Michele

Nah. To many of "them" here...wouldn't be safe to incarcerate them locally. Better to send them to the Utah desert, where rumor has it that there are internment camps set up. They were set up prior to the whole Y2K panic, apparently, and weren't used then because the government managed to screw up and nothing actually happened so no martial law could be established and dissidents rounded up then. Of course, 9/11 being government directed, they were thinking that 9/11 would be the event that would allow them to declare martial law, and round them up because they were a threat to national security. Oops. Didn't happen. However, I hear that Mt St Helens has a rock on the side of it being elevated by pressure from the volcano core, that when it explodes will shower people with a contaminated substance, and give the government the reason to start rounding people up under the guise of quarantine. Oh wait. That was the bird flu. I'm waiting for the masons, the Illuminati, the Priory of Sion, Tri Lateral Commission, and the Bilderberger/Rockefeller dudes to show up sometime soon. They say their goal is hegemony, but I can't quite figure out which of the teams will win. So I just don't know who will be the Anti-Christ after all. Oh well. Ciels- Michele PS. The slab in the side of Mt St. Helens is real; all the rest is fanciful and imaginary. Except for the black helicopters, of course. [I]They're real, and looking for dissidents. ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Two things... 1. I may not have been talking about you. Did you consider that? Or has your stalking and ego convinced you that I do nothing other than post to piss you off? 2. Did you not read the thread you're participating in? This is not my first post in this thread... Good grief. Catch someone in some plagiarism, and you've got a stalker for life. just how much time do you spend following me around these boards? That could be considered rather pathological, m'dear. It's sad, in a floundering rat sort of way. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

And you hit the nail squarely. It never ceases to amaze me that people who are rabid about hating Bush will, on successive days, call him ineffective and weak, and then strong and commandering. Can't have it both ways. BTW, I liked your rat story and analogy...bloated, floundering rats are not a pretty sight. Neither are those who flip and flop like the Koranic tuna. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Hi, Crow. As a similarly situated jumper - inasmuch as the numbers and time go (and no, I haven't updated my profile in a while...), I'm thinking a few things. {quote]I could speak with him, but I can predict it'll turn into a verbal fight. Then don't. It's really not that hard. Just keep walking away when he tries to confront you, hold your temper, and walk. He'll end up looking like the ass in the long run. As for how you handled the camera thing, you know, I bet a dollar (I'm poor...thus the low jump #) that had it been another instructor, you would have told him "100 jumps, and I only took it to film my g/f on her landings. Never even think of using it in the air at this point in time." I sort of understand why you didn't say that to him - time constraints if he is the sort to try to hold you there and "discuss" it with you. But you could've said all that, and added "pardon me, but I've got to run now. We can pick it up at a later time, if you'd like..." and then turn and walk away. The entire issue is immediately resolved there. If he carries it forward from that point, I'd deal with it then. Next point. If someone is touching me, and I don't want them to, I tell them. The next time they do it, I tell them louder. The third time they do it, because I am prepared (it's a pattern at this point), I'd grab his hand, and let him know in a loud, clear, eloquent way his touch is not welcome. No foul language, but definitely loud enough so others around will hear. As to how to deal with it overall? I'd keep walking away. It's one instructor, and while it's a pain in the ass, it's only one instructor. If the DZO calls you over, don't challenge him...handle the issue with dignity. Talk it over with him. Discuss it with him. But at this point, don't bother involving him. If there are safety issues (and I promise, there are, even though we are being as safe as we can be, we've only got a hundred jumps; and while we've been around the sport for a few years, we've only seen a handful of things...I promise; this isn't denegrating you at all, just pointing out the truth...) accept it as a learning situation, even if all you learn is how to communicate with an asshole effectively, it's a learning experience. If I were in your shoes, that is what I'd do. I'd also realize that there might be something I'm doing, or have done, which caught this guy's attention, and either work to change that particular behavior, or...more likely...just ignore it if it's personality based. If my group of friends were waiting for me to deal with it, I'd let them know that I was taking the higher road. Politeness, respectful answers to his questions, and no further contact. Walk away when needed, and vent away from the dropzone. If he's ever heard you complaining about him to his friends, he might perceive that you are a threat to his livelihood, and that's why he's all over you. Not saying you did, just that he might perceive it that way. Above all, however, I'd avoid escalating it. Let him do the dirty work...it's rather unlikely that you'll be asked to not return unless you are doing things which are incredibly unsafe - jumping a camera at 100 jumps; showing up with a small pocket rocket; low turning consistently; cutting off others during landing; et cetera. The DZO wants your money...so let him bring it to you if it ever gets there. (And yes, I'll advise Spence. What I could advise him on is "never listen to me.") Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Forgive me. I just noticed this. So you're saying that only islamic women value their bodies? Don't islamic men value theirs, too? And if not, with whom are they playing with? Other men? Or...gasp...dare I say it...another woman...who, since she has sex, must in fact be a slut or a whore, irrespective of how she's forced to dress. Darius, I know many people in monogamous relationships here in the US. I know also many folks who've kept themselves "pure" for their spouse. Note, I am not delineating between men and women... What I find hysterical is that they, despite remaining a virgin, and despite being married to one person, they actually...wait...head's up...here it comes...dress however they want! Your assertion again is false...in both that only women want to remain with one partner for life (men do, too...), as well as that dress makes a person a whore, a slut, or whatever other derogatory term you decide. Because MissKriss brought it up, I ran a search on your posts using the word "cock." I see you have no hesitation to use it to 'cock slap', and made a post about how hard your cock was, all day long. Brief reading, but it clued me in on your mentality. Dude. I suggest you quickly go and cover yourself from head to foot, including your face, so no-one gets the idea you're a slut. After all, people who post about their cocks being hard all day must be thinking about having sex...which, apparently, you can't seem to have because you're not married; 'cause you're keeping yourself pure and all that. After all, if it's good for the goose, it's definitely good for the gander. Know what? I'm sad. Honestly. I used to read your posts with interest, thinking that maybe I'd get to learn something about a culture to which I had been exposed but not ever really experienced. I used to read your posts and think that the things you were saying might have value and merit. I'm sad because I can no longer retain that innocence regarding you and your thought processes. I disagree with quite a few people on this board. I can go 'round the track with some of them, and think that they really have strange ideas. The debate is, at times, rather personal; generally I leave the conversation either chuckling to myself or thinking "meh, they have the right to their opinion." There are few, however, with whom I not only disagree vehemently with, but actually feel a great sadness and sorrow that they feel that way. And when an opinion is espoused that, in the past, was an excuse for rape, then I not only feel great sadness and sorrow, but a measure of pity and disgust, as well. I can only hope you'll eventually grow up, and realize that all folks should be accorded respect. Hope does, after all, spring eternal. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Do I just adore you or what? Darlin, the hug I got from you I will always remember...and you have a wonderful smile...but I think you've got me confused with someone else. I agree, though, 'Mama is gorgeous. Inside and out. (And I definitely am not flirting with Andi!) Don't know. It's not because I don't like breakfast; give me a four, five hours awake, and I can eat anything with no issue. It's always been like that. Apparently, as a child, I wouldn't eat breakfast, either. Gave Mom fits. And I have memories of putting my sausage and eggs in a napkin and giving it to the guard dog (a gorgeous Doberman Pincher) on my way to school in 6th grade. There's no 'known' reason, and I don't think it's because I'm not used to it. It's been like that for as long as I can remember. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

No, no, no. It doesn't mean you're not fully human. Read some of Darius' posting; it simply means that they don't value their women as sexual objects. Apparently, a nose is a sexual object. And maybe an eyebrow. For sure the chin is. You're correct in your comment that it makes a woman less than fully human, in public at least. It denotes the concept of ownership - those women are owned!! by their fathers and then their husbands. Demanding that a woman cover up in the manner we're discussing makes the woman a "non-person." Fully half of the population are "non-persons" and that is abhorrent. Has anyone ever read "The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood? When I read it for the first time, the most immediate comparison I had was that to fundamentalist Islamic societies. I've read it several more times since then, and it's fascinating in it's parralells. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

