You said – ”What happened to the fun tone of this thread? Did Britons With Balls get in the way?

You said – ”….zzzzzzzzzzzz..chrrr..zzzzzzzzzz….”

You said – ” God didn't mastermind such evil”

If God really does exist, then yes, perhaps mastermind is the wrong word, considering the complete mess God has made of the world.

You said – ” God hates "such evil" and has even humbled Himself to become one of us and then died to destroy that evil.”

And a fat lot of good that did. Ever since Jesus set foot on this planet, the people of planet Earth have experienced untold suffering – the Holocaust, the Black Death, famine, earthquake, cancer, Japanese, British and Spanish imperialism, and now AIDS.

You said – ”If you put forth any specific evidence or compelling proof, I'll be glad to consider it. To date, though, all you've provided are subjective generalizations and no corroborative evidence.”

Of course, it is your prerogative to dismiss the arguments I have put forward as being subjective, just as it is mine to question your apparent ‘blind faith’ in a non-existent deity. However, I have discussed at this message board the compelling evidence that supports the theory of evolution, I have provided examples of where the bible has been doctored to fit into contemporary religious thinking, and I have explained why Charlton Heston and Donald Sinden are more than capable of portraying ‘ethnic Jews’. All you have provided is anecdotal evidence of your private conversations with the Creator.

You said – ” ….all your posts have been unsubstantiated claims. I must have missed the part where you provided evidence…”

I don’t think you missed it, you have simply chosen to ignore it. I have explained in detail why evolution is a simple fact of life (something that flies in the face of theological philosophy and the teachings of the bible), and I have also provided concrete examples of where the bible has been altered to back-up the ridiculous fiction of the Holy Trinity and the bogus notion that Jesus fulfilled many of the prophesies of the Old Testament, amongst other things.

You said – ” Wedge and I are so secure in our faith that your attempts to tear it down are irrelevant….”

I am not trying to tear down your faith, and I wouldn’t want to. I am merely attempting to understand your faith by questioning its validity.

You said – ” I would hazard a guess that Chris is not debating with you to proove the strength of his faith, merely because he enjoys it.”

Of course Chris doesn’t have to prove his faith to me, or anyone. That’s not what this discussion is about. I think you’re right, Chris is probably enjoying the discussion as much as I….it’s a shame that certain other individuals seem to take it all far too seriously.

You said – ” Such a childish attitude of "if you don't justify yourself to me, you're a coward" ill befits…..”

If one is prepared to enter the discussion only to state ‘I am right and you are wrong’ without backing-up one’s opinions, as you and Wedge have done, then one must be prepared to have one’s statements dismissed as the unsubstantiated wafflings of a blinkered coward.

You said – "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

You can always rely on the bible for a tired old cliché.

You said – ”As for me, I'm only responding to you because I want to make the thread longer.”

You said – ”I thought better of a few silly comments, and made the mistake of thinking that I had removed them before they were seen. Saying ridiculous things from time to time is certainly not beyond my abilities, and when I have done so, I usually take them back, if possible.”

That’s fair enough Chris. You have provided a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. If only you could extend such rational, objective, concise and honest reasoning to the rest of the discussion.

You said – ” In the far-flung past (have you forgotten already?) I spent PAGES describing both my reasoning and, where possible, evidence.”

Thank you for taking the time to restate your opinions and beliefs here. I had not forgotten the gist of your reasoning, only the specifics of what you quoted at the Film Score Monthly Message Board a year ago – sadly, those discussions are no longer available to peruse. Therefore, I think it is only fair that if you desire to contribute to the current discussion that you illustrate your opinions with specific examples to support your theories, as I have done.

You said – ” When I say I have already won my battle, I mean that I have struggled with tough questions and come up with answers which make sense to me.”

Then you are in a unique position, I don’t know of anyone who knows the answer to everything.

You said – ” How could God prove to you that He was not an illusion? Or a dream? He could not ... because you can always CHOOSE to believe otherwise.”

