Is there such a thing as chance?

Eh? Not only creationism but Lamarckism now?TTFN,WK

quote:

---

no. Can a Buddhist who calls himself so, be one if he does opposite the teachings of Buddha?

---

Yes, of course he is a Buddhist. Who am I to say otherwise? He could simply be not very successful at being a Buddhist.Similarly, didn't you just say that you couldn't actually judge who is a "true" Christian or not, and that the matter was between the individual and God? Which is it?

quote:

---

'Sheep have I that are not of this flock'...says the Christ. It simply means he has children everywhere. And the sheep know his voice and when he calls them to come to him, they will come. It's in the Bible.

---

O...Kaaaaay.See, that's part of the stuff that every religion says, except with different dieties.Saying "it's in the Bible" is meaningless when we can also say "It's in every other holy book and religious oral tradition."

quote:

---

so it bugs you, something has to, that's life.

---

It also has the potential to seriously endanger my freedoms and rights, if the people like this are not put in check.

quote:

---

Again, Christ has sheep in other flocks, many, many, many. The Christians you mention will do well to think on that.

---

Yes, I'm sure it would be good for them to think on that, but in the mean time, they are not particularly encouraged to do so. In the meantime, they are imposing their views upon many other people in the world and in the US.An oppressive group which thinks it's right with God is the hardest foe to beat.

quote:

---

You would guess incorrectly. For I have great appreciation for the sheep Christ has in other flocks. I am an adopted Cherokee because I understand and know the things of the Spirit they practice and believe, and I am told in a way few whites are able. I go weekly to a Chinese Christian church, I am different but only outwardly (ever eat a very black duck egg? Really yummy). I couldn't care less how people appear, but I do care if they are mean and wish to destroy.

---

Well, yes, on that we can agree....which makes me think of your rather negative stance on homosexuality.

This is wonderful, thank you.
But I'm not trying to preach the word, since - so far as I'm concerned, this is not a suitable venue.
I responded to Schraf with what I considered a proper thought. Sorry it did not please you. I'm absolutely certain you are not alone in this.

quote:

---

ask not what your country.....

---

this should work
thanks againblow me down, it works.This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 01-18-2005 10:43 AM

I'll address 'my rather negative stance on homosexuality'.A person discussing murder is not necessarily a murderer, however, why would I need to justify to you or anyone, how I feel on certain subjects?So you believe a buddhist that practices poor buddhistics is still a buddhist. You cannot imagine how o.k. that is with me. This has turned into a circular discussion, which is unpleasant to me.Thank you for your effort. You're not after information.This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 01-18-2005 11:06 AM

quote:

---

I'll address 'my rather negative stance on homosexuality'.
A person discussing murder is not necessarily a murderer, however, why would I need to justify to you or anyone, how I feel on certain subjects?

---

You don't. But then why are you here, on a debate board?

quote:

---

So you believe a buddhist that practices poor buddhistics is still a buddhist.

---

Sure, why not? It's up to them to decide, isn't it?

quote:

---

You cannot imagine how o.k. that is with me.

---

Good.

quote:

---

This has turned into a circular discussion, which is unpleasant to me.

---

I've just been following you around.Stop walking in circles and it will cease being a circular conversation.

quote:

---

Thank you for your effort. You're not after information.

---

I am after reasoning and explanation.

But have only been recently discovered as to what is causing them.
I am an ameture astronomer. I haven't been studying for a few years now, but I have learned enough about the stars and the universe to be qualified to talk on it. It is the last field where ametures can still contribute. I used to by measuring variable star, to help in the search of planets around other stars.It would seem the explosions, and the rate at which they happen, would give life a lot less of a chance of ever happening. And we are not exclusive. It can and will happen here in our galaxy. But our solar system should be safe for a long time.

First off, I am not a creationalist. I do not subscribe to rither science, but appreciate both views. Niether one has all the answers.
I just believe in God.You can call it what ever you want, that doesn't change the fact that it happens. A bunch of people 2000 years ago knew it too. Keep your eyes open.

Can we stay on topic?

ROFL
I think you have a crush, but suga, you are not my type.

can we stay on topic?why, soidenly.

quote:

---

I think you have a crush, but suga, you are not my type.

---

Eww, don't flatter yourself.I think it's more like the way we like to rubberneck at car wrecks.

I realized something today about what you said. It would seem that you think that all life is on the same level in some sort of fashion?
Or do you just have respect for all other life no matter how insignificant?

that would be a yes, but not a vegetarian yes I would say there is equal wonder in all life.

You can always come back to it and carry it a little further. And yes, it opens up a possible scenario for many {spirit\ghost\paranormal} possibilities. Possible. The probability of any such visitation being in accordance with only one view that has (supposedly anyway) documented such behavior is low. The reality could be something else all together, as any earlier such visitation could have been terribly misinterpreted by a primitive worldview. I have said before on other forums that I think all religions are equally valid. Actually science stays agnostic on the issue — it is concerned with seeing what it can determine about the natural laws of the universe and the way things behave. Think about as science asking what can I understand about the {life, the universe and everything} that doesn’t require a supernatural explanation? Think about {religion\philosophy} as asking what can I understand about the {life, the universe and everything} that requires a supernatural explanation? With this viewpoint you can see that they are not necessarily in conflict but can actually be complementary. Nope, I am saying that it may be determined or it may be random, but because we can’t tell which is correct, we ... well ... just can’t tell which is correct. Our ability to make decisions is limited by our ability to control the outcomes. There is a mix of will and won’t, and a bit of random chaos for good measure. I can decide to have toast for breakfast, but for some reason the toast is always toasted to a different consistency .... What god(s) do atheists worship? What god(s) do clinical idiots worship? Are they less than human? If all creation worships god, then it does so by mere existence and none of it is any more special than the rest. No. Which the alcohol or the sin? If a father shoots himself in the foot while thinking of robbing a store is the child going to be born with a hole in {his\hers}? Will they also shoot themselves in the foot? Have you heard the line about you know you are getting old when you stop worrying about growing old and start worrying about not growing old?I have a high degree of confidence that other life will be found. Whether it will be intelligent or in comprehensible or even contemporaneous is up for grabs. The discovery of large organic compound precursors in deep space (far enough away to have existed before life on earth) and circling other stars gives me this confidence. I think one of the first thing formed in space from cooling gas and left over elements of exploded stars would be billions of molecules from the easier to combine elements ... H ... C ... O ... N ... etc.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

OK, so you're not a creationist. That doesn't make your rubbish about paternal alchoholism any less non-sensical. Certainly a child growing up in a household with an alcoholic father might be more likely to develop alcoholism, and certainly there are genetic factors which may predispose people to alcoholism thereby making it a familial trait, but do you have a single shred of evidence supporting the contention that if a father without a genetic predisposition to alcoholism became an alcoholic and fathered a child, that that child would be any more predisposed to alcoholism than any other due to "sin", leaving aside the environmental issue of being raised in a home with an alcoholic parent?TTFN,WK