I was thinking about all of this, and wondering if the contract we signed when we signed up with the cell phones was the same sort of contract we have when we use regular telephones... I recall signing a contract that said my server could give my information to the government in an instance of national security. Could this conceivably be how the government is justifying the turn over? And does the same sort of contract apply to a land-line? It's been years since I had a land line...so I don't recall. Anyway, it may turn out that we gave our permission to the phone companies to give data to the government...the only issue we'd have to determine, in that instance, is what definition "national security" would carry in this realm. Any of the local legal eagles care to comment? Or even anyone more completely informed than I? Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Congratulations! Your first breath of freefall is an amazing experience, no doubt. Now get on to AFF, and get 'er done! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

No, the "readily available stuff" doesn't do anything for me at all. They taste weird to me - even the new stuff. And yes, I have the option of making my own. SwedishCelt, the problem I seem to have is there are too many choices sitting on the shelves at the heathy store. And they all cost a bit, so it's not like I can try a bit, dislike it, and then grab another cannister...et cetera. I know, it's personal taste, but still... Kris, I've tried those yogurt drinks, and some are good...but the sugars in them are pretty high, aren't they? But it's a suggestion I might try. And sorry/good to hear you can't do the breakfast thing either...I thought I was alone in that. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Get "punched" right back. And then told to not do that. And good heavens, what's with the finger waving when angry? That's a sure way to make me turn on my heel and walk away. 'Tain't no person gets to do that.... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

So, I'm changing my eating patterns a tad. In the last few years, I've only been eating dinner. Nothing other than things to drink during the day, and only eating dinner. Horrible, I know. So that's why I'm changing it. I've used Spirotein in the past, and found it almost palatable. Eating something first thing - or even third thing - in the morning actually makes me nauseous, but drinking something doesn't...don't understand it, but that's the way it is. I know breakfast is the most important meal of the day, but again, it's a great way to make me vomit if I actually eat something. So a protein drink is it. Does anyone have any recommendations that are not "fad" manufactured? Something with a good ratio protein to carbs, low fat? Thanks in advance for your help... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Working, doing house chores, marketing...nothing special...but all necessary. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Dunno who slapped you, but thank them for me, all right? We were discussing bail gathering for the OP should he lose his nerve and clock that twit phelps and his rotten gang of jerks. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Good grief, don't do that. I've learned to just laugh at them...and watch them twist themselves into circles, ever tightening circles, spiralling out of control. Much more fun than suicide. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Sure 'nuff. Once you've been around here a while, you can almost "predict" who will say what. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Dewd, you just made me spill milk all over my desk. That made me laugh out loud. My poor cat wondered what was wrong, and then decided to get to the milk before I got it cleaned up. Too funny...thanks for the laugh! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Send me in. I can preach like no-one's business...and loudly, for a long time. And yes, I'm serious. What I'll preach who knows, but man, when I get to rolling, it just goes! Shoot - you've seen my posts. You know what I mean! Someone squander some frequent flyer miles on me so I can get there a day ahead. I'll ask for police protection on the street - preventing them from coming close. I'll ask the Patriot Guards to park near to where they're "assembling" and rev in rhythm. Then I'll go door to door around the church, letting them know what's happening, and asking them to turn on their sprinklers or be outside watering their lawn for the duration of the funeral. If it's a business district, I'll go ask the business owners to bring portable stereos, and stand on the sidewalk playing heavy metal, rap, classical, jazz, Top 40, and all other sorts of music - at full blast...so no-one can hear the protestors. And then I'll get to preaching, with a bullhorn or megaphone, in their face. Judge not lest ye be judged to start...move on to morals and dignity. Preach to them the crucifixion story - Jesus died for their sins, which include fraud, physical abuse, harassment, and libel and slander (and yes, I'll research, get names of the phelps, and pin them to the crimes...). And then...well...whatever comes to mind. No, I'll not hit anyone. But if one should hit me, well....see, that would make the news...'cause I'm a middle aged woman, but my secret is I'm a blackbelt...and I do know how to fight. And also realize, that as a woman, should a man approach me, and I "have no where to turn,", I can strike first due to the fear his approach has caused me. LOL. So yeah, send me in. I'd love to do it on your behalf, Steve. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Hi, Jakee! I completely abhor the problems you discuss...except...I don't necessarily lay them at the feet of any particular church nor religion. Rather, I think it's more a combination of factors, wherein religion *may* play a part in one aspect, to the spread of AIDs and other sexually transmitted disease. I think the spread is less here in the US not because of religion, but because sex ed is taught; medical facilities are easily available; our communications networks are far better; our quality of life is higher...and so on. We, in the US and other "first world" nations (is that a term? Not sure...) are less reliant on cultural myths, including the one if you have AIDs, sleeping with a pure child will cure you. We do not mutilate the genitalia of girl children...but that in no way is advocated by Christianity, nor Judaeism (which, in this thread, is generally what we're discussing). In other words, I think there are many more factors than just a church's influence on a culture to create circumstances wherein devastating illnesses such as AIDs contribute to the problems you're discussing. See, I agree with that. It's what he talked about that's become important...Jesus spoke of many things; compassion, empathy, taking care of each other, judgments and hatred, love and grace...all that is great stuff to lecture a willing audience on. I remember talking to my brother several years ago. He is a born again Christian, very devout and studies the Bible on a daily basis. We were talking about what Jesus said, and I asked him "would it mean less if it came from a child? A retarded person? A decrepit old bagperson reeking of alcohol?" My brother looked at me, and said "well, yes, I think it would be different." My response was "why? Isn't wisdom wisdom from whereever it comes?" He still tells me how much that impacted him...LOL. And that, perhaps, is the best way I can phrase it. It doesn't matter where the wisdom comes from, as long as it's accepted, and as long as it comes. If it comforts a person to find that wisdom in nano-particles, fine...from gathering in a church to worship God, fine...in the glorious balance that occurs in nature, fine...as long as it's seen for what it is, and accepted for the same. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Mockingbird said: Thanks. Interesting data, there. However, Smiles has a different take on things...and she has some interesting points, too. Smiles, in re: the differences between the two crucifixion stories...it seems to me that if two people observe a third person, say in an accident, that the stories are identical and without difference whatsoever? You and I both know that doesn't happen... The fundamental part of the story, however, is the same. That Jesus was crucified. That much people writing stories about it can agree...that the man Jesus was indeed hung on a cross. Jesus' frame of mind? Well, how often do we see people on this very board claim "don't put words in my mouth" or "don't tell me what I think!"...and thus my contention is that both are correct, from the position of the writer. And honestly? It's nice to see the Son of God in doubt, in fear, with dread of the event that had "been put before his lips." Demonstrates the duality of Jesus nicely. I mean, who would want to be crucified? Who wouldn't say "hey, this is gonna hurt...Dad, you sure you want me to go through this? Positive? 'Cause you know, I'm not exactly looking forward to it..."...and then to have the determination and strength of character to actually go through with it...and, if the story is to be believed, assist another man who was facing his death...well, the duality and complexity of a human's mind, capacity for strength, and ability to transcend circumstances is a mighty fine example to follow. I don't know enough about the adultress to comment effectively, sorry. Maybe, if I've got some time this weekend, I'll do some reading up on it. A perfect opportunity to expand my understanding, you know? Thanks. As for the rest of the divergence which you speak; I haven't read the Bible in enough detail to know if you're right, wrong, or what. However, I can say this...perhaps they were telling the story the way they percieved it...but taken together, it's a great story about an interesting man, and teaches great lessons about the human condition, don't you think? ***What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own? re: what is moral intelligence and it's essential virtues? One strong characteristic of morally intelligent children is that they are empathic and concerned about others. I was taught empathy, conscience, self-contol, respect, kindness, tolerance, fairness...without the bible[/quote} Me too. My family was not religious, nor even particularly spiritual. I was raised very well, and love my parents for what they did for my brother and I, among many other things. And you know what? I'd believe and act the way I do irrespective of the "promise" of an afterlife. I did before I believed in God; perhaps there is a deepening of compassion, or a deepening of empathy...but maybe it's also just in me to be that way. Overall, it's all good...you know? Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Fair enough. As I said, had I remembered properly, Einstein believed in God. Deciding to see if memory failed me, I came up with the following quotes that, to me at least, indicate Einstein believed in God... ~God may be subtle, but He isn't plain mean. ~God doesn't play dice. ~Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish. ~"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world. ~I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details ~God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically. ~Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind ~I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings." Telegram to a Jewish newspaper, 1929 ~Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive. ~I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God. ~The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. Upon further research, then, I have discovered I was somewhat incorrect. And yet, you too, Jack, seem to be somewhat incorrect. It seems to me that Einstein believed in God in a way not represented by conventional religions; i.e. catholicism, buddhism, pantheism, christianity, judeism, and so on. Those establishments did not fit with his personal view of God...and yet, I am hard pressed to say he did not believe in God. The last quote, frankly, is a glorious one, one that I hadn't read before. And it describes the numinous sense I get when looking at all that God created, and all that man has accomplished with God's creation. Let's go on to Hawking... ~if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God. ~We could call order by the name of God, but it would be an impersonal God. There's not much personal about the laws of physics. ~"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?" I will say that I don't believe that Hawking believes in God. My memory failed me there! And just for reference, here is a Link that has some quotes from other incredible minds in cosmology, astrophysics, rocket engineers, microbiologists, et cetera, with a comment that somewhere on the order of 40% of scientists believe in God. Take a look and tell me what you think...tells me that far fewer scientists than commonly thought believe in a diety...which I think is neat! I really don't know what to say about that, other than apparently your imagination gene was neutered somehow. LOL! (yes, I'm teasing you...). There is tons of stuff that has not yet been discovered; does that mean it doesn't exist? No, it only means it hasn't been discovered just yet. Have hope, man! There are things yet to be explored, yet to be understood, and yet to be experienced...and that is magical. It's not God's failing that I don't understand it completely...it's simply and only mine. I haven't taken the time to research it more fully, but I'd like to. Have you got any links where a neophyte like me can begin to understand quantum particles and why it was once thought they behaved in a sentient manner but now don't? I'd really appreciate it... Sorry to hear that you have such a rigid perspective on what faith is. You and I will have to agree to disagree about faith being blind. I am sorry you believe it's an incoherent concept...I don't. But I can appreciate your position nonetheless. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Just curious...and addressed to whomever wants to answer. What part of the message that Jesus gave was translated inaccurately? Or Moses' story? Or Abraham's story? How about Job? Or...you get the idea. What part of the mistranslation changed the message? Ciels- Michele Edited to ask the question more completely... ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Hi, Broken. Great response. THanks for taking the time to outline your position. First, let me say that I completely respect your position. I don't necessarily agree/disagree with it, but I respect it. For you. In your life. And it's your right to hold that opinion. For me in my life, religion - actually spirituality rather than a formal, practiced religion - does help me to be nice to some folks I'd rather not be nice to. It does indeed give me hope. It is in no way an insult to my dignity, and does not try to reverse for me "centuries" of progress. Rather, for me, as I said, it provides things I haven't found in science. It provides me with a fundamental aspect of the numinous that I never got from science. It allows me to have wonder and awe, whereas science doesn't allow that; rather, it insists on investigation and modeling, and doesn't allow for that which is not explainable. In my world, small as it may be, there is a balance between