You always seem to characterize me as the ultimate sceptic – this is a false assumption. If there was compelling evidence that God exists, as there is compelling evidence that evolution exists, then I would believe. I believe that the Earth is round, I believe that the sun is at the centre of the solar system, I believe the solar system is in a pretty lonely region of our galaxy, I believe our galaxy is one of at least 50 billion galaxies in our universe – I believe all of these things, not because I have experienced these things first hand, but because others have provided overwhelming evidence that such is the case. I don’t choose to believe that the Earth is round or that evolution is a fact….I simply believe because there is overwhelming evidence to support the fact the Earth is round, and there is overwhelming evidence to support the fact that mankind evolved from apes.

By your reasoning I would have to have gone into space to see the Earth for myself to believe it was round, or I would have had to go back in time to witness the evolution of ape to man to believe that. This not true, and I would not necessarily need to see heaven to believe in the existence of God.

You said – ” I submit that if Jesus came down to your house and changed water into wine you could find a hundred reasons why it did not conclusively prove that he was God.”

You are simply wrong to assume that. If a gentleman called at my house claiming to be Jesus, who then proceeded to transform water into wine, I would have to concede that there was some evidence to suggest that this man was the Son of God. However, I could not dispute in any way, that this man who claimed to be Jesus performed a supernatural act that would subsequently compel me to revise my general thinking on the paranormal, Bigfoot and the Easter Bunny. Still, this evidence alone would not prove conclusively that this man was Jesus, further evidence of this man’s credentials would be necessary. He could be some other supernatural entity….but, whether this guy was Jesus or not, it would still be the most remarkable thing that I have ever witnessed, and would lead me to believe that there was something to the paranormal after all. But, this is just the sort of supernatural phenomena that is constantly being claimed by certain individuals, ie encounters with aliens, ghostly sightings and conversations with God, and yet is never backed-up with corroborative evidence.

You said – ” This world does NOT WANT for paradoxes and unsolved mysteries and observable behaviors which science can NOT EXPLAIN!”

Such as? What paradoxes and unsolved mysteries are you referring to? Do you mean ghosts, UFOs, or the Loch Ness Monster? Granted, there are many unanswered questions relating to the origins and scope of the universe, but that does not mean to say that those questions that science cannot answer at present are the work of a ‘divine being’. Even if mankind never fully understands the workings of the universe, there is still no reason for mankind to believe in God. Not so long ago, mankind believed the Earth was at the centre of the universe because God placed it there. Nowadays, we know that the Earth is not at the centre of the universe. At the moment we are not sure about the origins of the universe, so it is only natural that some people like to think that the mysteries of the universe are somehow supernatural. It is my belief that, in time, all of the existing mysteries of the universe will be rationally explained without having to resort to talk of ‘Divine Beings’.

You said – ” …..he (God) could simply CAUSE you to accept Him. (but)….A loving God would not want soulless puppets…..”

I do want to believe in God. I do want to think that all of the loved ones I have lost will be waiting for me on the ‘other side’…..but I prefer not to kid myself about such matters.

You said – ”…. But FAITH is the necessary prerequisite……So: my conclusion is that if there IS NOT a God, there will be no proof. If there IS a God, the only proof to be found will be found INSIDE of pre-existing belief.”

So, you admit that God may not exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
Then you are in a unique position, I don’t know of anyone who knows the answer to everything.

---

I didn't say I knew the answer to everything. I said I believed in answers to certain questions.

quote:

---

You said – ”…. But FAITH is the necessary prerequisite……So: my conclusion is that if there IS NOT a God, there will be no proof. If there IS a God, the only proof to be found will be found INSIDE of pre-existing belief.”

So, you admit that God may not exist.

---

No, I was only trying to approach the question from an agnostic point of view.

That's all I have time for right now -- got to run to class.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wedge:
Out of curiosity, is ANYONE AT ALL besides Daniel2 getting something out of this? (If, indeed, he is.) Because I've been through this so many times with so many people ... it can go on point and counterpoint FOREVER (it has for the last several thousand years) and no one ever "wins." If there was a WAY the discussion could be settled once and for all, it would have been found many centuries ago by greater minds than ours. So if anyone ELSE has any questions or comments, go ahead, but I'd just as soon talk about something else.

---

I'm getting a bit of amusement. And who's to say one of will not be granted divine inspiration and proceed to miraculously prove God to Daniel2?

