan" >CC: , "Bill B" >Subject: Re: Myth Conceptions >Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:15:05 -0600 > ><questions, answer one of mine: 'Is there any logic to faith?'" Bill, you >had no response. If you are a real engineer Bill, that question would be >very easy for you.>> > >Until you answer my question -- which you have dodged twice now -- I will >not answer your questions. > >Mark Liberator >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Bill Morgan >To: >Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 6:13 AM >Subject: Re: Myth Conceptions > > >Again you begged the question. > >Who died for a leprachun? > > > >From: "Mark" > >To: "Bill Morgan" > >Subject: Re: Myth Conceptions > >Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:24:59 -0600 > > > >Bill Morgan , you wrote: > >"We have hammered [individual freewill vs an all-knowing God] to death. >If > >God programmed people, why did he get angrytwtihthem (Read Exodus and > >Isaiah)." > > > >Anger is yet another sign that the Christian God must be flawed. Nice > >point. > > > >"Histroy does not teach of of leprchan martyrs but history tells us of > >thousands of martyrs for Jesus." > > > >History teaches us that a lot of people died for Hitler too. Should we > >worship him? History shows that a lot of people risked their lives for > >Gandhi. Should we worship him as if he was a God? > > > >"Not at all. I usse science to explain the existance of a supreme > >creator...and he is revealed in the Bible." > > > >You do not use science at all and if you were a real engineer, you would > >know this. Science is based on observation. Using the Bible as evidence > >while trying to pass yourself off as an engineer says that either you're > >ignorant or you're a calculating charlatan. Which is it? > > > >"But you are using the bible for your points, thus you should use to it > >justify your points." > > > >I use the Bible to discredit it, which is always quite easily done. The > >Bible contains numerous inconsistencies, which makes it the work of >flawed > >beings, not unlike any other book created by man. > > > >Instead of getting wrapped up in the soap opera, I like to use the > >fundamental principles that are entertained in the Bible and then using > >them > >to show errors. > > > >Besides, educated Christians believe that the Bible is not a work to be > >taken literally. It is a work that uses fantasy to hammer through >behavior > >patterns. > > > >"Now we are making progress. 3 points, the bible teaches [1] the >universe > >had a beginning, [2] there was a global flood, [3] the earth rests on > >nothing Job 26:7 and the world will have a one world government. Is that > >good proof." > > > >Once again Bill, if you were really an engineer, you would realize that > >making unsupported statements is not science. [1] There are many >theories > >to explain what happened before the big bang but none of them can be > >supported scientifically. [2] Global flood? Do you believe in Noah's >Ark > >too? I suppose you believe in Santa Clause as well? [3] One can pick >out > >many vague reference in the Bible to support a number of things. What's > >your point? Again Bill, how is using the Bible to support your God-model > >an > >act of 'science'? > > > >I wrote in my previous letter: > >"Bill, since I answered one of your questions, answer one of mine: 'Is > >there > >any logic to faith?'" > > > >Bill, you had no response. If you are a real engineer Bill, that >question > >would be very easy for you. > > > >Mark > > > > > >The Liberator > >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net > >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb04.mx.aol.com (rly-yb04.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.4]) by air-yb05.mail.aol.com (v77.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:33:22 -0500 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yb04.mx.aol.com (v77.27) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:32:27 -0500 Received: from oemcomputer (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0U2WHf29712; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:32:17 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <001701c08a65$42a95ee0$052a03c7@oemcomputer> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" Cc: , "Bill B" References: Subject: Re: Myth Conceptions Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:34:03 -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: Myth Conceptions Date: 01/30/2001 07:47:56 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: spambuster@gigagod.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 Bill Morgan is just "rabbit trailing" again. Ironic that he officially condemns the practice, yet he lives and breathes by it. If I were a Christian, I would be deeply offended by his witness that Christianity requires you to use cheap tricks to avoid honest discussion. ################################################ Subj: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution Date: 01/30/2001 07:50:07 Pacific Standard Time From: BillyJack6 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: skahappy@voyager.net, BillyJack6, DWise1 >>Subj: Re: Creation Vs. Evolution >>Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 6:19:21 PM Eastern Standard Time >>From: "Bill Morgan" >>To: BillyJack6@aol.com >> >>I told mr wise 50 times i did not save the text. >> >>Please tell me what to do if I don't save old e mails. >> >>Thanks. Honestly, Bill, how could anybody be as totally clueless as you pretend to be? Wise believes that you are putting on an act with that excuse and the others and that you are in effect lying. Frankly, so do I. So what are you are supposed to do if you don't save your emails? You get them from another source that is freely available. Like I did. Six months ago, Wise gave you the entire transcript of all the emails that you have sent each other. He has told you over and over again what web page it is on and he has told you over and over again to go there and use it. In his web pages about your accusations he points you to that web page over and over again. Duh? Bill, I have read that transcript. I know what you have done, so save your lies for your followers. I have seen how you refuse to answer the simplest questions. I have seen how you use one trick after another to avoid having to support any of your claims, be they creationist or your vicious accusations. I have seen you and your friend sadistically toy with Wise and Mark, mocking them mercilessly when you thought that you had them over a barrel and skittering away like cockroaches when they would turn on the light of the truth. I have seen you twist and distort everything that Wise tells you. I have seen you make up things that never happened in order to accuse Wise of having done something wrong. That poor guy has had to spend so much time and energy in gathering and presenting the facts so that the truth could prevail over your lies. And I have watched you squirm like a demon on a spit as you have done everything you could to keep from looking at the facts and to keep anybody else from looking at th e facts behind your accusations. I am truly amazed at Wise's patience with you. And the most amazing part of it all is that he doesn't want revenge nor to humilate you, even though he certainly deserves to want to. All he wants is to be able to resolve the matter of your accusations against him so that the two of you can get on with discussing your creationist claims. He is a very religious man, which is something that the likes of you could never understand, and he wants the truth to win out over the darkness. I have seen you accuse him of attacking your faith and of wanting to destroy it, but in reality he is very much concerned that you and others like you are in danger of losing their faith because of creation science. He is trying to help you and you are fighting against him every step of the way. He is determined to see this through and he is not going away. Wise uploaded the entire transcript of your email messages to http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html . It is organized by date, as is made clear by the page itself. His pages dealing with your accusations start at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/j_accuse.html . ################################################