science and spirituality. I pray, but I also use the oven. I notice and respect the environment, but I also watch the weather channel. I see God all around me, but have also had Lasik surgery to actually see. In other words, there is a balance in my world between both science and spirituality. That is a wonderful thing, no? There's room for both. I have not ever been present when a church body has presented AIDs as the wages of sin. Sorry. I have been in churches where consequence to action is taught, but it's not taught in reference to AIDs. As to stem cell, I believe that there are some churches who are against it. However, I've also been in the delivery room with my sister-in-law who, while in labor, was asked if she'd donate the placenta towards research. She is very very christian...and she donated, no questions at all. If there are enough stem cell lines to do research with, I don't see a need to increase them. If there is not enough, I see the need to increase them. But how? Where do they come from? The donated placenta (which is what I assumed they were doing with it, but I've been very wrong in the past, and it wouldn't surprise me if I was wrong on this), or from another source? And from where does that source come? I do think that on occasion, science sprints ahead of ethics. I also think that law sprints ahead of ethics, as well...but I don't know that I'd rather have a group of ethicists sitting in a research lab saying "nope, don't clone a sheep, because eventually we'll have armies of clones invading Russia" or whatever. I am not sure of the solution; only that there is one, and it's not knee-jerk prevention or full steam ahead...it's somewhere in the middle. I think that some people, who do the reading and the introspection - and that is by all means not all atheists, to be honest - do find a moral compass in ethical and philosophical reading. I don't think a lot of them do, frankly; they have not undertaken an examination of the human psyche and/or the ramifications of certain acts and their impact on society as a whole. They have not done the reading, and because of that, I am not at all sure where their moral code stems from. Some do...and those that have come to an atheistic belief through the hard work of introspection and analysis have my respect. It's the same way I came to a solid belief in God...and I expect the same respect as I give. It doesn't happen that way, though, does it? Scientific examination of an hypothesis is a wonderful thing; it is also a wonderful thing that it is peer-reviewed, and the flaws (if any) exposed. Science is a great tool to explain why there's thunder, or why gravity works; and it springboards ideas from the littlest observation (an apple) to the most amazing thing (gravity, and the earth's relationship to other planets). At no point have I ever said science is bad. And I've never heard science denigrated in church, either. Nor is it denigrated in the Bible, I don't think. The pastors and preachers I've heard over my life do not talk about science; I have, however, heard many scientists talk about religion. Did you know Albert Einstein believed in God? That Stephen Hawkins does (at least, according to quotes I've heard attributed to them...)? Religion does teach faith, but it's not a blind faith. I've been told to ask, ask, ask. To seek, search, and read. To explore, adventure, and inquire. And I have. For me, that yielded a far deeper understanding of what faith is - and is not - and how faith works, and why it works as well as it does. Religion teaches to look for truth, to look at all available possibilities, and to question that until one is satisfied with the answer. It doesn't usurp science's explanations...it adds to them a level that has only recently begun to be explored - namely, that part of quantum physics wherein all atoms behave as the viewer expects them to, which in turn intimates a sentientality that was not expected...and hasn't yet, frankly, been explained. But when an explanation does come, I suspect it will confirm, for me at least, that God is, literally, in the details. Sure. Except, there really was a "Santa." Granted, he didn't fly all over the world, in one night, handing out gifts to those good children, but the origination of that story is based in fact. There was a man who did give out gifts to those around him... As for the way I see the Mormon story or the Muslim story, I've not ever stated anything about those two. How would you know how I feel about them? You're right - there is no concrete evidence that the great flood occurred and Noah built an arc. Nor is there any proof that the Ark survived. Or that the Holy Grail exists - or even what, in fact, the Holy Grail is. And yes, there are "inconsistencies" and "inaccuracies" in the Bible, as well as conflicting stories (what happened to Judas, for example). There are parts that I take literally; and there are parts that I don't take literally. There are parts, in fact, that I believe have a scientific explanation...