Oh, I'm glad the thread's getting longer, too. We were dead there for a while. If controversial topics are required to make long threads, well, hey. (Lets talk about ABORTION!*)

*Note to the literal minded: See the wink? I don't really want to talk about abortion, although I can go about it forever.

NP: Jaws, Decca CD

My faith is on the line right now, Daniel. I am praying for you. I am calling upon Almighty God Himself to show up.

He will.

BRITONS WITH BALLS – part XIII

The Beatles

Sir (James) Paul McCartney, Born June 18 1942 Liverpool, England

John (Winston) Lennon,
Born Oct 9 1940 Liverpool, England
Died Dec 8, 1980, New York City

George Harrison, Born Feb 25 1943 Liverpool, England

Ringo Starr (Richard Starkey), Born July 7 1940 Liverpool, England

English musical group that enjoyed worldwide popular adulation in the 1960s; the group ushered in the climactic phase of rock music (mid 1960s-70s).

The group began in the pairing of McCartney and Lennon in 1956, joined by Harrison in 1957; the three (along with one member who died in 1962 and another who was later replaced by Starr) adopted the name the Beatles in 1960, performing at clubs in Liverpool and in Hamburg. In 1962 the group, under the management of Brian Epstein, signed a recording contract and recruited Starr from another band. The subsequent commercial release (1962-63) of such songs as "Love Me Do," "Please Please Me," "She Loves You," and "I Want To Hold Your Hand" made them the most popular rock group in England, and early in 1964 what soon came to be called "Beatlemania" struck the United States with the release there of the two last-named records and their first US television appearance on the "Ed Sullivan Show."

The Beatles' music recaptured much of the freshness and excitement of the earliest days of rock and roll and, in combination with the simple but engaging lyrics of Lennon and McCartney, kept the group at the top of popularity charts for several years. They won recognition from the music industry in the form of awards for performances and songs and from Queen Elizabeth II of England, who named each of them to membership in the Order of the British Empire. Their long hair and tastes in dress proved influential throughout the world, as did their highly publicized experimentation with hallucinogenic drugs and Indian mysticism.

With a solid financial basis, any single record or album of theirs was virtually guaranteed sales of more than a million, they felt free to experiment with new musical forms and arrangements. The result was a variety of songs ranging from ballads such as "Yesterday" to complex rhythm tunes like "Paperback Writer," from children's songs such as "Yellow Submarine" to more serious songs, including "Eleanor Rigby." Their public performances ended in 1966.

In 1967 they produced "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," an album conceived as a dramatic whole rather than as a collection of miscellaneous songs; it was novel, too, in its use of electronic music and in its being explicitly a studio work unreproducible on stage. Their prestige won attention to their experiments from their audience, opening up new possibilities for musical expression that other performers were quick to follow, and it attracted more serious listeners as well.

The Beatles engaged in other artistic pursuits, together in two critically well-received films, A Hard Day's Night (1964) and Help! (1965), and separately. Finally, the pressures of their public lives, together with their growing outside interests, led to the group's dissolution in 1971, although rumours that they might reunite persisted. McCartney produced solo albums and in 1971 formed his own band, Wings. Harrison worked alone and with Lennon and Starr in the 1970s. Starr appeared in films and showed some attraction to country music. Lennon continued as a musician with his wife, Yoko Ono, and was wantonly assassinated in 1980.

You said – ”It is a given that you will die, as will I. I'll see you then, and that will be your proof…”

You said – ”Daniel2: do you concede that a good and loving God, that some sort of post-life existence, MIGHT exist? Do you admit it is POSSIBLE, however unlikely given an absence of evidence which satisfies you?”

No

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
Speaking entirely hypothetically (which is the only way), if we did meet in an afterlife, nothing would change, including my opinion of Goldsmith’s ‘90s filmscores.

---

Actually, I was speaking with absolute certainty. This isn't hypothetical.
And your opinion will have to change, because God will be there to back me on the fact that He exists.

You said – ”If controversial topics are required to make long threads, well, hey. (Lets talk about ABORTION!)”

In my eyes there is nothing controversial about abortion.

Abortion is a natural and positive element in a modern, tolerant, caring, broad-minded and sophisticated society.

You said – ”According to you, there is no such thing as evil…”

If God did exist, I would consider it evil….just think about the Indian earthquake. How can you worship a God that murders his children in such a horrible way? I think this puts the humane and often necessary termination of an unwanted pregnancy into perspective.

Seriously. You are a true atheist, who doesn't even accept the POSSIBILITY that God exists. Why, then, do you continue? You said you wanted to learn more about other people's beliefs ... to "increase your knowledge" of the world.

And yet every time we bring something up, it appears to be something you've already considered ... something you've already dismissed. If you haven't, you proceed to consider/dismiss it. The pattern has not changed since day one, many many months ago.

Are we giving you new information? Useful information?

You said - "Are we giving you new information? Useful information?

I live in hope.

BRITONS WITH BALLS – part XIV

Lord Nelson

Viscount Horatio Nelson,
DUKE (duca) DI BRONTE,
SIR HORATIO NELSON (1797-98),
BARON NELSON OF THE NILE AND BURNHAM-THORPE (1798-1801)

Born Sep 29, 1758, Burnham Thorpe, Norfolk, England
Died Oct 21, 1805, at sea, off Cape Trafalgar, Spain

British admiral, whose brilliant seamanship twice broke the naval power of France. The son of a Norfolk rector, he entered the British navy at the age of 12 and became a captain at the age of 20. On the outbreak of war with France in 1793 he was given command of the battleship Agamemnon and served under Admiral Hood in the Mediterranean. He lost the sight of his right eye during a
successful attack on Corsica in the following year. In 1797 he played a notable part in the defeat of the French and Spanish fleets at the battle of Cape St Vincent and was subsequently promoted rear-admiral. Later the same year he lost his right arm whilst capturing Santa Cruz de Tenerife in the Canary Islands.

In 1798, after pursuing the French fleet in the eastern Mediterranean, he achieved a resounding victory at the battle of the Nile. While stationed at Naples he began his life-long love affair with Lady Emma Hamilton, the wife of the British ambassador there. In 1801 Nelson was promoted vice-admiral and defeated the Danish fleet at the battle of Copenhagen. Following this engagement he was created a viscount. In 1803, after the renewal of war with France, Nelson was given command of the
Mediterranean and for two years blockaded the French fleet at Toulon. When it escaped he gave chase across the Atlantic and back, finally bringing the united French and Spanish fleets to battle at Trafalgar in 1805. This decisive victory, in which Nelson was mortally wounded, saved Britain from the threat of invasion by Napoleon.

Let me say straight off, I am a firm pro-abortionist – not least because if you outlaw something like abortion, you merely drive it underground leading to untold tragedy (one of the main reasons that I frequently campaign for the legalisation of soft drugs (as an initial step toward the eventual legalization of all narcotics)). Anyhow, I believe in the right of the mother to decide for herself, quite apart from the fact that a pregnancy through rape or incest should be terminated if desired by the mother. Likewise, if a problem is detected with the developing foetus then an abortion should at least be an option.

It is very much the conservative and old-fashioned view to be anti-abortion – outlawing abortion would be as ludicrous, and as damaging, as outlawing homosexual intimacy or genetic engineering.

Take a recent liberal movie tackled the issue of abortion from the pro-abortion point of view. CIDER HOUSE RULES was the epitome of political-correctness – the sort of conformist and soft-centred movie that is as mainstream as Robbie Williams, motorbikes, body piercing, hamburgers and blue denim.

I mean, CIDER HOUSE RULES was okay, but talk about toeing the line! I heartily agree with the sentiments of one UK critic when he said “….…..Its nomination for Best Picture shows that the Academy still loves a liberal homily, even if it’s yawn-inducingly dull”. Yet, the movie’s intentions were fine, but what a wishy-washy way to put its agenda across. Why not make an entertaining movie, that also manages to prick the emotions and conscience in the process - CIDER HOUSE RULES was as tame and as soft as icecream left out in the midday sun – neither thought-provoking nor entertaining – just plain Sunday School politically-correct marmalade and molasses.