(don't fall off your chair, now...LOL!). None of that, however, conflicts with my belief in God. I believed in God before I read the Bible, as I had benefitted from science before I knew they had developed the items I used daily or had developed the vaccines I received in infancy. I know that inconsistencies and inaccuracies and conflicting stories have been used to rip the Bible apart. To me, that's simply the same as when Einstein first published a paper; his peers thumped him, he went back and refined his process, published again, got less thumped, refined again, and finally it was accepted. The problem is in the Bible we're dealing with a set of tenents that have, frankly, evolved over time but in such a subtle manner as to be inadvertantly overlooked by those who haven't studied the past of a religion and it's present form. We are also dealing in something which cannot be re-demonstrated; i.e., the time for the great flood was 6,000 years ago (give or take...I'm not positive...). Because it's history and generally an oral tradition, one must expect inaccuracies and inconsistencies...do you tell a story the same way each and every time? No...but that doesn't change the major events/emotions of the story... What miracles did you expect to leave behind evidence? The only ones I can think of is the great flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah (although that's not really a miracle). There's evidence of huge regional flooding around that time...some of our local posters who are of a scientific bent even agree to that. So what sort of evidence are you looking for? As for statistically analysing prayer, I've had prayers answered...which takes your "never" right out of the game. Sorry...but it's true. While they might not have been "God, please change that mountain over there" sort of emperical data, I have indeed experienced prayers said in sincerety and answered with sincerety. In response to Jesus not appearing today, I've read reports that he has...as has Mary. And, honestly, as has the devil. So who's to say those folks are mistaken? Because you didn't see it? Are you really saying you should be the arbiter of all that which appears to folks as real or not real? True or not true? I don't think you're saying that, but your post seems to be saying that in one regard. I've heard the argument "God appeared to many people eons ago. He doesn't appear today. That means he doesn't exist." I find that a spurious argument at best. If you don't see things as miraculous, then you will never see a miracle. You don't believe anything happens that cannot be scientifically explained, so you will always look to science to explain it. But does it always explain it? Can it explain why a prayer of mine was answered (literally)? No...the best that can be arrived at is anecdotal evidence. Faith, in the end, is about choice (man, I'm on that today...!!) I think. Choice to see that which is miraculous, a choice to see that which is numinous. A choice to respect and worship something Higher, Greater, than I am or ever will be. It's a choice to realize that I do not know everything, that no man ever can explain absolutely everything, and discover absolutely everything...and to be humble enough to know that. See, I don't understand why one can't say "well, there just might be a teapot circling the sun...I can't see it, I can't explain how the hell it managed to get there without melting, but since I can't see it with my own two eyes, and can't touch it with my own two hands doesn't mean it's not there, either...there just might be." I can't see why folks can't live with that uncertainty. Scientists tend to be very certain that God does not exist. The Faithful are pretty sure God exists. Neither can prove nor disprove the other...therefor, both are teapots circling the sun. So why can't people live with the uncertainty, and be open enough to say "well, maybe there is a teapot...who am I to know for sure?" Maybe it's just that I can live easily with uncertainty. Maybe I'm rare. Maybe people really want to know something, when all that there is to know is that we just don't know for certain there is a teapot...and I think it's possible there is a teapot, even if I can't touch it. What's wrong, then, with being agnostic, and not taking it to the far extreme of atheism? Because humans don't really like uncertainty, perhaps... {quote]In any case, what is supposed to follow from the fact that we can’t disprove God’s existence? Do religious folk believe in anything whose existence can’t be disproved – pixies, goblins, unicorns, and mermaids? Of course not, nearly everyone on the planet is a teapot atheist with respect to most of the Gods that have ever been invented, from Thor to Aphrodite, and every member of a monotheistic religion is an atheist to every conception of God bar one. “Some of us,” “just go one God further.” And I'll go one God further than that...I believe in a God who is the most amazing scientist there is. My thoughts are simply summed up this way: there is room for both science and religion. There are needs served by both, and there is an ultimate Cause for both...and I believe that the ultimate god is God. Great debating with you! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~

Dewd. It's not a cabal. It's a popularity contest. Good grief! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~