After all, we are talking about the rights of a woman to determine her own destiny and the destiny of her child. That’s what political correctness is all about – the pursuit of equality, whether it be racial or sexual – therefore the issue of a woman having the choice to abort her pregnancy is fundamental to that issue. There is still much to be done to protect the rights of the woman and to ensure that women are not discriminated against – to outlaw abortion would be as awful as taking away the vote from women.

Besides, it is pure common sense and sound reasoning to maintain the legality of abortion – though I understand that the whole issue of abortion is far more important and difficult to talk about for those who are opposed to it (often on moral, religious and ethical grounds), than for those who are willing to accept it. Being willing to accept abortion as a normal element of a fair and enlightened society is not being anti-life – it is merely being practical and humane.

Whether abortion is legal or not, it will continue – it’s like drug-dealing, homosexual practice and prostitution – no laws will prevent its occurrence, and I believe that any restrictive laws have a detrimental effect.

Just forty years ago, homosexual practice in Great Britain was illegal – it was a ridiculous law, and a damaging one. Whether your attitude toward homosexual activity is ambivalence, approval, or nausea, no-one can deny that it exists – and being a homosexual or bisexual is nothing to be ashamed of. The effect of the law prohibiting homosexual activity was merely to create a massive blackmailing industry – the law against homosexual practice was known as ‘the blackmailers charter’, and many important, fine, and talented men were ruined by the disgrace that hung over them, simply because of their sexual orientation.

The laws prohibiting soliciting for prostitution and the prohibition of the dealing and possession of drugs are of similar outmoded shortsightedness and downright stupidity. More than half of the teenagers in England have experimented with drugs – therefore drugs, soft and hard, are freely available and inexpensive. Wherever we go in Bristol members of my family are either offered drugs or find someone under the influence of drugs or find discarded needles and other such evidence of drug-use. It’s everywhere, and one of the main reasons is because it is illegal. If the possession of soft drugs was made legal (as a first step towards the legalization of all narcotics) the glamour and the attraction of drug-use will be largely reduced.

Not only that, with the manufacture and distribution of drugs necessarily having to conform to British and European standards, the risk of tainted cocaine or bad ecstasy will be virtually eliminated.

It is much the same with abortion. Firstly, I agree that educating the child from a very early age in the use of contraception is far more desirable than an unwanted pregnancy and the possible resulting abortion. The easy availability (away from the family block) of contraceptives free of charge to all children is vital in promoting healthy physical relationships without the risk of an unwanted pregnancy and the subsequent need for an abortion.

Without easy access to contraceptives, unwanted pregnancies amongst teenagers will continue to grow. The problem would be compounded by making abortion illegal – young girls would be forced to seek out ‘back-street’ abortionists (and run the risk of never being able to conceive again through sloppy work from the ‘surgeon’), or they may attempt to abort their pregnancy themselves through self-injurious behaviour, or they may even attempt suicide.

There is no greater celebration of mankind’s love for his/her neighbour than sexual contact – there is no greater pleasure known to mankind than sexual intimacy – everything should be done to promote sexual activity that is trouble-free and without the risk of pregnancy or infection – abortion is unfortunate and should always be the last resort – but abortion should always be an option.

100% mortality rate in women who have an abortion and there would be NO DEATH???
What an interesting notion, John.

I will offer John a solution to the horrid abortion problem. Who knows,
all anti abortionists may get lucky with President Bush, it will become a crime,
and women can once again become desperate and return to rusty knives
and dark alleys. Maybe I’ll invest in knitting needle stocks and bonds and
get rich.

Anyway, make abortions illegal. Then for every desperate woman who
punctures her womb with a knitting needle or who hemorrhages to death
from a botched back alley procedure, use DNA testing to find out
who sweet daddy is. If the woman only punctures a womb and lives, daddy
has one testicle removed in the SAME manner. If she and fetus bleed to death,
he must have both testicles identically removed and bleed to death.
Sound horrid? Nah. Just LEVEL the men-women-sex-accountability-shame-
morals-censure-biological playing field, and you will no longer have
(in most cases) a need for abortion. Presto! Problem solved.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Dunham:
Also, if abortions had a 100% mother mortality rate, people WOULD STOP HAVING THE DAMNED THINGS! Then there would be [b]NO death.)
[/B]

---

When God created the earth, He gave man dominion over it. When man rebelled against God, the earth was turned over to Satan, who has been the "prince of this world" ever since. Man's dominion has remained, but in the process of "switching Gods", he gained a bitter enemy; a thief, murderer and destroyer.
Jesus came to redeem man from that curse. Complete redemption is available to EVERYONE who will receive it. That redemption includes all authority (in the Name of Jesus) over sickness and disease, and authority over nature itself (or herself, if you prefer).
When His life was threatened by a storm at sea, Jesus simply spoke, "Peace, be still" and the storm was calmed. He also said, "Greater things than these YOU will do in My Name", speaking to all believers.
The Christian church has failed to teach the full gospel, and so most believers scoff at such an idea that we mere humans would indeed possess authority over nature, but...THERE IT IS in red ink in my New Testament! Jesus said it!
Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network is continually mocked for confessing that he and many other Christians spoke to several hurricanes, thus moving them away from Virginia Beach and out to sea, and yet the facts remain...they did speak, and the storm did move.
The idea is just too preposterous, even for most Christians!
Daniel, I'm sure you had a good chuckle over my comments regarding divine healing. If so, you'll laugh out loud at this one:

In 1996, the Susquehanna river flooded. Here is a view of it from nearby my house:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1050478&a=7760084&p=39519278

The water was headed for my home, and my neighborhood was evacuated. We were ordered to shut down the electricity and leave. I took my wife & daughter to a friend's home, and returned to our house. It was 7PM, and the water still rising. The river was due to crest the following day at 12 noon, so according to that prediction, my house would be underwater.
I believe that God gave mankind authority over nature for just such a need. I spoke to the river in the Name of Jesus, and commanded it to return into its banks immediately.
The water began to recede that very hour.
Most of you will laugh out loud at this, I understand...it's just too crazy.
But the story is true. Since that time I have re-routed other damaging storms away from my area of authority.
This is another example of God putting His SUPER on top of my "natural". All He expects of me is to have the faith to SPEAK in His Name. He will provide the power.

God is not a murderer, and this earth is only under His authority to the extent that men and women of God exert that authority. God works with and through PEOPLE who are bold enough to take Him at His Word.

Okay, I'm trying to stop here before this turns into a speech. Just try to understand where I'm coming from here.

When does life officially begin?

When the sperm smacks into the egg?

Indeed, in the later months when the baby has become fully formed and is aware enough to kick, but what abuot very early on, when it is a fertalized egg or a bundle of tissue? Can you prove that a ferterlized egg, or a fetus with a hardly yet formed brain capable of thought or awareness has the same level of awareness or intelligence as a child?

Think about this: what if the mother doesn't have enough money to support the baby? Is it better for the baby to starve to death or be abandoned? In cases of rape, the woman sure isn't going to be able to find any financial support from the father.

John, I respect your position and understand your feelings. I truly do.
However, as long as women pay a much higher price for sexuality and
irresponsibility, I’m content with the current laws. Should the Supreme
Court want to eliminate abortions by MY proposal and level the playing
field through equal consequences, I’d support a change in the law. Hmm, I can’t
help but laugh thinking about all the guys on the Supreme Court discussing
testicular removal via back alley techniques. YEEOUCH! I don’t think that will ever happen.

Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you;"

EVERY single human life, born or unborn, is precious in the sight of God. He loves each of us. His desire is for us always to choose life:

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live. -Deuteronomy 30:19

Every aborted child is a tragedy, both for the murdered child, and for the mother who will bear physical and emotional scars for life. We must do everything humanly possible to keep abortions few and far between. But to outlaw them entirely is something that even God Himself would not do...He ALWAYS gives US the choice. Like a Jewish mother, he waves His finger and says, "choose life!", but the final choice remains with us.

Oh, and by the way, Joan...I like your idea too!

Really, now. The 10 Commandments were just some Jewish lady waving her finger? Chris, rethink these words, if possible. I think God Himself DID outlaw the killing of life with one of the big ten. Don't you think? If not, 'splain yerself.

"Apparently there's a whole buch of Gods up there speaking to a whole bunch a folks 'round the world."